You’re still failing to understand why RWR/EW antennas are so small compared to radar ones. Sensitivity is one thing, but the signal to be picked up is another thing and yet a significant one.

I more than understand the subject. 😉

You are approaching things completely backwards.

You start by assuming that the Rafale must win the comparison. Then you conclude that the RWRs on the Rafale must be sensitive enough to out-detect the Su-35. Then from that you can obviously conclude that they are big enough. :rolleyes:

In the real world of course there is no rule that the Rafale must win every comparison.

The size of the RWRs on the Rafale is limited by many factors. Bigger would be better, but you can only accommodate sensors of a certain size without completely wrecking the aircraft’s other performance requirements.

The same is true of radars. Every pilot would prefer a bigger, more powerful, and more sensitive radar… but you have to find a place for it on the jet. That is why the Rafale has the smallest radar of its competitors, other requirements forced it to accept a small radar.

Returning to the question at hand… the Su-35’s ~1meter diameter radar has an incredible sensitivity advantage over the Rafale’s several centimeter detectors. Without exact data we can’t run the numbers, but it is quite possible that the Su-35 will actually have the detection range advantage.

Even if it doesn’t out-detect the Rafale, the Su-35 and his wingmen will certainly have far more complete and accurate information than the Rafale.

Again, the way people on the internet talk you would think that radars are some kind of secondary sensor that somehow give away more than they reveal. That is absolutely backwards. A powerful radar is a huge asset to a fighter and radars will remain the primary sensor used by fighters for the foreseeable future.

Yes it does. So can the EW suites installed on the F/A-18G, F-22 & F-35.

There is nothing magical here, passive geolocation has been a subject of intensive research in the last two decades.

What it does require is very accurate interferometer arrays. Without them the error on the tracks generated quickly goes up to +/- 50%, i.e. it’s garbage.

With <1° accuracy, you can go down to <10% error, enough for a low pk shoot (not that it makes sense to take such shot, in most scenarios if yuo’re going to reveal yourself, you ight as well use your radar for a split second).

The way the internet crowd talks about EW systems/RWRs you would think they are little radars themselves, they aren’t.

Again, this is a case of someone who has some “facts” but struggles to put them in context. You can passively locate emitters, but the accuracy and reliability of the track is heavily dependent on number of factors, including range, the relative motion of the emitters and the type of the emitter.

Geolocating a ground radar is fairly straight-forward. Getting a reliable track on an aircraft flying straight and level is harder, but possible with reduced accuracy.

Tracking a maneuvering fighter, emitting only intermittently, and doing it at a useful range… that is a completely different matter.

Radars are going to remain a fighter’s primary sensor for a long time to come.

The radar emits a power P, the waves travel a distance D, are reflected, travel D again and are heard by a receiver with a sensitivity S.

Generally speaking, there is not a big difference between the radar sensitivity and a RWR sensitivity so if the radar can capture a signal that has travelled a distance equal to 2*D, so can a RWR hence the rule of thumb that a RWR can listen to signals at twice the radar range.

😮 😀
Of course not.

Take a look at these two and tell me there isn’t a big difference:

Similar sensitivity? :rolleyes:

I understand how the math works, but that isn’t how it works in the real world. In the real world the radar is far more sensitive than the RWR, often sufficiently so that the radar can track its target before the RWR can detect the radar.

The Japan’s 42 F-35’s are to cost 7-8 Billion dollars

… that cost is inflated because Japan wants to assemble their own.

@ hopsalot

your radar gives you away… no way you go around that… once your opponent knows where you are (no need for a pin point location, a bearing is enough at that time) he can maneuver to get out of your way while scanning in your direction with more passive ways. it’s not specific to the rafale… it’s about pilot training and applying the right tactics to get closer

Again, this is extremely simplistic. The Rafale may know that a Su-35 is out there and radiating, and their general bearing, but the Su-35 meanwhile will be able to see -all- the Rafales within its detection range, as well as their precise location, headings, speed, altitude, etc. That data will also be datalinked to other Su-35s, etc in the area.

A good RWR system is an important situational awareness tool for a fighter, but only an extremely foolish pilot would try to rely on one to maneuver against an opponent in the way you describe. Any way you slice it a big powerful radar is an advantage for a fighter. You always have to use it judiciously, but it is an advantage.

Edit: besides, the Rafale has been made to last until at least 2035-2040, if it was already obsolete compared to an aircraft in production today and derived from a 1970’s design, there would be some serious problems @ Dassault right now… to me, it is clear that Indian pilots can be confident about their new aircraft

It all depends how you mean “last.” There are still F-4s, F-5s, and A-4s flying around today…

A Rafale in the 2035-2040 timeframe will no longer be suitable for frontline service. It may still be a useful asset, but it won’t be competitive with the 5th generation fighters that will be prevalent by then.

That said, I think that if India goes ahead with their purchase their pilots will have every reason for confidence in their new fighters. The Rafale is a good aircraft and will be a massive upgrade over what it is replacing.

Some seriously bad news for the Rafale if true:

France May Cap Purchases of Rafale Combat Jets -Report
03/22/2013| 01:34pm US/Eastern

The French government is considering limiting its purchases of Rafale multi-role combat aircraft, made by Dassault Aviation SA (>> DASSAULT AVIATION), to 225 from the 286 planned over the life of the program, according to a report Friday on financial information website latribune.fr.

Such a move would be part of a general effort by the government to scale back public spending in the coming years, the website reported, without citing sources.

The report said the government hasn’t yet decided on the exact number of aircraft it will purchase.

…

Dassault is manufacturing Rafale planes at a rate of 11 a month, a pace that Dassault Chief Executive Eric Trappier said recently is the bare minimum that is sustainable for the program’s supply chain.

http://www.4-traders.com/DASSAULT-AVIATION-5215/news/France-May-Cap-Purchases-of-Rafale-Combat-Jets-Report-16567679/

A 20% order cut from a program already operating at its minimum sustainable production rate.

Naturally since this isn’t the F-35 we won’t hear anyone talking about a death spiral, etc etc… :rolleyes:

they know it as well, but, as they try to sell it, as any vendor, they claim it’s the best thing out there since the sliced bread.. it’s called “publicity” 😉

Right right, as usual if something doesn’t fit into your limited understanding… well then it is obviously all lies. :rolleyes:

We all know that Israel doesn’t know a thing about designing missiles.

Neither does Lockheed.

It is all just marketing. 😎

CUDA is LM concept that has no funding, and which pentagon showed no interest in…

besides, a missile that can only do damage by hitting physically a target is simply a bad idea… already, the missiles that destroy their targets by passing by (proximity fuse) have a very low pk, now imagine if they had to…

to make a parallel with air combat simulations which some here may be familiar with, it would be like being unable to shoot down more than 1 aircraft out of 5 in CFS 1 with the huge hit bubble that is used in it, and then claim to be a killer in IL-2 which had, basically, no hit bubble at all… given a quantum leap in precision that such improvement would need, it is pure nonsense

I guess you know better than Lockheed Martin and Rafael…

:p