ok, is this a translation thing, aesa is also called active phased ?

Correct. Another analogue would be EWS (Electronic Warfare System) and DAS (Defensive Aids System). Two different terms by they are related to the same thing, the aircraft defensive equipment including threat warning sensors, counter measures and the related managment facilities.
AESA radar = APAR
PESA radar = PPAR

we are talking the jammer transmitter system arent we
‘active phased-array’ isnt ‘Active Electronically Steered Array’ is it
excuse the wiki link, but it does provide a broad over view
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phased_array

ROFL. Sorry but you don’t even know that APA and AESA is virtually the same and want to talk about such systems…:rolleyes:

so you dont have a source, its something you recall reading and that doesnt mean what you read was right in the first place

if anyone has a creditable link, we can put this one to bed

I often make notes when I read something, but don’t owe it for example and usually workout a list or write an article myself to sum up what I gathered. I’m not consuming everything, but try to assess credibility of the source and cross check with other sources if possible. That Sweetman article is certainly one which states the <1° accuracy and I’m sure I have read it elsewhere (apart from forums).

The Rafale’s SPECTRA (Système de Protection et d’Evitement des Conduites de Tir du Rafale – Self Protection Equipment Countering Threats of Rafale Aircraft) is one of the most advanced EW suites ever created for a combat aircraft. Being of a modulare design, SPECTRA is controlled by the GIC computer (Gestion de l’Interface et Compatibilité) comprising 3 processors.
The SPECTRA components include:
– 3 digital RWR antennas with each 120° azimuth coverage and a frequency coverage of 2 – 40 GHz mounted on the airlift intakes and at the rear of the SPECTRA fin tip pod. Functions/characteristics include:
– detection localisation, identification and priorisation of radar emitters at distances up to 200 km+
– Bearing accuracy below 1° in azimuth using interferometry
– Weapon cueing against ground based emitters
– ELINT/SIGINT

– Active ECM system with DRFM and AESA antennas in the canard roots and in the tail pod at the base of the fin, with offensive, defensive and stealthy jamming modes. Pencil thin jamming beams are directed towards threat emitters

– DDM (Détecteur infrarouge de Départ de Missiles) missile approach warning system based on dual-band midwave IR sensors which are located on each side of the SPECTRA fin tip pod, providing 360° atimuth coverage

– 3 DAL (Detecteur d’Alerte Laser) laser warning receivers with sensors on the fuselage sides and the rear of the SPECTRA fin tip pod

– 4 vertical firing flare/decoy dispensers on the top of the fuselage near the wing trailing edges and 2 chaff dispensers on the rear fuselage sides behind the wings

Note:
The RWR and ECM systems are integrated as the DBEM (Détection et Brouillage Electromagnétique) sub-system.

Source : thales press kit.

@+, Arka

Didn’t knew that I’m working for Thales:eek:
This is part of my general Rafale avionics overview I posted in the Rafale forums and at secretprojects:
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-avionics-general-overview-t45.html
http://www.secretprojects.co.uk/forum/index.php/topic,942.0.html
😉

Yes but splitted buys include the risk of being axed! Claims right now doesn’t mean nothing will change in the future. And lessons learned from history have shown this over and over again.

The conclusion of ATCL (related to the Rafale) as seen on french forums:

– capacity of visual confirmation up to 40km instead of 5km.
– capacity to fire 6 AASM and 3 Mica in a single minute.
– capacity to detect air defence (and in some case better than F-16 CJ)
– good capacity to go on AA versus a plane as good as the Typhoon.
– good reliability.

Nothing more.

But it seems that some posters here totally disagree with these conclusions such like Jacko/John Lake or Cola1973, in part thanks to a mail from Eurofighter group.

And all of these is not really surprising at all. The OSF’s identification capability has been proven in other exercises before and if visual ID is required it’s certainly going to be of significant importance as not many aircraft pose such a capability at all. F-15 pilots used an optical identification system called EagleEye during ODS which allowed for visual ID at distances up to 30 km, but it appears to have been some kind of binocular. The sole western fighter featuring a dedicated camera for vis ID before was the F-14 with its TCS. PIRATE is claimed to provide a similar ID capability, though it’s unknown wether this capability is available right now and wether the claimed performance is matched.
6 AASMs and 3 MICAs sound impressive in the first place, but if those AASM were “released” against pre-planned closely spaced targets and the MICAs launched against closley spaced targets it would be nice, but not THAT impressive. If those AASMs were launched against targets of opportunity it would be certainly impressive.
As said before the F-16CJ is not an overly specialised SEAD asset and the HTS is not necessarily the best system, so it’s actually not very surprising that an advanced ESM suite which is part of the SPECTRA.

This discussion is slowley but surely running circles. I applaud the french for their victory and perfectly understand their enthusiasm and happyness about the results. I also understand the Eurofighter fans being a little bit shocked or not and placing their hope in information which will level those results. The fact is the french are in a better position due sources and names being available in contrast to claims from unnamed sources. Does it mean those unnamed sources are wrong, definitely not and in the end it’s up to everyone self to decide wether they trust those unnamed sources are not. Who does and who does not is largley predictable. Can we draw a definitive conclusion on those results? I don’t think so, others do so as well and others think that’s some kind of proof. So far it is understandable that people are keen to learn more as what is being said is very vague and leaves a lot of questions unanswered.
I don’t know what about you guys, but I’ll lean back and relax, looking forward for additional information to be released in the future about this or other exercises. If there are repeatedly one sided results we might be able to draw a conclusion, I personally feel that time hasn’t come yet, but everyone is free to believe what he wants.

cheers