Jacko , only interferrometry can give you the range and DASS is NOT capable of it .
Check the range of both systems and come back to me 😉

Cheers .

Stop the trolling and stop wasting our time with your bull. Azimuth is the most basic bearing indication a RWR provides and range can be obtained in many ways from amplitude measurement if the threat emitters characteristics is known to triangulation. Neither technique requires interferometry. So come back when you have something useful to add spare your Rafale trolling. And for the matter DASS was specifically designed for Typhoon and can’t be simply retrofitted the way you claim it. And range performance is not a static value either. The figure stated for DASS is a conservative number and it’s usually stated “more than”, “in excess off” etc. not 100 km not to be exceeded. Only fools believe in such bull…

Does one of you Spanish guys know the dates when the Escuadrons 111 & 112 have been inaugurated? Afaik 111 was inaugurated in May 2006, but is that correct and on what day? And what about the 112?

If everyone was as neutral and factual as you are, such discussions would be fruitful. Although I’m now tired of all these childish debates, including from the Rafale side, I still read what you write here or there with great attention.
Thank you very much.

Thank you for the feedback. I perfectly understand your feelings on that.

Bon nuit

You haven’t given any concrete evidence of comparison. As a consequence these remains empty hyperbolic claims. seismic ? Talk about hyperbolism…So when if it gets an AESA what will it be ? The upgrade of the universe ? The point is that you are short of evidences to even start backing your claims. Note that I don’t discount the upgrade just that nothing indicates it will be “seismic”:rolleyes: and that the scope go beyhond the F3 standard.

It’s a bad idea to throw with stones while sitting in a glass house. While I understand your critics of jackonicko, you are merely criticising a behaviour which is a habit of yourself.

I am sorry but agin no evidences, unsubstantiated empty claims. The swiss said the rafale offered a better Situation awareness & sensor fusion which is also linked to MMI. MMI is indeed a big “plus” for the rafale compared to the typhoon. Even without a DVI and an HMS the rafale was pretty close to the typhoon for “pilot workload” which tells volume about the quality of rafale MMI. Give it an HMS and it will be far ahead.

Well it’s no secret anymore that the Typhoon wasn’t that mature at the time of the Swiss evaluation and that some of the capabilities proposed for block 5 examples didn’t exist at this point in time, as the software wasn’t fully developed. The MET score charts were related to the proposed 2015 configuration and Rafale’s score for SA was marginally higher only and that with an AESA radar vs M-Scan on the Typhoon. I would expect a much greater discrepancy for the alleged way superior MMI and sensor fusion of the Rafale plus AESA.

I will for rafale MMI :

Much of this is rather unspecific either and not seriously proving anything.

And yes rafale cockpit with its inclined seat and side stick is much more comfortable. I tried both at paris airshow and the difference is evident and also reported by pilots.

That’s to a certain extend subjective, I tried both my self and found them both rather comfortable as such. There are stronger and weaker points for either design.

But back to the question of what P1E introduces.
Without working out the associations between part A and B of the P1E. The former will be introduced later this year featuring some new hardware and the SRP10 software load, while the later will be introduced in late 2013 and features additional hardware as well as the new SRP12 software load.

New hardware includes a crypto variable management system, new radios, DGPS, mode 5 compliant IFF, new DRFM, dual-polarized antennas and new TRD with improved transmission power and frequency coverage, improved MIDS terminal with increased data transmission capacity and the ability to sent/receive video images, new active DVI with increased vocabulary and 100 commands vs 26 as in the current form.

Software wise we’ll see MMI enhancements with new/improved display formats to support AG operations to a larger extend. It will be possible to attack pre-planned targets and targets of opportunity and engage multiple targets within a single pass. It will be possible to target ground targets while engaging aerial targets and the dynamic targeting will likely include automatic target recognition algorithms for the Captor radar and PIRATE in the SAR and STTI modes to identify detected ground targets automatically and generate target coordinates for weapons employment. This could also be linked to the introduction of vectorised maps. The SAR mode is new for the Captor radar and there might be additional AG modes, but there aren’t any details available yet. The TERPROM terrain awareness system is said to support weapons delivery with P1E. It’s currently unknown whether the Striker helmet will offer more support for AG operations than it’s currently the place, but better support is planned, it’s just not known whether it will be part of the P1E already or not. IRIS-T will be fully integrated via the digital interface and can finally exploit its full potential on the Typhoon. The Litening III LDP will be fully integrated with all functions, including AA target tracking and identification, a higher level of automation and support for delivering multiple weapons simultaneously. GBU-48 EPW II and PW IV will be fully integrated with their dual-mode seekers, cockpit selectable fuzes and the later will be cleared for supersonic flight and releases. That’s what pops up my mind instantaneously, I may look up to search for additional details. I think that once P1E is established new weapons will be integrated more quickly, as it was the case for Rafale F3s which started with the same weapon/stores options as F2.

When I see how you can extrapolate a simple article of intention to the extend of serious roadmap… I too have my doubt. One of my teacher used to say, to admit that we’re all ignorant is the first step toward knowledge and wisdom…

Your reading comprehension skills aren’t my problem. I actually made clear what’s definitely planned and what’s being thought about. If you can’t make the cut, it isn’t my problem.

My understanding is that P1E allow EFT to do a bit more than just patrolling the sky an evolution very similar to that of the Rafale F1 of the MN when they were first operational over Afghanistan into the F2. I would be glad for you to prove me wrong.

The step from Rafale F1 to F2 was quite significant. The problem with “can’t do anything else” is that you chaps fail to grasp that development progress of an aircraft isn’t restricted to integrating new weapons or stores. P1E is an enabler and represents a significant boost in many ways. From hardware to software a lot new stuff will be introduced.

Now from what some of you are saying, EFT have been flying with mock up for about 8 years… Well that’s certainly an achievement…

:confused:

The Swiss trials finished in 2009 and the IAF trials finished in 2010. There is a difference. During all that time both the IAF and Swiss air force were in contact with the different suppliers in order to have update about current developments (at least from what the Swiss said…).

The flight trials in Switzerland were completed by early December 2008 and those for India around April 2010.

With regard to the Swiss evaluation, I have been curious – how was it structured? Did it factor in the hardware and software upgrades to the DASS that are currently in the works (like how allowances were made for the Gripen NG)?

It did in the second phase, but the impact of planned upgrades were weighed against a risk factor, especially for the technologies which couldn’t be demonstrated in development stage. It’s also known that DASS had issues at this point in time and while hardware hasn’t changed until now, only enhancements possible come with software and mission data improvements.