dark light

Scorpion82

Forum Replies Created

Viewing 15 posts - 991 through 1,005 (of 4,105 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • in reply to: Rafale news part XI #2380729
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Isn’t it what some tell us since years already, that the radar of the Rafale is not its most important sensor, but just one and that the aircraft primarily relies on its passive sensing systems?;)

    in reply to: Rafale news part XI #2380761
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Dassault seems to think otherwise . :rolleyes:

    I would yet like to see any source seriously dealing with that issue.

    No . 3D mapping , for example , will be done with opticals in real time for SAR and terrain following . OTOH , opticals can ‘t communicate (yet) and can ‘t do EW (of course) .

    It would be extremely challenging, especially for the mapping part. How will you do this at long range? Terrain following might be possible at least in combination with current terrain following systems (passive like TERPROM) it’s quite possible. The Rafale doesn’t rely on its radar to conduct low level flying, though as I understand it the radar is more accurate and lowers the min alt clearance. An optical system may help and compensate (didn’t thought about it in the first place).

    In the end I doubt that we’ll see the radar being replaced by an optical system anytime soon.

    in reply to: Rafale news part XI #2380970
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    @BW
    I think that you underestimate the importance of radar systems and overestimate the capabilities of optical systems. Furthermore adding countless arrays, but eliminating the front radar is counter productive. An optical sensor would lack the weather “independent” performance of the radar, it’s in most cases much more inaccurate and unlikely to provide the quantity and quality of radar data. On top of that it would lack a lot of capabilities! EA, COM, SAR, terrain following etc.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2380982
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    @Nic
    Don’t expect multiple sensors being located close to each other. Such an Apache variant As you describe it would be able to take out multiple targets in close proximity, but you’ll most likely be better of with a fast and compact missile, especially for escort and self protection. Another difficulty to consider is the employment of the sub munitions from the Apache. These would be dropped first and need a short time to ignite as well. The question here is at what altitude the Apache would have to fly to dispense its submunitions and a subsonic weapon is certainly an easier target as well. As aforementioned I like your idea, but I don’t think that it’s viable beyond pre-planned SEAD-strikes.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2381085
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    No idea how good the JRDRAM will be, but the concept itself is a good one. Combining a BVR missile with multimode seeker and ARM capability and possibly adapt it to destroy vehicles as well would be a nice and flexible weapon with long range and excellent reaction times.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2381098
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Interesting thought, but probably quite expensive. The first priority are the targeting systems, missile launchers are of no use without guidance, though the same is true the other way round. For dedicated SEAD missions against planned targets such an option would certainly be great. For SEAD-escort and self-defence a more compact and faster missile is certainly a better fit. I’m a great fan of the dual-role concept as planned for JRDRAM and I think that such a weapon would offer the greatest flexibility paired with performance.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2381128
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    @TMor
    A dedicated ARM (alternatively a Multirole missile like JDRADM) would offer greater range and speed and could allow the aircraft to launch from a greater distance. In a multilayer threat environment such long range systems might be complemented by short range/low altitude defences which would pose a serious threat for low flying aircraft. Low altitude is no guarantee for success and the greater the distance you can shoot the safer you are. Take into account that it’s not two aircraft vs one isolated SAM. These aircraft might be threatened by a number of SAMs and enemy interceptors possibly bolstered by AWACS, though they may have support on their own side as well, but the offensive is ever linked with problems especially in a scenario China vs. India.

    in reply to: Nice MMRCA News and Discussion 9 #2381133
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    The question is what’s the real performance of those super SAMs and how effective are their radars etc. It might be possible to shrink the effective engagement envelope considerably by the means of ECM. Flying low may help as well.

    There is still the question of resolving the targeting and destroying the site. A dedicated ARM would certainly be useful. The AGM-88E is probably the most capable ARM available these days, but it’s questionable whether it would be allowed for export and integration into a non-american platform in the first place. A Meteor derived dual-mode ARM possibly incorporating the experienced gained with the ARMIGER programme would be a nice option, maybe with a tri-mode seeker combining passive/active radar with INS/GPS and IIR.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2381228
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    That’s certainly true, but the probability of more electrical power with more powerful engines is in the end greater. I didn’t insist that there is 20% more electrical power due to the additional thrust either.

    in reply to: Hot Dog's Ketchup Filled F-35 News Thread #2381239
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    In the longer run it’s not necessarily cheaper to operate a greater variety of types, though it’s not like the F-teens will retire tomorrow or anytime soon for that matter.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2381246
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    Now now… TWR is nowhere near 20% better though.

    Nic

    I said the engine is 20% more powerful, not that the aircraft’s TWR is 20% better and we are talking about the impact on power generation here and not about the TWR.;)

    in reply to: Rafale news part XI #2381283
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    So Dassault and the Companies involved in the Rafale program have been doing some extensive work to ease and smooth out everything , in a very similar way than the US did with the F-22 (and the F-35) but with some personal ideas .

    There are still a number of antennas and probes sticking out of the airframe. The comparison to the F-22 or F-35 is clearly exaggerated.

    In general is extension of the RF coverage in fact implies potentially greater probability of detection as you are radiating in even more areas than you already do. Of course it is possible to stick with LPI characteristics and minimize transmissions to the absolute minimum, but still there is a greater potential for betraying your own position as opposed to limit the coverage. On the other hands a greater coverage will offer better SA and other advantages so one must carefully weight the pros and cons.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2381287
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    There , I am going to put forward my opinion .

    In such a case it is useful to add phrases like “IMO/IMHO”, “I think”, “I believe”, “I could imagine” or something like this. This helps to avoid confusion.

    While there is enough room to implement that many TRMs on the swasplate , I wonder where they will get the power from to run the radar … :confused:
    To fully use the radar , the Typhoon would need to use something like 15-20kW (!) , depending on the GaAs MMICS used . Here , we also have to take into account the cooling system .

    These are certainly valid concerns. I think ~15 kW should be possible, maybe more. Thus far there are little data out there at all so all we could do is guessing in the one or other direction.

    Now , Thalès said that to boost the RBE2-AA output power from 9,6kW to 14kW , only a new cooling pump was needed , meaning that the actual electrical system could cope to such demand .
    Is the Typhoon ‘s electrical system capable to provide up to 5,000-6,000 more Watts than the Rafale ? :confused:

    And General Silvy said an upgrade of the electrical system is necessary. It could mean both.
    While I wouldn’t want to make a guess wrt how much more power the electrical systems on the Typhoon could generate in comparison to the Rafale, the fact that the engines are at least 20% more powerful is certainly an advantage.

    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2381981
    Scorpion82
    Participant
    in reply to: Eurofighter Typhoon News & Discussions Thread V #2381984
    Scorpion82
    Participant

    but you might be surprised to learn that an all-solid state ECM suite was actually adopted from day one.

    It’s quite possible that a new antenna design was introduced, I recall reading that Tranche 2 would see the addition of a “polarisation diverse antenna”. The DASS employs quite a few different antenna types, but this may possibly refer to a duel polarisation configuration phased array as is currently seen employed on the ALQ-703.

    Yes I figured it out form there and it was indeed surprising. New antennas are to be introduced with the P1E upgrade and appear to be ready for testing now.

Viewing 15 posts - 991 through 1,005 (of 4,105 total)