Scorpion82I never said otherwise , I perfectly know that the Typhoon can do passive shooting , thank you .
Really? You just recently stated the Typhoon isn’t what it should have been a “silent” interceptor and repeatedly came up with Rafale’s passive targeting capabilities insisting that the Typhoon can’t…
Yes , similar than OSF and RBE2 .
ATR? Source please!
This is software related and has nothing to do with radar performance .
NCTR is just yet introduced with the RBE2AA whereas Captor offers that capability since years! It’s mainly about software but also about the sensitiveness of the radar itself, if the resolution isn’t good enough you might not be able to match the returns adequately against your db.
You know what Scorpion , you don ‘t know what you ‘re talking about and furthermore ,
Really? Captor-D SAR resolution 0.3 m, RBE2AA SAR resolution 0.3 m! SAME RESOLUTION!
you forgot to say that while the Captor-D is doing SAR , it can ‘t do anything else meaningfull . :diablo: It is mechanical !
RBE2 is scanning the entire field of view 200.000 times faster than the Captor-D , my friend .
Have I said the contrary? NO! I’m don’t forget anything here you just can’t live with the fact that you are taken apart here and try to wind your way out of the misery by bringing up unrelated things or try to downplay everything which may be a weakness of the Rafale or strength of the Typhoon. Fine that your AESA scans faster (albeit 200000 times? Source please for the scanning speed thanks!) it yet fails to achieve a better resolution and posting this image of a SAR map proves exactly what? I tell you, NOTHING!
This is your opinion and I don ‘t share it .
Yes it’s mine opinion and that you don’t share it isn’t surprising as everything which states Rafale not superior is out of consideration for you!
AFAIK , the M2000-5 ‘s autopilot does it too and since , well …
What I am talking about is not setting up a “safe” interception route but setting up an evading course at the edge of the enemy detection range , which is vastly more difficult .
I know what you are talking about and Nicolas has already addressed the rest (thanks to him).
Scorpion82In theory the Typhoon could easily carry 12-14 missiles if required. The ACS supports all the hardpoints appropriately. But there is currently no need as even 8 is already more than needed in most ongoing scenarios. The dual-launch rail is for SRAAM carriage and has been displayed on a Spanish AF Typhoon a few years back, but there is no real benefit of carrying 6 short range missiles. So for the time to come the Typhoon will be stuck with 8 which is totally sufficient, though more would be possible if the need arises, but would require flatter and separation tests which should be unproblematic in this case.
Scorpion82Both Typhoon and Rafale don ‘t have the output power to reach such performance , as I said multiple times .
Rafale doesn’t as explained by the General, that doesn’t mean that the Typhoon has the same problem. It’s just what you want to believe in order to discredit this aircraft as usual.
Some sites even say that it features 2000 TRMs rated at 4w each (8kW total output power which is inferior to the actual Rafale ‘s 9.6kW)
It would yes, but there is still the antenna size whose importance you regularly ignore and downplay for obvious reasons.
Who says so ? I have been unable to find anything on this matter and I still don ‘t lnow what kind of TRMs/MMICs the (v1) is using . Do you ?
Apart from that it uses new modules which benefit from advances made in the meantime (IIRC AN/APG-81 development has been mentioned) I have no further info on this.
Look at it carefully and if you don ‘t understand something , ask me .
But you can notice the work done by the EMTI , the SPECTRA display and also the main tactical display showing the overall picture , the video (or iSAR picture) showing the target and a vertical cut of the situation at hand giving a clear clue of altitude differences . Very usefull feature in BVR 😉
Thanks but I already know that image, including the display formats contained there and have in fact more than this. So nothing new here and the “vertical cut” well that’s for what the “elevation” display is there on a certain other ECD…
I correct the rest for you
In my opinion Typhoon ‘s displays and sensor fusion is half a league behind .
Scorpion82Well one goal of evasive maneuvers and jamming is to make the ennemy tracking as unstable as possible. A radio transmitter following the aircraft can be counterproductive
It might be or not.
What make you think it will not be powered?
Mainly cost considerations and the question about size, weight etc. If it would be some kind of powered mini decoy drones I wonder how that would fit on the aircraft without occupying weapons stations and an impact on drag etc.
the drawback being that a missile with cleaver ECCM will choose to track the leading source (even it is less appealing)
Well if it is able to do so, but if your free decoy is quickly gone the main target is still clearly visible.
True, but you only have 2 of them onboard (AFAIK)
That’s correct.
Yet another reason why a towed decoy is relevant on the Typhoon, but not (as much) on the Rafale
Well feasible as an unrestricted defence system. I think we can conclude for now that there are certainly pros and cons for both solutions (TRD and dispensible decoy).
I suppose there are currently no more up to date information available about such decoys? I already read about the decoys wrt Rafale back in 2004 or 2005 when it was considered as a possible growth option. The more recent conformation reaffirms this, but it would be interesting to know whether there is any specific plan for integration or if it is still a studied option only. IIRC new flare dispensers or at least cartridges are planned as well to boost the number of decoys from the current 40 to 80.
Scorpion82The point of the DGA is that a clever ennemy can use the decoy to track the aircraft.
The main purpose of the towed decoy is to deceive incoming missiles. But as the decoy is attached to the aircraft it has the side effect of giving its location and trajectory to the ennemy.
For the typhoon it may not be relevant, but for the Rafale whose concept is to hide as much as possible, it is a no go (At least that is what the DGA says).
Another argument of the DGA was that a towed decoy somehow limits the evasive maneuvers of the aircraft (don’t know if it’s true though)
How will the autonomous decoy work ? Well, not much has been said about it except that it will not follow the aircraft in order to confuse both the incoming missiles and the attacking aircraft.
Well if your aircraft is already tracked it is quite difficult to hide and that’s the point I was actually addressing. A free decoy, probably not powered either is easier to discern from the launch aircraft if it has gained some distance and the decoy is gone as well. A TRD will be towed behind the aircraft and is more difficult to discern from the real target as it is closer to it and remains in position. On top of that if the TRD isn’t destroyed it can be re-used as often as wanted until it is destroyed. The concerns about manoeuvre restrictions might be true depending on the integration. During earlier tests with the TRD on the Super Hornet for example it was found that engaging the afterburners would cause them to burn through the cable and the closer proximity to the fuselage might be problematic wrt manoeuvring. On the Eurofighter, however, the outboard position on the TRD causes no restrictions and the TRD is cleared for 9 g/Mach 2.
Scorpion82That’s actually a weak argument as you won’t employ the TRD unless it is necessary. And how is that autonomous decoy going to work at all?
Scorpion82Already covered in the Rafale thread 😉
Scorpion82Cross Eye was considered at one point but never adopted the way it is often suggested in some sources (i.e. Italian Typhoons use Cross Eye etc). What people must understand here is that Cross Eye is first and foremost a jamming technique, not a particular jammer hardware as such. If you take a look at the rear side of the DASS pods on all Typhoons from all operators you’ll realise that they all look the same with two covers for the TRDs. Interestingly there appears to be a radome which likely hides an RF antenna on all these aircraft to the right of the TRDs. This is actually a rounded radome, the sole exception are the Austrian and earlier German T1s which have a flat one indicating that there is no DASS installed on these aircraft.
Scorpion82The Rafale is replacing 7 types, 3 of which are/have been used for nuclear strike, the nuke mission is the one the Rafale will probably (or at least hopefully) never be employed in, yet it’s the primary mission? If so one could conclude that the Rafale is in fact what many critics are saying, a low level bomb truck. On one side some of you argue that the nuke mission is priority number one and the reason why the Rafale was designed for survivability and that aircraft not designed for that mission will lack behind, on the other side you claim that the Rafale excells in all other areas as well. Sounds like a not so well thought out double standard theory.
Scorpion82I know you are a Tyffie fan but even you have to admit that Rafales are several steps ahead – they already have a carrier version developed, more weapons integrated, are nuclear capable, routinely exercise A-G or Wild Weasel missions, and use ESA type radar which allows for smooth upgrade to AESA, compared to Captor. There are not many things that Typhoons have while Rafales lack.
It’s particularly funny how people try to discredit an aircraft by the means of criticising it for lacking stuff it was never designed for anyway. Nuclear strike was never a requirement as wasn’t the carrier mission. An F-15, F-16, Gripen, M2k, F-22 and many other aircraft weren’t designed for carrier missions or nuclear strike either so what? At the same time you are mowing about the Rafale being capable of things 10 years after it entered service which other aircraft are capable of since decades.
@EEL
No Typhoons featured the TRD from the very beginning, IIRC the Ariel was introduced with block 2B on British, Italian and Spanish Typhoons. Luftwaffe aircraft are using the Sky Buzzer which was not introduced before block 5. A hint on the Lufwaffe examples which aircraft sports TRDs and which not are the covers on the right DASS pod. Red cover = not TRD, White cover with black X = TRD.
Scorpion82That’s not correct the TRD is fitted to all Typhoon’s.
Scorpion82Btw is the 30000 h marks for the entire Rafale fleet or the operational one and if the latter is it just for the AdA or for the AdA & MN?
Scorpion82Thanks for the update Levsha. The google translation unveilled that the aircraft was operated out of Aktubinsk.
Scorpion82Wrt the Captor-E modes it remains to be seen. It has been stated that the initial focus will be on AA, whereas Eurofighter states a number of AG modes for the current Captor including GMTI/T. Whether these modes are yet implemented is another question however. Unfortunately we are used to “we would like to implement it, but present it as if it is there” statements these days and that’s not limited to Eurofighter, but virtually every manufacturer. The 2015 target date is unlikely to be met by the customer nations without a contract, though it might be true for international customers. As usual we have to wait and see.
Scorpion82Thanks for the update Eagle1. Looking forward for the cockpit shots though. Hopefully some display formats are visible!?
Sign In
