Typhoon has no shoulders at all, just a looong back, but two evil long sticks on its arms.:D

What would be interesting wrt the Typhoon to see some multifunctional arrays replacing the current MAWS antennas in the wing roots and at the tail, mount some wide angle IIR sensors on the wing tip pods and/or possibly installing multifunctional IIR apertures where the LWR balls sit. Could make some kind of nice EODAS like system.:D

Well the cross check “false” signals parts makes sense but is also no guarantee that these are in fact false signals, albeit the possibility to identify them as such is greater. One has to bear in mind that the problematic of interference blanking and cancelling out the own radars transmissions is not exactly a new or Rafale specific issue. In theory one could argue that any RWR must do so and could be used that, but as said that’s the theory.

@c-seven,
the question is whether Spectra would make any use of the received signals other than rejecting it and whether it is fed to the radar. In general you can assume that the ECM antennas are unlikely to receive signals from any greater range than the radar, thus it would be more or less redundant. The issue we have here is that the two systems don’t share a common receiver unit or even processor and this could be the bottleneck. To cut it short there is at least no evidence that there is any integration and I doubt that the range of the radar could be increased that way. What’s a more likely possbility IMO is that the received signals are correlated to resolve bearing inaccuracies.

Oh the big lie , booooh :diablo:
No wander why there are so many misinformed Typhoon ‘ s fans all over the Net …
How can one trust them after reading such BS ? How ? :confused:

BS like “Rafale a full generation ahead (in fanboys wet dreams)?

Why do you think that the F-22 and late Sukhois have great detection range ? The size of the dish ? Yes surely but mostly because they have huge output power from the big engines to run the big dish .
The Typhoon is going to run into the very same problem than Rafale has and since it is supposed to have more TR modules than Rafale , the problem is even bigger . Keep that in mind . 😉

Sure it must run into the same problems, because the French are perfect and everyone else in the world must have designed an aircraft with the very same limitations. Funny that it works just one way the Omniroleguys world…:rolleyes:

But they also say that a Rafale has the first look on a M2000 .
Do the math 😉

Do the math on what? N-035 Irbis detection range against a 3 sqm target 400 km vs RBE2 a quarter of that?:diablo:

Let ‘s be honest here , if we trust the various sources that we have , the RBE2-AA has around 838 (?) TR modules with a range of around 160km against a 5m RCS target . If the Typhoon with 1400 TR modules archive (so far) a 120km range , there is something wrong or at least unclear .

Quite funny how you “agreed” with my last post and now come up with such crap. If you are really that weird that a Captor AESA offers less than 75% the performance of the current Captor you must smoking some serious stuff. Demonstrated a detection range of 120 km against what? An F-22? :p

To me , it means three things who might not be linked to each other (but they can be) :
-1) Typhoon is not using the same UMS modules than Rafale (lesser ones)
or :

LMAO, CAESAR used GaAs with a power output of 10 W each back in 2006. The Captor-E is designed to accept both TRMs from Selex and Cassidian.

When you test a radar , you usually increase the output power notch by notch until to reach the maximum safe limit within the test parameters .
If a 120km range has been archived and put forward by EADS , it is because they couldn ‘t do better or they would surely talked about it and say 150km or 180km , etc …
We need to take facts as they are and not try to extrapolate too much .

You are exactly doing this right at this moment! So what facts? They have detected a target at 120 km and what? Have they stated “we tuned the radar to max power and couldn’t do any better”? No they haven’t, they have not even specified the type of the target or its RCS. So what does it prove?

Which is 30% less than the RBE2-AA who has less modules…
Cheers .

Depends on the target’s RCS doesn’t it? Against a fighter sized target the current Captor-C already demonstrated a tracking performance way beyond that figure. To believe that an AESA version would offer much less performance is naive at best. They also didn’t state that this is the max performance of the system. To cut it short you can’t conclude anything from that claim.

Edit:
Lol @ Paralay

In which FY, will the Typhoon/Rafale be equipped with a radar that’s equivalent to the APG-81(as it’s not even as capable as the F-16 Block 60 radar), spherical IR coverage equivalent to the EODAS, a datalink with the bandwidth(and stealthy/LPI features) equivalent to MADL, etc…

When will the Typhoon/Rafale have the weapon’s integration that the F-35 will?

What’s the spiral upgrade plan for the European planes with regard to DIRCM, cooperative EW/EA, directed energy weapons, etc…?

The RAF is hardly in the position to be spending a lot of money on upgrades right now, with all of the cuts going on.

A lot blablabla from someone who wants to make a case for an aircraft which has yet to enter service, let alone meeting its brochure specs and KPPs! Not everything must be similar to what the F-35 offers and the latter will certainly hold some advantages, but the gap may be much smaller wrt sensors and their integration than what people like you assume, by comparing aircraft in their current configuration to an aircraft which won’t meet its brochure capabilities before 2016 at best!

Is DIRCM on the F-35 already tested? How far is it developed? What about the directed energy weapons which are even further down the road!? And range performance is not the equal to radar capability or would you claim that the AN/APG-63(v3) is more “capable” than the APG-81 of your oh so beloved Wunderwaffe aka F-35? You talk about envisaged, but not necessarily funded or currently developed upgrades for an aircraft which has not even achieved its great paper capabilities!

Btw it’s being stated (don’t know how reliable that is) that Spectra has or will receive cooperative EW capabilities, its DDM-NG soon to be fielded is prepared to support DIRCM and it’s not exactly news, except for you perhaps, that various European companies are working on DIRCM systems and they have at least been mentioned in relation to both the Rafale and the Typhoon. It currently looks like DIRCM is a possible option for batch 5 Rafales to be delivered by 2018. By that time a new OSF-NG with an all new IR-sensor might be fielded, among improved Spectra with GaN based TRMs for the jamming antennas and possibly DIRCM, launched decoys and improved RBE2AA with GaN TRMs. or the post 2020 timeframe Thales proposes conformal distributed AESA apertures for all kind of purposes from communication tasks, detection (active and passive) over jamming. That’s actually known as the cloud concept, albeit it’s as much a “fictional” capability as are directed energy weapons for an F-35.

Btw the UK’s situation will have no impact on Rafale development and the UK’s reluctance to buy more Typhoons than what’s being ordered doesn’t translate into “no upgrades” except in the minds of the “naysayers” as you F-35 dudes like to say.

And what weapons integration of the F-35 are you talking about? The F-35 has yet to see a single weapon being integrated!

The real question is when does the F-35 match the weapons integration and sensor capabilities of the European birds not the other way round. Some are in service and proven and have reached a certain level of maturity, the other one struggles to make it into service at all!

@rayrubik,
cost is certainly a factor, but I think people should slowly but surely realise that every new generation of combat aircraft becomes more expensive than the previous one, due the ever increasing operational requirements and the associated complexity of the platforms itself. The F-35 will more or less offer F-16/F-18 like performance in an operational configuration with a comparable range on internal fuel, paired with VLO, sensors mostly not found or just bolted on (LDPs) on the legacies. One must be naive to believe that such an aircraft would come in at a lower price than those legacy platforms it replaces! Take a look at the F-16 which became more costly the more gimmicks were added despite a production run which exceeds the projected numbers of the F-35 by 1/3! The costs of the aircraft will stabilise around a high value most likely not too dissimilar to that of the newer European fighters, maybe a bit cheaper. That’s certainly expensive, but the question is how much would you save by buying evolved versions of existing types and what would it cost to sustain them with much smaller customer bases (either by declining due the age of the type or by the limited number of orders)?

Just a point here, an EWS must communicate with the radar to cancel out the radars own returns and don’t mistake them as foreign transmissions.;) So in theory something like this could work, but whether it does is yet another question. Thus far the Spectra uses dedicated receiving and transmission antennas. Whether the ECM antennas are used to receive as well is yet another question, it’s certainly possible in theory, wheher it’s implemented is yet another question.

@Taygibay

Scorpion, maybe the impression comes from this :
The Rafale is following a rather linear upgrade path
on account of being block-less first and by virtue of
having one govt/AF deciding freely. Wheareas the
Typhoon is “torn apart” between consortium upgrades
and national ones?

Well F-Standards aren’t to different to block designations. The French indeed benefit from the fact that they don’t need to bother with partners who are unable to reach agreements on time and release the necessary funds. That’s probably the main reason why they now opt for incremental upgrades rather than larger block upgrades. We may see much more smaller upgrades in the fashion of the CP193 in the future.