pppLike NEURON? Like Telemos?
These are small programmes, they aren’t the cornerstone of French industrial military aviation! Rafale ~290 aircraft. Neuron ~1 or 2. The costs, national pride and workshare implications are simply not comparable.
pppOh, and on the topic of a joint requirement instead of a joint programme, it could work, but it brings us back to much the same problems. Within the programme there are a few really key technologies and so the countries can either develop them together or develop independently, in the former they get to do the work and keep the tech domestic, in the latter they get a much more capable system. Whilst collaboration sounds ideal, some countries have invested a lot in the technologies already and justifiably don’t want to give them away for nothing, also other may not be able to contribute as much to it. The work also needs to match up to the amount of aircraft being bought already it’s getting pretty messy to sort out. Then you have some companies they may just be seeking the opportunity to take the other out of business as a competitor, or may have a separate civilian competition ect. Then there is the political aspect. If you are pro-European integration then you would probably think that we should all pool our resources and act as one superstate for a greater tomorrow. However if you are anti-integration then pooling anything is not all in your interests! And then there is the whole justifying it to the taxpayer thing… a British or German minister being seen to give British or German industry to a French is unlikely to do well at the next election.
pppDont extrapolate the Eurofighter story to the rest of multi national programs in wich they´ve participated, severall times they have been perfectly happy to take a back seat, think of the MBDA Meteor, the Telemos, etc.
Those programmes aren’t comparable to something like a massive production of a future UCAV. In any case, I’m saying that for it to work, they need to be willing to give a lot of the big jobs to others, and not try to dominate and make all the key decisions. Maybe they have given up on their old tricks, but only time will tell, I’ve certainly not seen any big ticket cornerstone programmes that prove they have. If it’s a repeat of Horizon and future European fighter, then I can’t see anyone wanting to work with them.
pppIt depends if the French are going to let others do the big jobs too, or just try to keep all the key technologies and design work within France. If there is no progress on that, then I can’t see anyone wanting to work with them.
pppWell, if vaporizing millions of people in one go isn’t an important mission, I don’t know what is.:confused:
Not being vapourised yourself would seem to be a good candidate for something more important 😎
In what area? Last time I checked Selex was extremely busy in AESA technology, supplying Gripen NG with an AESA for example. Not mentioning the AESA development for Typhoon, Vixen, Seaspray, etc…
It’s this French arrogance that people despise, you provide no proof whatsoever and just assume everyone is **** except France. The Rafale fan club indulges in xenophobia too often quite frankly.
Bluewings justified the T/R modules claim previously on the assumption that French engineers are better than British engineers, which is a fairly ridiculous assumption LOL! I believe there is a joint run T/R module plant between Germany and France too, so it would be interesting to see how the French twist that one 😎
pppAlso known as nuke delivery which…
…happens to be the most important mission of the Rafale.
No it isn’t. The most important mission for Rafale stopping other country’s nuclear bombers getting to Paris. The ASMP-A is a tactical nuke and of secondary importance as the SSBNs provide the strategic deterrent for France.
The 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.
I think he is under the impression that carrying a nuclear device on the aircraft makes the aircraft super capable and special. I wonder if he therefore accepts that the Tornado is twice as special, since it was designed to carry two buckets of instant sunshine, rather than just one 😉
But I am willing to accept the statement by Blue Apple that Rafale is to be considering a low level bomb truck first, with secondary fighter capabilities.
pppSoftware is more important than size and Thales is 5 years ahead of its European counterparts. This gap is unlikely to reduce unless a miracle occurs, like European countries funding an AESA radar for Eurofighter.
As confirmed by eagle1 who visited the Thales stand, your modules count and your calculus are worthless and you have no idea about the real size of a module.
Considering its mediocre RCS and its anemic flight performance at slow speeds, Eurofighter has an uphill battle on his hands when facing a Rafale in BVR and WVR.
Would you like a brush to go with that statement? 😎
pppOh hell, let’s please leave the craziness of WAFF over there. I visited it again yesterday and it was atrocious.
PPP, valid question about the antenna angle. I doubt Thales would be unable to tilt the RBE-2 if they wanted to, but as you say it depends on the angle of incoming (enemy) radar waves.
From a purely geometric PoV it makes sense to angle the array up for a high flying aircraft, ensuring that reflections coming from below or same-alt will go “up” into space, not back at the emitter.
Both the F-22 and the F-35 are meant to routinely operate at high altitude (very high in Raptor’s case, medium-high for Lightning II). I don’t know if there’s a particular emphasis on low level penetration in the F-35 (someone more knowledgeable could tell me). In Rafale’s case, there is, it’s a central part of its concept to deal with advanced AD networks.
If the Rafale is flying low (nap of the Earth), an angled up antenna would reflect EM back up… right towards the high flying enemy plane.I’m not saying it’s the right explanation, and maybe this is too simplistic modeling, but it’s the most logical one I see. After all, angling the plate would even let more space for TRs if they really wanted more…
I think they would tilt it up on the Rafale if they were going to tilt it, since the Rafale is intended for medium to high altitude operations in it’s fighter function, now low altitude. Low level penetration against a high capable fighter force is unlikely to be a prioriti design consideration IMO. About the nose depth it’s an interesting point, and the Rafale has quite a blunt nose section.
with a flat array like for AESA, it makes little difference, in fact… to reflect waves back to the emitter, the emitter would have to be straight in front ot the array, otherwise, their waves will be reflected above, or under, or to one side, relatively to them. with a simple test you can see it: put a small mirror on the wall, perfectly vertical, and try to see yourself in it… you’ll notice that, unless you are straight in front of it, you can’t
canting antennae, gives you one positive thing: a bigger array for a given nose diameter, allowing for more modules, or more space between them (better for cooling)
I am aware that the canting of the antenna gives a larger area, it also gives the option to spin it and get a wider look angle, all these are outlined as reasons for the Selex Swashplate. However, I think to suggest that a canted array makes no difference to RCS is a bit sidestepping the issue, since it is clearly present on all of these aircraft that are seeking RCS reductions, and it is well known that airframe has angled edges to reduce the RCS. It may well be the case that it is irrelevant, and I’m not saying that it definately is the case, but on balance of probabilities it’s clearly more than just coincidence.
pppPicture of RBE-2 AA PROTOTYPE whether you like it or not. Trying to make up any argument based on the idea that we have pics of the production radar right now in June 2011 is… (MCQ)
- telling much about how desperate you are to get a single “mine is better” argument ?
- telling much about your care for truth ?
- telling much about how open minded you are when you come on a Rafale topic ?
- showing how respectful of this forum you are ?
- showing how respectful of the members you are ?
What do you think we are trying to do in our thread about the Rafale ? :rolleyes:
Sorry my holly lord, but… “unreasonable”… why ? :rolleyes: So, I’m Thunder ? Is that all you can do ? Bringing here your battles from the WAFF ?
For the sake of THIS forum, NO, THANKS.And again, dear TaranisAttack, thanks for your flamebaiting effort on my forum, and the nasty advertising on the WAFF.
Ahhh yes, that old trick. If you disagree with me, you are disrespectful and everyone should hate you, nice, real nice. Which flame baiting effort on your forum would this be then? The last post I made on your forum was with respect to whether the RBE2-AA is going to be a canted array, or an orthogonal array, as F35 and F22 all have canted arrays presumably to reduce the frontal radar cross section, and so a canted array would be indicative of an attempt by Dassault to reduce the Rafale’s frontal radar cross section. It seemed however that it was going to be an orthogonal one, which would be indicative of no significant reduction in radar cross section, which obviously isn’t a good thing, and so according you, it must be a flame right? Heaven forbid anyone conclude anything negative about Raffy right? In any case, even if someone did go to Rafale Forums purely to highlight lots of negative aspects about Rafale, you told me that you would have no issue with that. Don’t you remember our discussion where you said that Rafale forums is NOT just a lair for Rafale fan boys to say good things, but also a place to discuss the negative aspects? Are reneging on your word now TMOR? As for nasty advertisements, I made none. The only person mentioning keypub there is Sampaix, mostly switching between abusing Scorpion in one post and then quoting him like a hero in the next, oh and the usual bashing of Jon Lake, me, and any French that don’t tow the Sampaix Rafale line.
Here is a quote from the thread, in context:
Taranis Attack: Are there any pictures of the AESA relesed yet?
TMOR: No picture of the production AESA yet, to my knowledge. Are you preparing to count the modules? 😀
Taranis Attack: No I wasn’t, I can only count to 10 in French, but that should be sufficient right? 😉
The reason I would like to see it is that I’m interested to see the tilt angle of the array, as stealthier aircraft tend to have a radar with a tilted face. Whilst the radomes are frequency selective to an extent, if radar from the other aircraft were to penetrate, and the radar face were at the 90 degree angle, it would likely provide a very nice radar return. A suitably tilted array would reflect this away from the source, reducing the RCS in much the same way as airframe RCS reduction methods use, though some airframes may also use Jaumann absorbers or the like rather than shaping alone.
If we take a look at the APG-77 on the F22
[image]
and the APG-81 on the F35
[image]
and the CAPTOR AESA on the Typhoon
[image]
We can see they are all tilted, hence my interest in whether Rafale’s RBE2-AA has the same feature!
Happy New Year
TMOR: The different pictures of the prototypes indicates that the RBE-2 AA array won’t be tilted… 🙄
End Quote
So, where is this “flame” attempt then eh? Looks like a legitimate discussion from my part. If you wish to discuss this further then PM me, no need to take the thread of course further 😎
you can turn it the way you want but it is wrong. Note than I am in no way saying the rafale as the biggest/best radar etc… I can just say that the whole 55cm diameter radar and 840 modules is baseless and real figures are confidential as confirmed by thales today at the Paris airshow.
Or it has slipped out and they are fixing the problem. But, in any case, 800 to 900 modules is a reasonable figure for the Rafale IMO. I don’t desire to “turn it” any way or the other, fast jets aren’t my main interest, so which one is better isn’t a particularly significant issue to me (though most of the French members may disagree with that assertion, but that’s their problem not mine). In the areas that are my main interest (UAVs), I have great interest in the French contributions, I think they are excellent and IMO they definately amongst the leaders in the field.
pppppp,
The 55cm diameter is not correct (despite one article could assert) nor the pictures released by Thales showing the AESA radar which are photoshoped. True figures are confidential. I can tell you that all this counting is senseless.
Ahh yes, it’s confidential when it makes Rafale look bad, and public when it makes Rafale look good and Typhoon bad.
No double standards here :rolleyes:
pppMore likely, everyone’s lying to the public about the exact characteristics of their sensitive military radars.
But the counting method (power/TRs, etc) has some merit for speculation.
Personally, I’d think that Dassault/Thales would not “max out” the power output of the current RBE-2 AA. Why ? Simply to leave some power available for the future planned side arrays, and Spectra as well.
This is unlikely in the extreme. Growth room is a good idea, true. But, growth room is something you design in to make upgrades easier, because you have the option to add area that you don’t currently need. You don’t leave growth room in an area where you don’t have enough room already. The Rafale has a 55cm aperature, so it’s massively inferior to its competitors, and so needs to use as much as that room as possible! Room for growth would be plain ridiculous! The current 854 module figure comes from counting them on the image, and that radar is using every last inch of space. I’ve tried photoshopping 1200 modules into the nose to see what would need to be done to make them fit and it’s simply impossible! All other methods rely upon fantasy ideas of France being vastly ahead of everyone else in everything yada yada, simply because they are French.
I really don’t understand what is the problem with the idea that a prototype would have less modules than the ultimate array…
It’s the same for other prototypes AFAIK… Including CAESAR. :rolleyes:
FACT : we have no picture of the production RBE-2 AA.
We do have a picture of the RBE2-AA, you just don’t like what you see. It is completely unreasonable (unless you are Thunder or Bluewings) to expect the Rafale to be able to achieve vastly higher density in it’s AESA radar than any other country can.
You are discussing current military technology!
-> The buyer does not want anybody to know the real performance of what he has bought so that potential enemies can’t adapt their strategy and tactics
-> the seller has the same interest making sure that the buyer can not exactly know if there is a competitor with a much better product around
No wonder that information supplied is vague.
We will only know what the real status:
-> in case of war (let’s hope not)
-> in 30 years time when these things are military outdated and no-one cares anymore
I think it’s quite convenient that when information emerges that is negative about Rafale, it’s “vague” and not to be trusted. But when far more dubious information about Rafale being “better” than Typhoon emerges it is truth beyond question. But we are accustomed to this excuse 😎
pppThere is another mission the Eurofighter is considerably better at.
Getting export orders.
True 😀
Correct, and more to the point, that information was publicly available a decade ago. If someone was following the FEFA/EFA/Eurofighter program with any type of interest from “the start” it would be aware of that.
If any of our French (or any other nationality) coleagues wants to have an idea of how the Typhoon works they could do worst than reading this book:
http://www.whitcoulls.co.nz/book/ef2000-eurofighter/9696330/Its simple, small and instructive. Off course, the name of the author might make “goose bumps” on some…
Cheers
Jon Lake is an excellent journalist, who would possibly object to him? 😉
pppWarton final assembly line to remain open until 2017 with current 25 aircraft a year production (if as expected all Saudi ‘phoons are now assembled there):
Link:
http://www.ainonline.com/news/single-news-page/article/paris-2011-ton-up-for-warton-line-30059/So, in the worst case that of course won’t happen because India will order Typhoon, Warton could reduce to 12 a year and remain open until 2023 without new orders?
That would be excellent news!
Also, long time no see! Hopefully everything is going well 😎
pppThere is no need to count the modules. The Rafale has a 55cm radar aperature, there is finite limit to what you can fit in a 55cm diameter area, and 850 moules is about it.
pppRafale Airshow PDF, courtesy of Marc Sampaix (a.k.a Dare2, Wingman, Thunder ect.)
http://siae.netdirect.fr/2011/sites/actu/docs/3-vol/fiches2011/Rafale_F.pdf
Sign In
