jackjackyes i’ve seen these
“It was then fueled by an A&C article about MACE-X NAto exercise when it was reported that the MystereXX spectra testbed managed to remain undetected from modern SAM site.”
please, nations dont even run their radars in full mode, as if anyone would run their secret bits, if they had them and i’m sure rafale has secret bits as all planes do
“Pierre-Yves Chaltiel, a Thales engineer on the Spectra program, remarked in a 1997 interview that Spectra uses “stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible… There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real LO [low-observable] aircraft.” When asked if he was talking about active cancellation, Chaltiel declined to answer.”
retransmitting at a half wavelength (something like this, i’m not going to google) doesnt make a plane invisible and the aesa randomly changes freq 1000 times a sec its said
its a shame no one has asked him or thales or dassault to clarify what he said and meant by invissible, was it deception, different range, different aircraft, showing multiple aircraft, etc ?
i dont speak french so french googling an answer isnt possible and there is limited info in english
the other thing i have been wondering, and as i have said, i’m a pleb
“Dassault has stated that the EW transmit antennas can produce a pencil beam compatible with the accuracy of the receiver system (1 deg), concentrating power on the threat while minimizing the chances of detection”
i have tried to look that up on dassault, i would apreciate it if you could point me in the right direction
i fully accept directional rwr and have seen ‘sector’ but not the 1 deg
as for the jammer transmitting on 1 deg, i would like to know how its done as i havent heard of this before
other than directional jamming through the aesa radar
jackjackmore likely it wont unless something better is released and that doesnt seem to be forecasted in the next 20 years
heck,the uk, usa etc may release one of the black projects (scramjets etc) and 2025-30 may be the end of f-35 production,
i know there is solid plans for f-35 working with ucav’s for that 2025 time frame
jackjackIt may simply work for many outdated radars, or it may simply not exist at all… Not a big deal.
i think there is confusion between active cancellation and the rafale retransmitting a range, aircraft type deception or inserting multiple targets
to do active cancellation on a plane would at this stage be impossible to cover all the aircraft reflected signal which comes off in many different signals, its too big of a job to cover them all and if your a bit out, you are just shining a light on yourself with the transmission
i did read a good report on it, my terminology isnt correct but the concept is
jackjackSo you think it will never be defeated ?
By the way, i don’t think Arthuro intended that AC works, but just quoted it as a rumor.
yes the f-22/35 radar will be defeated, just not by anything flying now or in the near future and usa tech wont stand still and a new measure counter-measure game will be played
mbda is playing with ac for missile, i hope no one is taking ac on rafale seriously, euro 6gen may use it for a couple of spikes to bring it back to the overall rcs, thats the best i can see and i would expect usa to be playing with it too
i know that subs are playing with it
btw, france is one of 2 countries that lead the world in signature management of subs, australia is the other
jackjackFrom 50 post-2023 aircraft to 69 – that is, half the buy. A significant shift, because the pre-2023 orders are barely enough to support two minimal air wings.
And UKG can deny all it wants, but doesn’t have to put its money where its mouth is for more than a decade.
i can see training craft brought and by 2018-19 there is more than a 43 air wing, its obvious to me its a 2 stage buy for the second air wing
jackjackIn terms of power output there is a difference. Agreed on the rest. I was pointing out that an inboard AESA jammer has less constraint than a missile seeker.
@LM raptor
Thanks for the answer. I am not as knowledgeable about the F22 as for the rafale program, but I remain under the impression that this is about the same kind of story than the active cancelation for the rafale. Highly classified and we don’t know to which extent it works so we can only speculate. At which distance this ID could work against an aircraft with LO feature come to mind etc ? But I don’t pretend to be absolutely right, it is just the interpretation I make with the infos I have.
please, not another one with this active cancellation nonsense
rafale has a run of the mill jammer, end of story
i take it you arent implying that rafale has aesa, but the jammer is capable of jamming aesa radar, best of luck with that, would you like to tell me how ?
the emission recorder looking for a pattern of a random wavelength isnt gunna work, what else
jackjack@arthuro – I think you are missing the point about the F-22s NG NCTR capabilities. It’s slated be able to paint a RF picture of the threat aircraft with the radar. This is then analysed against all known threat aircraft in its database. Just because an IR sensor can paint a visual ID doesn’t mean an RF sensor can’t.
In addition, the F-22s forward looking passive MLD is integrated into the F-22s sensor system – it can detect and likely ID hostile aircraft, similar to DAS.
as you know, lets not forget friend id signals, so that leaves just foe or unidentified. SA systems is what its all about
jackjackPlease explain what you mean by this.
UK italian and french gov and their agreement dictate the export of scalp and i cant see uk and italy giving a blank cheque on a co-developed missile, the same as france wouldnt want it to go to some countries
mbda is just the maker and has no say in it, its a political decission
jackjackSee also: http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/01/chart-f-35bc-operating-costs-v.html
i still cant see where the naval acknowledged report is coming from, do you know what it is based from
it needs to be looked at and assessed for credibility, there are a wide range of opinions presented to the pentagon, it isnt automatically creditable
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2010/01/lockheed-says-leaked-f-35-stud.html,
LM reply
and of course eric is one of the first to post his view, i saw the same nonsense from him when the sh and sh blk2 was released, he is a funny guy
his in print solution is to cancel the f-35 and buy 1000 f-16’s
jackjackWhy would that be? Surely, MBDA wants to be able to sell SCALP to current & possible future Gripen operators. If it refuses to co-operate in integration, then it’s giving away sales to Taurus or JASSM.
MBDA was very keen to sell SCALP/Storm Shadow to Spain, & integrate it on F-18. Spain bought Taurus, but it wasn’t for lack of effort by MBDA.
mbda hasnt got a say in where scalp is exported, its up to the partners and their agreements
jackjack@jackjack
France can have access to US weapons as a NATO member. But these weapons actually attach unwanted strings and their integration adds significant costs no customer wants to support.
nato member or not, there is no way in hell, france will get access to usa missiles and integration codes, they burnt that bridge with the us long ago
you are contradicting the fact the some france export planes have usa missiles from the importing gov to usgov agreement
jackjackyou missed my edit,
which brought about the leasing of non-signature managed coastal subs and the co-development with australia of the cbass torp
if you go to http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/navy-maritime/
and read some of gf0012-aust posts or ask him about whats publically relesed, the west isnt looking too bad
jackjackIt’s actually rather straightforward. The F-35C is not worth the money for the capability it brings to naval aviation.
gee, i wonder why usa wont listen to you, do you think its stubborn stupidity on their part ?
jackjackI think you are underestimating SS(K) capabilities and overestimating ASW prowess.
In NATO and other naval exercises at least, SS(K)s have (more or less routinely) managed to score quite well against US carriers and their escorts. You might also remember the incident where a chinese Song class sub popped up within a few miles of USS Kitty Hawk a couple of years ago. You might also recall USN leased a Swedish Gotland class SS for ASW training: there is a reason for that you know.
As for anti-torp capability in the USN: IIRC, with respect to surface ships, only USN Arleigh Burke DDGs can detect weapons launches. Most ships have a Nixie-decoy (noise maker) for self defence against accoustic homing torps. That is about the extent of passive countermeasures. There are no active torpedo countermeasures in service at this time. ( I read an article about this recently, which I will try to find a link to). See also the last link of my previous post about torps: I think it has some discussion of torpedo defences as well.
yes in exercises, our own collins has shown a thing or two, which brought about the leasing of non-signature managed coastal subs and the co-development with australia of the cbass torp
exercises and real war mode are 2 different things
you dont think usa knew the sub was there and they wouldnt react to give range detection info to the chinese
at this point of time, even though russia, through japan has usa screw tech, both can be heard from miles and they sneak nowhere
jackjackWrightwing,
Visual identification is still often needed as a radar track is not always enough to positively identify an hostile. In the real world with restrictive NATO ROE and the risk of friendly kill you will probably never see BVR engagement at max range. Here the F22 is at a disadvantage. It was designed in a cold war minset to intercept loads of migs and sukhoi in a full scale/high intensity war. But in medium threat situation where the enemy is unclear and with the existence of civilian aircrafts you will need a positive identification. Rafale OSF can identify an aircraft over 30NM against 3 or 4NM for the F22 pilot eye.So a rafale will probably be a more usuful BVR platform is some specific conditions.
In fact SPECTRA main purpose is to jam missiles or medium range SAM site. So yes it is designed to have a reaction time small enough to jam an incoming missile. So it is down to amaram seeker vs spectra which hasn’t the same constraint than the amram seeker and his using AESA antennas and DFRM technology. So the probability to survive from an amram should be quite good I think.Then the F22 will probably not be able to slip within the mica range for long as the rafale is equipped with an IR sensor. If the amram attack fail and the two aircraft go head on, then a mica IR will be fired at a much greater range than any sidewinder.
Just to say that when you look at the whole kill-chain, there are some weak points that might put the F22 at a risk.
+BVR fights are not always (most of the time) a simple senario where two aircartfs go head on from the same altitude etc etc…In complex environement you often need to indentify your target, not only track it. Rafale might get a good share of opportunity kill exploiting F22 inability to identify a foe from great distance.
LOL, i wish i could get as good as the drugs that you are obviously on
Sign In
