i dont get into politics, talking about planes is bad enough LOL
i knew mbda had plans for an IR but i wasnt aware it has been finished and fielded
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=345&page_id=521

if it is fielded it will add to the capability of it, do you know if it is tracking a stored image from the damoclese pod, or is it just going after a heat sourse, i havent seen any real info on it

Some people seem to be blown away by the term inferometry and believe it’s somewhat a unique capability for the SPECTRA. The truth is most modern RWRs are interferometric, though not every manufacturer makes a big deal out of it.
What does interferometry? Interferometry measures the direction of arrival of the emissions. In other words older RWRs just provided an azimuth bearing or plain simple provided a 1D position. Interferometric RWRs measure the elevation angle as well and therefore provide a 2D position of the emitter. It hasn’t to do with ranging in the first place. Range is usually gathered via triangulation and amplitude measurement could be used as well, but in times of power managed radars amplitude measurement isn’t overly reliable. Ranging a threat emitter depends on many factors such as bearing accuracy, antenna location, processing/clocks and the movement of the receiver in relation to the threat emitters location. Fixed emitters can be ranged relative fast and accurate with modern systems, older emitter locator systems often required minutes to do so. The problem is that even a <1° bearing accuracy produces a miss distance over range, in other words the farther away the emitter is the lower the accuracy. In order to hit a target you either need exact range measurement or the weapon must be capable to detect, identify and acquire the correct target by the means of terminal guidance. Against aerial threats the ranging is at best vague, that’s still enough to launch a missile, but you won’t get an accurate firing solution and the pk is comparably low. I’m not sure wether the fighter datalink of the radar could be decoupled and use other sensor datas to update such a missile, though you likely have no MCG either, which is further going to reduce the pk of the missile. Ofcourse you could use the target image from the OSF to estimate a rough range based on the zoom factor and the target images size.

So are you able to target an AASM with INS/GPS guidance only? At shorter ranges it might work, but at longer range the weapon would likely miss the target if it doesn’t receive acurate range data in the first place or if it hasn’t a sensor for terminal guidance. Against aerial targets the pk is likely to be very low or basically a waste of a missile, though it can be launched into the direction of the target.

i cant see anything that doesnt sound logical there, but i think you are giving a bit too much to the aasm though, it is after all, just basically being a lob and hope, without decent gps co-ordanants given

Not yet.

What’s the interest of 3D direction finding for Spectra ?

http://rafale.freeforums.org/post56.html#p56

someone said spectra can accurately target an aasm, without using the radar and its features, i said it couldnt and it has gone from there

again i say the rafale is a good plane, but a lot of the negative attitude is because of wild unsubstantiated claims made by some

I’ve got another source from 2006 (that I’ll post this afternoon hopefully) where a pilot directly and clearly say that a mica can be fired with spectra coordinates only.

The fact that spectra can give a bearing and a precise distance (3D localization) is a clear indicator of this capability.

Remember the last rafale flight test by peter colins : the osf was slaved to spactra RWR. That means the TV optics/zoom can be accurately trimed according to the distance and the bearing to get a neat image in the cockpit. That is another clear indication of this 3D capability.

add the tiger meet article (SEAD capability) and the greek report where HAF pilots report spectra to be able to track other fighter radars (F16, mirage 2000 I guess) several hundreds of nautical mile away and you have a good picture of Spectra passive identification capability.

My own guess is that this capability is probably what gave an edge to rafale latest BVR confrontation in the UAE with the long range visual indentification. I don’t see other parameters being decisive (missile range, top speed etc). But that is just a personal guess !

lets keep to one topic at a time, spectra lauch of mica can be for later, or we will just talk in circles

please dont use the generic term spectra, use the names of the senors invovlved

Hello jackjack,

I think that you are not up to date about rafale capabilities (no offense meant at all).

It was widely reported by the French air Force that Spectra+AASM can provdide a SEAD capability…Most of the regular posters (including non french like scorpion82) can attest it.

The most clear example was the last red flag deployment. I think I saved this article on another computer, so if you are a little bit patient you will have the direct source.

if someone else as this article I would be thankfull if you post it that would spare me some time.

regards.

nar, its all cool, it would be silly to take offence when there is a 2 way exchange

the uae sam i read was the use of spectra directional rf detection with the front optic to see it at 30-40k and another type at about 10k from memory

we all know its systems and not platforms thats important, but just using platforms
i think working as a pair the rafale would get reasonable location subject to the the sam feeding wrong distance etc, enough for the rafale could launch and steer a harm missile. until the weapon could self aquire the sam transmissions, does the rafale have a harm or similar missile ?

if you can explain simply what individual sensors are being used, perhaps we can come to a common agreement
i think the only way to get a useable gps fix for the aasm is to use the radar mapping navigation.. the spector rf directional warning nor the front optics can do this as far as i kinow and have been told, but i’m happy to be corrected

[QUOTE=Vortex;1513763]

Funny to hear from someone directly comparing weights as a determiner. The actual lifting area includes fuselage, but that counts for Typhoon or Rafale, as well. The overall difference is still there and it is significant. That makes the F-35 a better striker.. and a worse fighter..

QUOTE]

The difference is in the fuselage shaping and strakes….similar to the F22. See images of the full vortex vapors engulfing the F22, expect it to be the same as the F-35. Althought how that translate to aerodynamics on the F35 remains to be seen/proven. I mentioned a few years back from (or prior…forgot) F22 videos that the shaping isn’t only for stealth since you can clearly see it in videos for the segmented vortices and rather flat uppersurface (ideal for the vortices to act on). The only problem i have for the F-35 in this regard is it’s rounded centerline section of the fuselage, which unfortunately due to its small size and large engine is unavoidable, making it less efficient for this type of aerodynamics, thus it’s design remains to be demonstrated….will be interesting. In these cases, the surface area of the fuselage (note i said fuselage, not the wings) isn’t the traditional sense because you’re comparing mainly between attached flow versus predominantly separated flow aerodynamics as in the case of the F22/F35. There are considerable lift enhancement. Drag? Well, that’s much more detailed and would have to see its actual drag polar and make-up. Again, it won’t follow the traditional trend of L/D makeup.

You do not see these on the design of the Typhoon or the Rafale. The Typhoon does have a set of near front fuselage strake but not much lift surfaces to support it, indicating that this is either for trim or stabilizing the separated surface flows on the fuselage, possibily caused by the canard, IIRC the EFA (or EAP?…anyways that prototype) didn’t have it. The Rafale’s wing-root/fuselage is surprisingly blunt (beautiful aircraft but that aspect always surprised me a bit). The way i see it is that there are the following types/generation of using separated flow for fighter aircraft designs so far.

1. Delta wings (started with Me-163, un-intentionally and actually detrimental).
2. Leading edge root extensions (a la F-5/Mirage III/V) used to increase lift performance of a baseline aircraft.
3. Body strakes (a la F-16, F-18, Mig-29, Su-27)….lead to wing/body blending. The difference compared with #5 is that “strake” isn’t full body nor segmented. The F-18 had some intention to maximize that but flight control and aerodynamic understanding probably was inadequate in those early days (IIRC similar tests were done on a mirageIII (or V?).
4. Canard coupled/uncoupled delta (Euro canards)
5. Full fuselage shaping and strakes (F-22, F-35 maybe? we’ll see)

didn’t happen was the X-32 using vortex traps, that was interesting. Now, iirc a small chinese company was promoting another kind of vortex trap (longitudinally) however never get a chance to see any diagram of such except words, but even the article doubt it’ll work. Interesting though.

What does all of this have to do with wing loading? Yes it does! in the strictist sense wing loading is Weight/Wing-Area. But what does that mean? It means how much forces is loaded on each normalized wing-area (Say per square feet, sorry guys i’m in the USA). In order to turn, you need to factor in the load factor (or G). Which means that lift (CL-max) not only wing loading is another factor here (imho, the true factor). The area is just a reference area (traditionally used the main wing surface area) since neglecting lift generating “area” from other “areas” will increase the CL-max (higher lift, but same reference area). Thus W/S does not actually allow a strict apple-apple comparison unless the “Wing” is similar and dominates the aircraft. That said, using wing loading to compare between the three euro canards should be very useful, but if it’s used to compare between say a Rafale versus a Su-27, well, not quite 1 for 1.

Conversely, what does a higher W/S mean? It allows a higher Vmax! (other ways include higher T/W, lower CD,0, etc…). So for maneuvering, you want Low W/S, but for high speed you want high W/S. This may seem contradictory for a fighter aircraft until one realize that you can aim for high CL-max instead for maneuvering and maintain a relatively high W/S for V-max. One solution aerodynamically is…see above.

my 2 cents…. 🙂

Now, someone here always lauded the “closed-couple” canard versus the decoupled, what i like to know is what exactly does that mean that one’s better? I have my opinions but just want to know what the person had in mind. How is the coupling between the two vortices necesarily better? maybe, maybe not, what is the details? I wish i can find an article on this specific case.

my pleb view is, it seems the canards are to enhanse aoa flows, so which one has the higher aoa without separation of the flow and stalling the wing ?
the f-18e,22,35 are 50+ deg

JOUST and Slive simulations results are also claimed only by one side but it doesn’t seem to bother you to present them as proven facts for more than 10 years.

Is it so hard to acknowledge that the rafale can take on the typhoon in BVR ?
Is it so hard to realize that BVR combat is not only raw performance figures but also a matter of smart and unpredictable team tactics ?

from what i have read, it wasnt bvr it was a dogfight and i think the rafale would be a good low level dogfighter, and i’d guess better suited than the ef in that situation, as you know, they are differently designed , one is a strike fighter for an aircraft carrier and the other is an intercepter/striker

@Jackonicko, as you know, there wont be a detailed response from uk or usa
its an exercise, and there is the usual ‘we are very happy with the result’ from all parties, which is true
the raf and usaf official policy is not to comment on details, even pilots, hense the un-named uk and us under the table references, except for one turkey who was sprooking the retired officers and finnished up on youtube, that would of blackened his name

It definately wouldn’t be a better word. The CJs couldn’t detect those same sites in that particular training exercise . If they could detect them then, they “would” have done so, live with it.

Nic

so you’re trying to say the f-16 ‘couldnt’ find any and rafale found them all, got a link ?
this is where fanboys get silly, does rafale have a sead weapon ? and how did he get a gps fix for the aasm bomb