😮 3x the range !! wow, that’s quite shocking, ww..

Quite funny that according to ELTA, the EL/M-2052 radar (AESA, 4-10kW, 130-180kg) only offers ca 25-40% more detection range compared to much smaller slotted EL/M-2032 (2-3 kW, 70-100kg), this all depending on number of T/R modules/antenna size/output power much more than anything else. But looks like IAI still has something to learn..

Please, contact IAI ELTA at 972-8-857-2312, they surely will be quite amused to hear your story about 300% range increase.. ROTFL

Since when ELTA suddenly became the benchmark in radar technology? So far only Raytheon and NorthropGrumman delivered operational, fighter-sized AESAs.

Totally wrong. The various MMICs of an AESA radar all emit the same signal (with a different phase shift to steer the beam), that’s how the high antenna gain is achieved.

If they all emitted a different signal, the radar range would be measured in inches.

That’s the kind of answer that make me realize you don’t have the beginning of a clue as to how radars work.

:p

aurcov :

The French Rafale pilots said that the F-22 ran out of fuel few times (I already posted the link to Cpt. Romain ‘s blog) .

No , I don ‘t say such thing . I don ‘t say “will” run out of fuel , I say it has ran out of fuel . It has been noted by the pilots that the F-22 , when using the AB , is burning fuel at an alarming rate and can ‘t withstand a hard dogfight for a long time .
We ‘re not talking about cruise at high altitude .

I quote you:

The F-22 ran out of fuel multiple times and the officials called it a draw , following the RoE . The Rafale never ran out of fuel .
Read what Lt Col Grandclaudon Cpt Romain says .
Romain even added :
“Cet énorme avion qui est conçu pour ne pas avoir à engager un combat tournoyant a su démontrer de belles capacités de manoeuvres à basse vitesse au prix d’une consommation pétrole très importante…”

The french pilot said that the fuel consumption is high. Nothing about running out of fuel. Also, nothing about needing the AB in dogfight.

Yes a M2000-9 had a “gun kill” on a F-22 and yes the Rafale is more agile than a M2000 . It ‘s now established facts .

Establised by who?

Irrelevant . Furthermore , the Ku band (12 to 18 GHz) is more easily detectable that the L band (40 to 60 GHz (NATO), 1 to 2 GHz (IEEE)) , the Ku band is also susceptible to “rain fade” and “snow fade” . Google it to know more . 😎

Google it to know more ??? Here http://www.datalinksolutions.net/dls/MIDS%20LVT%201%20Data%20Sheet%200209.pdf is a brochure about the Link 16 terminal (MIDS-LVT) from Datalink Solutions (a joint venture between RockwellCollins and BAE Systems North America) the company that manufactures those terminals. As you can see for yourself the L (CPSM) band 969 to 1206 MHz.

Maybe but personally I doubt it especially when the F-22 is build to fly high and a good IRST will detect it (against a cold sky) . Then , when you fly at high speed (supercruise) , the airframe gets hotter .
F-22 seen from the Rafale ‘s OSF (TV) :

Google to see what is the air density sat 60,000 ft. As for the Rafale’s OSF do you know the distance between the two planes? Because if the two were in WVR it is not a big deal. As about the IRST I attached a page to see what the (French) Air&Cosmos has to say (lower right). The future Rafales won’t even have an IRST, but an improved TV channel. So much about the vounted IRST…

Not exactly . The main purpose of having an AESA radar has very little to do with LPI , as explained before

Explained by you?
Well, let’s check some serious sources, not you:

The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability of the radar defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems. The AN/APG-77 radar is capable of performing an active radar search on RWR/ESM equipped fighter aircraft without the target knowing he is being illuminated. Unlike conventional radars which emit high energy pulses in a narrow frequency band, the AN/APG-77 emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission. When multiple echoes are returned, the radar’s signal processor combines the signals. The amount of energy reflected back to the target is about the same as a conventional radar, but because each LPI pulse has considerably less amount of energy and may not fit normal modulation patterns, the target will have a difficult time detecting the F-22.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/aircraft/f-22-avionics.htm

MSphere :

You know , I am not even sure of it :confused:
I mean , 2-nil after 6 engagements is certainly not showing any clear advantage and when you know than more than once the F-22 ran out of fuel (which in my book is a Rafale victory as the F-22 is Bingo and unable to fight anymore) , it doesn ‘t tell much …

A draw in DACT doesn’t mean that one of the oponent run out of fuel. It means that the time alocated was up, or one of the oponents came below the allowed altitude.

BTW, in this thread, you keep mentioning that the F 22 will run out of fuel. Well, without EFTs the Rafale has a combat radius of ~ 400 Nmiles, while the F 22 ~ 600 Nmiles (subsonic only both of them). In your opinion which of the two will run out of fuel earlier?

Then , A M2000-9 shot a F-22 at the same exercise while being less agile than the Rafale .

Who told you this?

Perhaps the level of Sensor ability and level of fusion on a tactical platform are relative, not an absolute?

A properly equipped, modern F-16 model, in this comparison to the F-35, would arguably have adequate sensors. In some aspect, it would even have ‘superior’ sensors. Take for example: a future F-16 package operating w/ Litening ATP-SE, LW Shadow IRST, HTS and SABR radar (your F-16’ized APG-81). That package of sensors could very easily be argued as an even superior sensing capability than EOTS + APG-81. Add this new Terma pylon kit with multi-spectral, spherical, day/night aperture coverage as a bonus to your adequate SA, too. The savings?? Perhaps apply them to the next-gen top of the line stand-off tools and EW/EA equip.

Furthermore, being in a new era as mentioned, perhaps conceive of UAV employing specialized ground radar as part of the NCW chain… now your package has been force-multiplied with ground/shelter-penetrating SAR vision – some serious tacair situational awareness.

No way!

– SABR will only have ~ 60 % of the detection range of the APG 81 because the smaller number of T/R modules;

– the HTS will only detect radars in frontal sector (120 deg) not 360 deg;

– the SABR will process a much smaller number of targets (vs. ~ 40 in APG 81 case) because it won’t get the huge processing power of the F 35 (a battery of 48 PowerPC, GigaHertz clock speed processors, and a high speed digital bus with around 1,000 times the throughput of the Mil-Std-1553B on the F 16);

– because the mentioned lack of processing power, the pilot will have to mentally put together informations from radar, HTS, datalink); this means slower firing solution, slower reaction time, risk of redudancies (two sensors that each indicate a threat; in reality there is only one; in F 35 case, the sensor fusion eliminate this);

– the EOTS will bring the more than 100 % of Litening capability in air-ground and let’s say 60-70 % of LW IRST in air-air (but strongly weather dependent, so this F 16 advantage is disputable);

– need I add what this sensor load (+ of course weapons stored underwings, and 3 EFTs) means for the F 16 max. speed, maneuvrability, acceleration, climbing speed? Someone posted the polar graph of F 16. A clean F 16 can reach in mil power 1.05M; with a modest load (2 x Sidewinders 6 x 225 lbs. bombs and 1 EFT it barelly go 0.65M in mil. power ! That’s a 40 % reduction in kinematics for a modest load (1,5 ton of weapon and 1 EFT) ! So, an F 35 with 2.3 ton of weapons in the internal bay, will go further (with only the fuel in the internal tank) than an F 16 with 3 EFTs and only 1,5 tons! Not to mention faster… Also, an F 35 is a 9G plane at this load, while the F 16 is ~ 6G…

– still no DAS on F 16 (and on any other fighter for that matter);

– no “discrete” datalink on the F 16, only the Link 16 — great for receiving info from AWACS/Rivet Joint, etc; not so secure (read it can be located) when transmitting from above the hostile territory

Guys, I have a quiz: guess who is the author of those (rather favorable) remarks about the F 35:

In comparing the Joint Strike Fighter against the Eurofighter Typhoon, Dassault Rafale, F-16C/B60 and F/A-18E/F, the Joint Strike Fighter will have a decisive advantage in its very moden integrated avionic architecture, which is modelled on that of the F-22A but built using militarised commercial computing technology. With a battery of GigaHertz clock speed processors, high speed digital busses with around 1,000 times the throughput of the Mil-Std-1553B busses in the teen series and Eurocanard fighters, it is no contest – the Joint Strike Fighter is in an unbeatable position. While growth versions of the teen series and Eurocanard fighters might see a similar integrated avionic architecture in the post 2010 period, this is unlikely to be a revenue-neutral design change

Against all of these contenders, the Joint Strike Fighter has an unassailable survivability advantage in its use of evolved second generation stealth technology, again derived from the F-22A technology base. With a forward sector radar cross section cited to be `close to the F-22′ the Joint Strike Fighter will present a challenging target to forward sector radar guided threats

As a bomb truck, the Joint Strike Fighter falls into a similar payload class to these players, but with the important distinction that it carries its bombs or missiles internally, and it has an internal fuel capacity similar to that of these competing aircraft loaded up with external fuel tanks. In practical terms this means that the Joint Strike Fighter can carry a similar load of fuel and bombs without the critical transonic regime drag penalty of external stores. Therefore it can carry the same bomb load further using a similar fuel load. Claims that the X-35 demonstrator exceeded the Joint Strike Fighter combat radius requirement should come as no surprise – the cited figure of 600+ nautical miles is credible and a distinct gain over the F-16C and F/A-18A/C. This radius is however unlikely to be acheivable if the F-35 is heavily loaded with external stores, since it will like its competitors incur a major drag penalty.

As an air combat fighter the Joint Strike Fighter is more difficult to compare, since the differences against the teen series and Eurocanards are less distinct. In terms of achievable radar performance its small aperture radar will fall broadly into the same class as its direct competitors. While transonic turn rate performance figures remain classified, the F-35 is a 9G rated fighter and is thus apt to deliver highly competitive transonic close-in dogfight performance against the teen series and Eurocanards. The empty weight of the F-35, at 26,500 – 30,000 lb is deceptive insofar as it must be compared against a conventional competitor’s weight including external pylons and empty fuel tanks – nevertheless it is in the empty weight class of an F-15 or F/A-18E rather than F-16C or F/A-18C.

With a nominal payload of 2,000 lb of AAMs the USAF F-35 yields a combat thrust/weight ratio around 1.1:1 which is competitive against a modestly loaded F-16, F/A-18A/C or Eurocanard, but with a typically better combat radius or combat gas allowance – however it is not in the class of an F-15C let alone F-22A. Therefore the F-35 should provide competitive acceleration and climb performance at similar weights to the F-16, F/A-18A/C or Eurocanards. With the upper portions of the split inlets likely to produce good vortices, the F-35 should provide respectable high alpha performance and handling, especially if flight control software technology from the F-22A was exploited fully.

In the absence of published hard numbers for supersonic acceleration, energy bleed and persistence performance, the only reasonable conclusion is that the F-35 is likely to be competitive against the teen series and Eurocanards in combat configuration but decisively inferior to the F-22A.

1) Bill Sweetman

2) Peter Goon

3) Carlo Kopp

Having a mixture of high/low range of equipment is good. Interesting with the sale of 193 LANTIRN Pods and 158 Sniper Pods now these are some heavy duty equipment enough targeting pods to go around for every aircraft.

And what would be the “low” part of the mixture here?