Was RBE-2’s “low” detection range justified at design level by the use of LPI oriented specs that compromised the design?…that would make pretty sense to me, have read (don’t know how much accurate) that RBE-2 was touted as an LPI radar (or something with LPI characteristics)

Here is a part of an article we can find on “abovetopsecret”, which is an extract from an EdefenseOnline article :

The RBE2 radar had been in development since 1989. It was decided that the radar would receive a new phased-array antenna with full electronic scan, instead of the electro-mechanical scan employed by the Eurofighter Typhoon’s Captor radar. Initially, the radar received a passive phased-array antenna, but ultimately an active electronically scanned array (AESA) will be fitted. According to French Ministry of Defense (MoD) sources, the RBE2 radar has a modest range about 100 km against fighter aircraft, but it operates in a low-probability-of-intercept (LPI) mode and is resistant to deception jamming. The Typhoon’s Captor has a range of 160 km against fighters but is considered more prone to jamming and can track fewer targets. The French Air Force accepted the penalty in range reduction for the benefits of LPI and other characteristics. Moreover, in network-centric operations, a common air picture will be transmitted via the Multifunctional Information Distribution System (MIDS) to the Rafale, enabling the aircraft to make use of off-board sensors.

The link given was :
http://www.edefenseonline.com/default.asp?func=article&aref=06_06_2005_IF_01

That should be something from the past now where block 5 is in service with the phase 5 FCS. With Phase 5 there should be no more restrictions as it was the case with all earlier production models. But I know exactly what you mean. I remember the great airshow performances of DA1 & 5 and how poor the once looked with earlier SPAs.

Let’s continue it there :
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1149785&postcount=277

@Pit,
RBE2’s tracking range is given with ~100 km in look down conditions against a 3 m² target.

Where did you find the 3m² figure ?

Don’t get me wrong – si je pourrais communiquer dans même Français écrit un quart comme vous des types employez l’Anglais, je serais enchanté. Mais je suis désolé, je ne peux pas.

This still really deserve a “Bravo Monsieur Jackonicko ! ! !” 😉 Don’t be shy. 😀

For TMor:

Is there any info related on radar range (I know, that’s a boring question) of RBE-2?, mostly I have heard is “100 km fighter aircraft”, I’m sure at France, more info should be know…

I would kill to have more about RBE-2. But the only things i can tell you are :
-MN pilots said that the RBE-2 of standard F1 has similar range to RDY.
-with standard F2, the range has been increased, but i think it’s by a very little amount.

Pit, i’m sincerely sorry, but even in France, we can’t find such data.:o

TMor,

IS there no answer for poor Pit’s questions regarding RDY 🙁 :confused:

Thanks in advance 🙂

I’m sorry, but no… It’s frustrating…

Ok… Whatever, 😀

For those looking for some answers, i’ve had a big “i’ve been told party”. I’ve learnt some details about several points, which do not appear in magazines or internet, or books.
For many reasons, people may believe me, or not. I really don’t care though I thrust the man.

Inclined seat :
-the usual 29° indication isn’t accurate. In fact, on all production Rafale, the seat is inclined at 34°. The Rafale A’s seat was at 37° MAX.
Though the seat is inclined at 34°, the pilot’s back is at 24°, but this results as an equivalent overall inclination of 29°. This last figure is the one we use to see, you now understand why.

G-Suit :
-Dassault has tested the Autoflug Libelle G-Suit, on Mirage 2000, Rafale, and of course in centrifugal machine.
An anecdote : even under 12G, the man in the centrifugal machine was able to move his 2 arms to salute the camera ! ! ! 😮
This revolutionary G-Suit really impressed French pilots, in the “CM”… But not in the aircraft…
It’s been considered too heavy and difficult to operate. Before the mission, it takes 45 minutes to prepare it and dress-up. The France dropped it. Other details are classified.

Helmet Mounted Sight :
4 Helmets have been tested :
Topsight, Topsight-E, Gerfaut, Dash-4

Topsight and Gerfaut were flight tested, without integration : they were discarded because of bad design : centering, weight, not enough ergonomic.
Dash-4 was not flight tested, but rejected for the same reasons. In fact, HMS are still heavy and tiring for pilot’s neck muscles, and air forces using it do not always use it.
Only the Topsight-E has been flight tested and integrated. While it’s not used for the Rafale, it’s been chosen for M2000-5. I can’t give you more details. My understanding of that is that they are waiting for better helmets.

That’s all. 😎

TMor,

I thought that you were suggesting that those were the tactics used in ID (they weren’t for the obvious reasons) and that what you wrote could have been misinterpreted as meaning that Typhoon’s close in performance was poorer than anyone else’s.

J

Surely not. This was to emphasize the fact that the TVC increase the “dangerousness” of dogfights, even for fighters like EF/Rafale.
Even Rafale pilots recognize that they’d better kill the TVC fighter in BVR, because in dogfight, it could be too dangerous. It’s not that it’s impossible to win a dogfight, it’s just that it must end fast, because they can’t sustain.

TMor with regard to your links to the JOUST document……

Ok, i was afraid it meant :

“Tmor reMOVE your links to the Joust Jpegs” for some legal issues. 😀

TMor/OPIT
Therefore: MAC CG is not a measure of instability, in itself, though it is usually a useful indicator.

Nor is a rearward shift of CG with external stores unusual.

It’s still 10 points higher than the usual “>35%” Typhoon’s figure. This is the reason why i think it was worth commenting, as MAC CG is the best known measure of instability.
If you have something better, show us. I doubt so.

You may even note that I was the first to jump in to defend the AdlA in Afghanistan. I’m a good European, me…. 😉 )

Thank you, but there’s a reason : the accusation was so silly and unfounded that not a single French would have answered.

Don’t get me wrong, it was the best Rafale/Typhoon journo report I’ve seen, but clearly the aviation press can and should do better.

I always think the same.

What we need, of course, is for Dassault to let someone like Craig Penrice loose on the Rafale simulator (or the aircraft) and for EF GmbH to let Eric G have a flight in the Typhoon active cockpit (or the aircraft). Or perhaps Magnus Olsson could fly both. Then we might get some real insight.

I basically agree. If you knew…
But remember that the Fred George article isn’t intended to compare. So it has nothing to do with our permanent frustration about truth about Typhoon VS Rafale.

As to the accusation that John Lake wrote about Typhoon as if FBW had never existed, I’d be astonished.

No, this is not what i wanted to say.
The Lake’s article i’m referring to explained the Typhoon’s instability and FCS just like if the readers had never heard about it before, with plenty of details to make the picture as clear as possible. Very interesting. BUT it gave me the feeling that a reader who didn’t know about previous instable/FCS design could think, after the reading, that the Typhoon pioneered in these areas. Wich would be wrong. And I think it wasn’t what Lake intended to do.

And the feeling you had after reading the Fred George’s article is, in my view, personnal : i doubt FG wanted to make us believe that Rafale was the first to use instability/FCS. I think he only gave plenty of details about the FCS, revealing the 45.61% MAC CG figure 😉 .
He only wrote “the rafale has no…” “the rafale has…” “the rafale is…”. He didn’t write “Rafale is the first…”.
So, I think that your impression on this article is very similar to mine about Lake’s article.
Do you understand ? 🙂 I think that you’d better have understood FG if each time he gave a detail about something, he immediatly said after “like the Typhoon”, or “contrary to F-18″… Am i wrong ?

I guess that our US friends just aren’t as used to highly unstable FBW aircraft as we Europeans are, with Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale on our doorstep.

According to what i explained you just above, i don’t agree with this comment. I think there’s no problem with this.