Regarding the Mirage 2000H upgrade …what radar is it going to have (range specified 70nm LD)? RDY-2? Also regarding the article stating it will be now carry FOUR BVR missiles, does that meen they will still carry them on the wings ( like the legacy Mirages) without introducing the 2000-5 style fuselage carriage?
Thanks.:)

Probably a journalistic blunder. It will probably be able to carry 6 missiles as all -dash5 mirages. Maybe they count only the 4 Mica EM as BVR missiles, despite the 2 Mica IR being BVR missiles too?

Nic

If use in numbers and with a platform like a B52, B2, B1B (carpet bombing). Or like during WWII burning entire cities just to destroy a few factories…

On a modern battlefield like Lybia, SA7 and other soulder launched AA missiles will force most aicraft to fly at least at medium altitude where precision and visibility will be degraded (Which is why NATO is asking for US drones to fly lower and better ID targets before firing). Against medium and small targets, unguided rockets (at the very least) will do a much better job than dumb bomb.
Everytime you fly a aircraft in hostile situation you are at risk and you want to be able to destroy the target as fast as possible, with as few assets as possible, and preferably outsite the engagement zone of the enemy.
In CAS you dont want your bomb to be dropped on your own soldier, in near urban installation you want to avoid civilian casualties since their psychological effect can lose the war as sure as bullets.
Against armed division, flying to low mean vulnerability even to AA guns…

So really I don’t see many situations were dumb bombs would be relevant.
During the Kargill war IAF used laser-guided bombs with their M2000 but with the guidance been done by other assets due to the lack of pod for the M2000.

In many cases there is a need for precision weapons, but there remains many cases where dumb bombs would do the trick for a fraction of the cost, as evidenced by Aspis’ pics. Come in FAST and drop a few Mk82 and voilà.

Destroying a pair of howizers (or tanks in a tank park) definately belong to those instances as long as there is no risk of collateral damage.

BTW the majority of the strikes were done with dumb bomb during the Kargill conflict, although there also was the first use of LGB by a M2K iirc.

Nic

Yes it actually looks canted.

Nic

IMO there is still a place for dumb bombs.

Nic

No it isnt, it is the same picture and background as this from the thales press release

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Releases/Markets/Defence/2011/20110209_-_Thales_AESA_RBE2_radar_validated_on_Rafale/

ed: lol, looks like thales has removed their close up photo from that link 🙂

IIRC it was already exposed here by djcross that it was a photoshop from the same demo radar or do I mix it up with another picture?

Nic

So in a way you are suggesting that the proposed uprated M-88 will force changes to the Rafale’s intakes ?

I’ve read here that the intakes would indeed have to be replaced, and that it has already been done, and for a lower RCS than the current ones despite the size increase.

I’m pretty sure I’ve read it here in one of the various Rafale threads, but I can’t remember what the source was, so take it with a pich of salt.

Nic

Is this something you got from any official manufactor site?
If so can you post a link?

Usually what AESA do better over PESA is a better resolution in the same range pattern but any increase in detection range is not a given.
If it is the same size antenna that is..

IIRC it’s been said by dassault, I remember reading it, probably in some Fox 3 issue.

The very reason that the AdlA and MN ordered the AESA sooner was to allow the Rafale to use the full range of the Meteor.

Nic

After watching the pics I don’t think there must be a huge difference between the placement of the four missiles on the Rafale or EF. Certainly not enough to change the RCS impact too drastically from the front anyway.

Nic