I do read french, and i am aware of the ONERA tests, but thanks for the offer. 🙂

The point that DJcross was making is that you do need real time communication for that “2020 peer scenario” (i do agree with him), and that consumes a huge amount of bandwith that must be encripted/secure and resistant to jamming.

I disagree that real time communication are needed. If it was true, then cruise missiles would be absolutely useless too! Yet cruise missiles are a weapon of choice for first day of war scenarii too. Most likely the targets will be known prior to the launch of the aicrafts. ROE and update on targets can be downloaded from a position preplanned during the mission briefing.

But the most important part is that IF this isn’t possible for some reason:

1/ Datalink used is very well possible.
2/ If Datalink/Radio use is unavailable because of jamming, then I doubt a F35 would be able to conduct any kind of mission againt any serious IADS other than preplanned strike.

Do you think that a F35 without datalink/comms would fare any better than a UCAV on preplanned route (updated via satcom)?

The use of laser satcom is a wonderful answer, it has massive bandwith (the 2006 test managed a 50 Mbps on real time, taking into acount that the Sat was 36 000 km above earth, this is fantastic, i have seen theoretical maximums of 360 Mbps for this technology), its almost impossible to jam, and the time delay is less than one second even if the receptor is on the other side of the planet.
But the drawback (and you can find in the internet documents about the Onera LOLA that state this, including severall in French) is that you must have a stable and predictable flight path.
Imagine this, you have two send/receivers laser modens, one in the Sat, and another on the UAV, they are separated by thirty six thousand km´s, both the sat and the UAV are moving, at that distance the laser must hit one antena with a few cm2… The 2006 tests were made with the aircraft flying in straight line for periods of 20 minutes, if it went left or right, up or down it would lose the signal .

http://www.icsoconference2008.com/cd/pdf/S13%20-%20Fiber-Free%20Space%20Optic%20-%20Vaillon.pdf

Not exactly a 9g´s capability is it? 😉

Cheers 🙂

I’m aware of the shortcomings of this kind of communications. Then again there is little chance that 6th gen ucavs reach operational status before what? 20 years?

Technology should be much much improved by then so the constraints lessened. No doubt there will still be limitations, but it could translate in an operationally useable concept.

That’s besides the point though. If datalink don’t work for UCAVs, then they won’t work for F35 or anything else either.

Nic

I thought the target of this article was an assessment of the Rafale and not bashing of other types.;)

Different french posters may have different interpretation 😎

Let’s be clear, the alternatives to Isreali help steer you towards strictly French parts, like the MICA missile for bvr. You also have to develop a supply chain of parts. The French solutions don’t translate well for a nation that will most likely evolve to use nato standard equipment. By the time you rip out all the old displays and equipment, then put in the overpriced French-derived kit, you may as well buy something that was better from the beginning. The Isrealis are more sensitive to these realities and can customize just about anyone’s hardware to work with your current jet for much less money. In effect they could make the F.1 an option.

South Africa could probably integrate A-Darter and R-Darter for quite cheap. Israeli LGBs could easily be adapted in case AASM is considered too expensive.

But to be honest I think the surplus Gripen As would provide the best bang for the buck if Iraq is to purchase a western type.

Nic

Probably a silly question, but why not buying more Merlins instead of Chinooks?

And as for Blackhawks? Are they really serious?

Nic

Nicolas

Laser satcom has its own problems too. Using a laser for comunications means that we are using a “direct line of sight” channel on the strictest sense of the word “direct”.
You have a sat a few thousand km´s above earth, equiped with the laser, that beam of light MUST hit an antena with a very small size in the top of the UAV/UCAV… Both the Sat and the UAV/UCAV are moving, there´s a distance of thousands of km´s between them… This makes Willian Tell look like a blind man!
To use a laser satcom, the necessity of a stable and predictable flight is imperative. Thats pretty ok for a Global Hawk over the Pacific patrolling the northern barrier, not so nice for a UCAV trying to DEAD a S-400 battery with Flankers nearby.
The Laser setles the bandwith, timing and jaming issues, but it brings its own problems.

Cheers 🙂

Tests have been done by the french already (ONERA using a Mystere 20 testbed).

http://www.onera.fr/actualites/2006-0146-liaison-optique-lola.php

If you don’t read french or a google translation doesn’t work I’d be glad to translate the article for you.

By the time the operational dvpt of Neuron comes online it could very well be a reality.

And in my post I wasn’t describing a real time communication, but a download of target data and ROE, and fire authorisation. Even a manned bomber isn’t going to look for targets by himself on a 1st day of war scenario and let the pilot decide what or what not to engage.

Nic

edit: I think I remember that the laser satcom was mentionned to be a part of the Rafale mid life update for around 2020.

I agree, but all fighters will have to carry weight, if they’re armed. It’s the distribution of that weight, that I’m getting at. If you keep your weight near the center of gravity, it’ll be less of a hindrance than out on the wings(especially with EFT and A/G weapons).

Aside for roll I don’t see how it is so much of a hindrance?

Nic

woops

His reference to carrier capability and “this could be used even by UK” and the reference to the F-35 gives it all away…. Forget about Typhoon, this is really F-35 vs Rafale… The way I read this is that Collins suggest that if the F-35B (or C) becomes too expensive the UK can safely pick the Rafale instead!

I wish France bought her PA2 (second aircraft carrier) off the shelf from the UK at the same price the UK buys hers, and sold the Rafale in compensation to the RN at the same price the MN bought theirs. It would be a win win. An airgroup of Rafales would definately be enough for the foreseeable future. And a mixed Taranis+/Rafale airgroup would probably be even more efficient than a mixed Taranis/F35 group. 1st because the Rafale will most likely cost less to operate, and secondly because a two seat Rafale would be ideal to coordonate UCAVs strikes from a safe distance, while at the same time prividing air cover/buddy-buddy services.

Nic