Wrt this :
http://www.sldinfo.com/?p=20614

I think Rob Wells is very honest . I appreciate when he says that the Typhoon is a good “baseline” system .
I appreciate even more when he says that Typhoon ‘s agility could be enhanced .
But then , he goes :

Meeting the requirement of building an aircraft with an unstable aerodynamic configuration has been a challenging learning curve for us.

I know , it shows … And he adds :

But that is the sort of technology transfer we could hand over to the Indians so that they can learn how to, if they wish, develop a son of Typhoon or a future combat aircraft with unstable ergonomic capabilities.

If I may say , the Indians would better ask Dassault .

The immediate impact is that we will have a large set of operational requirements that we would need to fulfill in a pretty short time span. Currently, the only official future upgrade that is currently being funded is Meteor. There are indications that there will be additional new weapons, but funding is a problem.

Worrying … but we know that , unfortunatly :

The list of requirements on the Indian RFP is considerable.

Luckily , we are reminded that :

The overall ergonomics of the flight control system, the hydraulics, the electrics, all of the general systems are now mature, and relatively fixed.

Good to know ! 😀

For the Indian industry to come in at this stage is good for India and good for the future evolution of Eurofighter.

So true . In fact , without India the 2020 Typhoon is more than compromised .
I know that I am pointing at the “cons” and I might get some stick for , but I only quote Mr. Wells .
Now , there is also some good stuff in the paper but we don ‘t learn much …
Wrt “unmanned” , he ‘s talking about an hypothetical Indian design .

One more time , it shows that the Typhoon is a good baseline system and most of the basics have been dealt with . Its potential for upgrades is seen as excellent with a proper funding . It is also said that its current capabilities in AtoG and Recon are basics but we knew that already .
To make it short , the aircraft has some pretention but the program is late .

It is still nowhere capable to fight a War like some other aircraft do .
Not yet .

Cheers .

Scorpion :

I think that you underestimate the importance of radar systems and overestimate the capabilities of optical systems.

This is not MY saying but Dassault ‘s .

Furthermore adding countless arrays, but eliminating the front radar is counter productive.

Dassault seems to think otherwise . :rolleyes:

An optical sensor would lack the weather “independent” performance of the radar

There , I agree . We can ‘t cheat physics .
So , why Dassault is thinking this way ? Simple but off topic here : because of third parts detection means and top notch ECM/ESMs .

On top of that it would lack a lot of capabilities! EA, COM, SAR, terrain following etc.

No . 3D mapping , for example , will be done with opticals in real time for SAR and terrain following . OTOH , opticals can ‘t communicate (yet) and can ‘t do EW (of course) .

Erkokite :

Do you have any sources or more information on Dassault’s optronics suite concepts? Or anything on similar concepts? I think this is quite fascinating and I am interested in learning more. Thanks.

I am currently gathering stuff to make a case in one go rather than post details one after another . So far , I don ‘t have much bare some concepts put forward by Dassault and Thalès in very few publications . It looks and sounds promissing ~at least on the technical level~ but I do NOT know YET of any prototype(s) of some sort .
Give me a couple more days and I hope to post something relevant . 🙂

Cheers .

Ero Senin :

We should be very careful to not reproducing mistakes that were made in other places by other manufacturers and militaries. There was a time when we thought the gun was useless…

Yeah I remember but the “stupidity” didn ‘t last long , fortunatly .

But I think we should not scrap the front aperture that can still be of great use, especially since its location allows it to have a rather big antenna surface and covers a wide sector .

Within 10 years , our Optronics will do the same job than a radar for half the size/weight AND RCS .
Don ‘t forget that visible light (visible for “machines” = IR) travels at the same speed than radar waves and directing the beam(s) with GaAs/GaN MMICs + diodes is the same than using an pure AESA radar .
Ranging wil be done through algorythms based on opticals and ESMs . Very long range LRF (not passive) could be used to fullproof the track if needed .
And If you ask me , building an “Active Cancellation” device against a laser is not an easy task …

Cheers .

Ero Senin :

Problem is pilots in general are not wiiling to fly without the front radar just yet. You will tell me they won’t be ask if they are pleased or not, but the psychological factor will be a important thing to overcome if we do reach this point in the near future.

+1 . But if the Optronic suite works as intended , they (the Pilots) will quickly understand and discover the benefit , like to forget for good the “beam riding approach” for a straight on “Banzai !” , all Opronics blazing (passively:D) …

Cheers .

Wrt late triple digit SAMs , the best way is to take them out from far away with stand-off weapons .
Right now , France doesn ‘t have a dedicated weapon for the job bare the SCALP but it is a very expensive shot .

TMor :

A radar can be located by a Rafale flying high but out of the SAM envelope, and the coordinates can be sent to another low flying Rafale.

Yes . But I would prefer the high flying Rafale to take care of the SAM with a French made “ALARM” . Remember that the AASM only has a 15km range when launched at low altitude . If the terrain is favorable (European type) , it is all good but if we talk about flat terrain (desert or plain) , I am not going to ask a Rafale to come that close to a S-300 as it would be suicidal .

France needs a proper weapon for the task and sooner rather than later .

Cheers .

My last post is leading me to talk about where the Rafale is going wrt futur means of using electromagnetic waves and signals .

One thing is more often than not not very much discussed on forums : every 4th gen aircraft (and beyond) has to deal with an always increasing numbers of antennas placed all around the airframe . You wouldn ‘t believe it ! 😮

Example with the M2000 :

All of this stuff is bad for drag and RCS and it also means a HUGE electrical cabling nightmare who has to be entirely linked to the mainframe computer .
Then , an increasing amount of work has to be done to fuse all the infos into something “readable” for the Pilot(s) .

So Dassault and the Companies involved in the Rafale program have been doing some extensive work to ease and smooth out everything , in a very similar way than the US did with the F-22 (and the F-35) but with some personal ideas .

In fact , Dassault ‘s idea is to get rid of the main radar to free the nose for a powerfull and passive Optronic suite with a very low RCS .
The radar work will be done by conformal and cheek GaN arrays as well as the ECM/ECCMs . All the other functions like VHF/UHF/MIDS/TACAN , etc , would also be done with few dedicated conformal antennas .

In this regard , the F-22 showed the way with a splendid design wrt to RCS reduction .

For some years , I have been a strong believer in the idea of reducing the use of electromagnetic waves in an active manner for detection . Sooner rather than later , some will use the enemy ‘ emissions to kill it and it has already started .
Some will say that an Optronic system can ‘t do a radar work for various reasons like : range , range reading , scanning speed , TWS capabilities , SAR (!) , etc …
Well , some should know that digital technologies based on digital optics served by GaAs AND GaN MMICs are on the pipe .

One of the things that Dassault doesn ‘t like is :

Three aspects amongst these needs for improvement are currently clearly identified :
• coverage of the radar surveillance and IFF interrogation function, to provide for surveillance of an area of a surface larger than what is currently possible
• possibility to ensure, for firing control purposes, radar target tracking and aircraft/ missile links over larger sectors and not, as currently feasible, exclusively limited to the aircraft front sector
• possibility to have larger antenna bases so as to increase the ESM functions accuracy.

All of this with a strong EMCON concept :

For most operational functions, it is furthermore desirable to endow such antenna types with a coverage, and hence, scanning adaptativity function which will provide for improvement of discretion during transmission (via direction, beam provision), or even, for protection against jamming during reception (implying, in this case, via antenna milling provision).

Here , two difficulties have been clearly identified :

Here again, two examples may be given ; the compatibilities between radar/ ECM-jammer and IFF interrogator -responder/ MIDS Data Link.

Dassault and Thalès already talked about these known problems and a lot of work has been done to overcome it .
As an example , I know that the “Active Cancellation” problem is down to AtoG load . The RCS of an AtoG loaded Rafale is far harder to manage than an AtoA loaded Rafale because of the airframe flexibility .
The Rafale ‘s wings with heavy externals (2000l tanks , SCALP) will bend during cornering when they will barely move with a couple of Micas .
The “bending” is actually not computable with the hardware at hand . So , the real RCS from an enemy ‘s radar PoV can ‘t be estimated properly .

Conformal AESA arrays (the radars) also have to deal with the elasticity of the airframe :

In fact , everything is very complicated but some very clever people are working hard for the F4 and even F5 standard .

Cheers .

LmRaptor :

You would be right with 60km, if the F-22s RCS was two orders of magnitude larger than what is actually claimed. The reality is, its not.

Well , if you believe the LM BS about the “golf ball size RCS” , you are correct 😀
The F-22 ‘s RCS is at least 10 times bigger than the BS claim . It is more like 0.001m2 (around -30dB) and even there , I ‘m being hugely optimistic .

It is rather easy to prove . 🙂
In 2006 , the Europeans said that stealthy UAC/UCAVs with an RCS of 0.0001m2 (-40dB) will enter service by 2020-2025 . When one check the look of the UAV/UCAVs and the technologies involved , one will understand that this kind of ultra low RCS was not possible in the early 90s and certainly not for a fighter with a F-22 size . That would mean that the USA have a 30-35 years lead ! 😀 Soon , we ‘ll learn that they landed on Pluto …

Scorpion :

Why is it “outright false”? Virtually all indications hind at ~1500 TRMs! Maybe it will be less, but what makes you believe that it will be ~1200 only ?

There , I am going to put forward my opinion . I am aware that most credible sources talk about over 1,200 TRMs (1,425 or 1,500) .
While there is enough room to implement that many TRMs on the swasplate , I wonder where they will get the power from to run the radar … :confused:
To fully use the radar , the Typhoon would need to use something like 15-20kW (!) , depending on the GaAs MMICS used . Here , we also have to take into account the cooling system .

Now , Thalès said that to boost the RBE2-AA output power from 9,6kW to 14kW , only a new cooling pump was needed , meaning that the actual electrical system could cope to such demand .
Is the Typhoon ‘s electrical system capable to provide up to 5,000-6,000 more Watts than the Rafale ? :confused:
If it ‘s the case , I would like to hear more about it .
You all understand that I am skeptical but I don ‘t say that I am right .

Cheers .