BluewingsSnow Monkey :
RBE-2-AESA´s ´ultimate´ array is also planned to be with GaN, and possibly before the side-arrays and Spectra,
though time-schdules seem to sliding on introducing GaN on ALL features (but not on Spectra),
No , it ‘s the other way around : SPECTRA first , then cheek arrays then RBE2 . It has been posted earlier on .
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion82 :
When are GaN to be introduced on the RBE2AA? 2018?
Sorry that was a must.
I would say 2018-2020 . But by this time , we ‘ll also have GaN cheek arrays 😎
Scorpion , I am sure that you also noticed the :
The UK MoD funding will lead to the first flight of a Captor-E prototype in 2013. But it will feature only limited radar modes,
In 2013 , the RBE2-AA will not fly its first flight as a prototype with limited radar modes but will fly operationaly with all the modes you can think of .
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion82 :
It isn’t but people should take into account that the F-35C is not for the RN only, but also for the RAF. Introducing two types would be too expensive, thus introducing Rafale for the RN & RAF would be redundant on behalf of the RAF.
Ok , that sounds right .
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion82 :
The Rafale would be no serious alternative to the F-35
Oh , really , who says so ? any proof , facts ?
Because sincerely , it is far easier for me to prove that the Rafale already do what a F-35 is supposed to do in 5-7 years (if it works) .
Yes the RCS difference in between a AtoA Rafale and a clean F-35 should be rather big , but if you use the two aircraft in a Libyan “type” conflict , I say that the Rafale has the edge over a working F-35 and the cost will be lower (maintenance and fuel to start with) .
In fact , the F-35 is a thing that should not be because it has no real relevance in actual or futur combats . It doesn ‘t fill any gap(s) .
If you go against a 3rd power Nation , it is an expensive overkill .
If you go against a “5th gen Nation” , you use cruise missiles to hit the borders air defenses and you use a Stealth aircraft for air-dominance . Then , aircraft like SH , Vipers , SU-XXs , M2Ks , etc , can go in .
Basically , only a clean F-35 (internal fuel and weapon load) is of any use , but in this case you don ‘t have much range and ammo .
I freely admit that aircraft like the Typhoon or the Rafale would not be at ease versus a PAKFA or a J-20 but are we going to fight Russia or China (or the USA) in the next 20 years ? I don ‘t think so . 😎
Aurel :
“Until the JSF arrives”. I really hope this day never comes, and we will finally see the Rafale as Europes standard naval fighter.
That would indeed be the best move to make but very unlikely , unless the F-35 is really going pear shape (possible) .
Scorpion82 :
and more or less redundant to the Typhoon.
lol , nice try 😀
Cheers .
BluewingsBloodshot :
The comments of AVM Greg Bagwell also echo those the former Air Chief Marshal Glenn Torpy.
Quote:
Between 40,000 and 55,000 feet, nothing can touch it except an F-22
Well , most SU-35 and Rafale ‘s drivers will disagree with that . Foxbats , Mig-31s and M2000 ‘s drivers might also have their words here …
My personal opinion is that the Typhoon is a souped-up M2000 even if it ‘s based on an average design with some obvious mistakes wrt aerodynamics , AtoG role (lack of heavy wet points) and overall discretion (lacking in RCS , EMCON and electronical means) .
Cheers .
BluewingsEagle1 posted :
RBE2 AESA : azimut is now 70° instead of 60° previously and range is increased by more than 40%. Further range increase has been demonstrated for UAE needs by increasing the power output from 9,6kW to 14kW.
Very interesting and I am glad that we have some numbers . Many of us were expecting those , myself included . 🙂
The broader azimut is welcomed and shows that the technology is gently moving forward .
The actual RBE2-AA ‘s range (with 9,6kW power output) is said to be around 165km against a 5 sqM target . With a 14kW power output , the range against the same target will be around 185km , maybe a wee bit more .
At the cost of :
The only thing necessary is to change the Coolanol pomp for a new one in order to cope with the increase heating.
Well , I expect that the French Rafales will receive a new pump before 2014 . 😎
For the 5th batch side arrays should be added to increase the azimuth coverage to more than 120°
I note the “should” . From what I ‘m not supposed to know (:o:D) , there is no problem with the technology , bare the compatibility “glitch” with SPECTRA . Thalès still have a couple of years to smooth out the software . Nevertheless , will the DGA (French Gov) give the money for ?
Also , (here I ‘m gonna get some stick before to end up as a hangman) , we do get some new clues about the ongoing Active Cancellation process .
We can note the :
which contain passive and active solutions.
Also :
GaN spectra (already in development since 2009 under the INCAS project (INsert CApability Spectra)
and :
Other features kept secret by the french Mod
If one still had a doubt , one should think hard again .
As I said on a different thread (but only very few have faith in me) , the problem lies down to 3 things : -1) the sensitivity of the RWRs , -2) the response time of the system , -3) the quality of the emiting antennas .
I must also add the “Intelligence” running the system .
Wrt to the AESA antennas , we get this :
GaN spectra (already in development since 2009 under the INCAS project (INsert CApability Spectra)
Overall , very good news 🙂
What to think about :
Scoop : a New Franco-British AtA missile in replacement of Mica-IR and ASRAM is well on track at a discussion level between the two MOD.
Why would they do that ? The two missiles are perfectly fine , so ?
They both must have something better in mind , hey ! What kind of missile it could be ?
Better focal array seeker ? better kinematics ? Both ? 🙂
Interesting times to come …
Cheers .
BluewingsI said :
“We already know that the Rafale has better sustained and instantaneous turn rate than the Typhoon in low altitude and/or at Sea level .“
and redreidy , you responded :
Tell me how u know that as a fact or is that again a opinion?
Well , everytime the Typhoon has been messing around with the Rafale in WVR , it has been a spanking . The AdlA even said after watching the videos from the guncam that Rafale needed 40 seconds and three turns to kill a Typhoon .
We also spank F-16s (flying with the US TopGun school) while the Typhoon get spanked by Pakistanis F-16s .
It is about aerodynamics , redreidy .
Recently , some “discovered” (?) that APEXs could give the Typhoon a 10% better turn rate , hurray ! 😀
People at Dassault probably said :
– “Hey look , they stopped being stupid and they understood the “fluids” !”
– “Well , it is about time …
– “Don ‘t be sarcastic , it’ s a great step for them . It might even help them to correct the wings .”
– “Now , YOU are sarcastic , lol !
– “Well … Yes , I admit 😀
– “lol !”
Really , I never understood why they put the canards in the wrong place , why they forgot APEXs (LREX) and why the wings ‘s curvature is not optimized for lateral lift .
A good bloke posted some years ago a rather good but incomplete study on the Typhoon vs Rafale :
http://www.2shared.com/document/AsllGC_h/Rafale_VS_Typhoon.html
I believe that his drag coefficient is not accurate snce the Rafale showed in the real world a greater lead in WVR than what the paper is showing , but it is telling already .
I get the “stick” when I say that the Rafale is superior to the Typhoon in almost every situation bare the high altitude BVR combat but not one poster can prove me wrong with a clever talk , good numbers and decent links .
Now , I am NOT saying that the Typhoon is a bad aircraft , far from it in fact . On other forums , I have been defending the Typhoon to the death , specialy against some US people .
When the Typhoon will get the Captor-E (even the AtoA F1 standard) and Meteor , the jet will be a real killer in BVR . It will be able to take on a souped up SU-30 , a SU-35 , an updated J10 or any other 4.5 gen fighter with ease . Its last line “self-defenses” (towed decoys) are the best around .
Its IRST (obviously upgraded within the years to come to be even better) coupled with the Captor-E and DASS will give it some real capabilities against VLO targets . It only needs a long range IR missile (like the Rafale because the IR Mica is only good at up to 60km) .
An IR Meteor would be a tremendous threat .
On the AtoG role , they ‘ll have to cope with the aircraft ‘s wrong design wrt external fuel + external load but they will find some decent versatile warloads to make the aircraft a very good bomber . Soon , around 2018 , it will become a really good multirole work horse for Europe , no doubt .
Cheers .
BluewingsEro Senin :
there is not much evidence of active cancelation on the Rafale.
In fact , we have no evidence at all .
Even if one add all the available infos on the public domain since 1996 , one will not get much . Officialy , we ‘ve got nothing , nada , zero .
What one can find is some clues here and there , without any backup of some sort but if one is curious and dig a bit , there is some interesting material to be found .
The document I talked about 2 weeks ago on another thread , well , I erased it without making a copy because I shouldn ‘t had it in my hands to start with . From what I read , active cancellation is working , also I never found anything telling me that the technology was implemented on the Rafale .
You must understand , Gentlemen , that if I give any details , even insignificant , I might get into trouble . Without betraying anything about the technology , I still can say that SPECTRA ‘s AESA antennas are going to be upgraded . I can also say that the paper is showing that there are some difficulties with regard to the futur AESA “cheek” arrays , about compatibility .
Thalès are very clever people and I have no doubt that they are making progresses . The Carbone system already demonstrated some “curious” properties some years ago . Even fitted on a Falcon , the system was capable to hide the small liner from NATO ground radars and the Falcon is not “stealthy” by any means (it ‘s front RCS is around 10 sqm) .
When , years ago , Thalès released this pdf , I noticed straight away the capabilities and main features :
http://www.thalesgroup.com/Portfolio/Documents/AirborneElectronicAttack-Product-Brochure-March2004_pdf/?LangType=2057
That was back in 2004 , While the pdf is rather “generic” , it says more than it looks . At this time , SPECTRA was F2 (F2.1 in fact from my own counting) .
It is now F3 (F3.2 in fact) .
I say that AC has not been implemented yet because SPECTRA ‘s AESA antennas have not been upgraded yet . I do not know if the actual Rafale ‘s computing power is capable to “feed” the antennas but I have read nothing talking about a “number crushing” bottleneck .
What has probably be implemted first (from 2008 or so) are top of the range DRFM techniques , better accuracy and better passive ranging as well as better power management (EMCON concept) .
I am sure India has been briefed on the matter . Or maybe not …
Cheers .
BluewingsLmRaptor :
I disagree that the Rafale has better sustained turn rates than the Typhoon – especially in medium to high altitude BVR combat.
Well , this is debatable .
We already know that the Rafale has better sustained and instantaneous turn rate than the Typhoon in low altitude and/or at Sea level .
It shouldn ‘t change much at medium altitude and high subsonic .
In high altitude and supersonic , the Typhoon ‘s engines should give the fighter more energy and so , a better sustained turn rate .
At least on paper .
Cheers .
BluewingsMildave :
there are no indication that Mirages 2000 were used in SEAD operation.
I think I got you there ;):)
I never said anything like SEAD Ops .
Mirage F1 CRs flown in right after the Rafales , prior to the strikes . Their job was to validate the chosen routes and find some Libyian air defense targets of opportunity .
That was done by satellites, and specialized aircraft like sentinel, global hawk, C 160 Gabriel, Awacs etc which were operating close to Libya weeks before the war began.
True . We also had “Operatives” on the ground .
As usual , the idea was to use the Intels you are talking about to direct the Rafales on the presumed SAM sites to get real time data who could be used to plan futur strikes with cruise missiles . If the AdlA turned away the US help , it is because we didn ‘t need them and we wanted to run the stuff our way .
Here , I put a finger on NATO .
NATO procedures are mostly based on US doctrine , sometimes old and obsolete , when others have more efficient tactics and materials . The French already complained a lot over A-Stan because the rules of the USA were outdated with what we ~French~ can do .
In fact , the USA is closely watching what the Europeans do over Libya . It is because they lost the spear head factor and only rely on “blanket bombing” from what they call safe distance , as long as they are not up against someone having a decent submarine Navy .
Funny how the main man on the blocks is so affraid of a heads-up .
Cheers .
BluewingsBlauerMax :
Wouldn’t this require alot of compute power to perform in real-time?
Good question but wrong question . 😎
In fact , all the work is done by the software as long as it has what it needs to work properly . The “crushing numbers” capability is indeed an important factor and SPECTRA ‘s processors are not overloaded yet .
What counts is what the software running the ECM suite is capable of doing .
It is a bit like coding a PC game . With rather similar PCs , one will make a “Doom 3” clone and the other will make “Far cry” . Am I making sense ?
I said :
“I think it is more “flag” related with a kind of 3D engine running the stuff with a huge library at hand (the Rafale EM 3D mapping) .“
This doesn ‘t need an extraordinary computing power as long as the “Engine” (the A.I) is keeping up with the aircraft ‘s 3D picture related to the adverse radar at one given time . (We are right into active cancellation here) .
May I remind people that the 3D picture of a manoeuvring fighter will not change much in between time “T” and time “T+0.001 second . Which is about the time taken by a radar “pulse-train” to “hit” the target .
At this precise moment in time , the software can act accordingly to the 3D databank and erase (cancel) a good part of the predicted spikes returns on multiple given frequencies , thanks to the databank and the AESA antennas .
The adverse radar will get nothing back or not enough to be “filtered in” .
For this to work , the aircraft needs top notch RWRs to pinpoint the adverse EM activity with great accuracy (and from as away as possible) . It also needs top notch digital receivers , top notch CV and IFM RCs , top notch multiband sensitivity and extremely low bit error rate .
This is where SPECTRA is leaving Praetorian in the dust , at least on the jamming capabilities . But hey , DASS was never built with AC in mind .
AC is only used when the adverse radar(s) can be fooled with . For other radars , like AESA radars , I believe that the technology is not up to speed yet . The problem is not about computing power but about the ability to transmit the exact same signal (but phased out) on 100s of frequencies while “mimicking” the original signal (the AESA pulse-train) .
Personaly , I believe that a B2 equipped with a tailored SPECTRA would be truely invisible . Simply because the aircraft ‘s shape is easier to manage for the A.I .
Cheers .
BluewingsnocutstoRAF :
Surprised by the A.I. reference, presumably you talking about using a neural network to speed up identification of sources rather than say heuristic techniques?
I wish I could give you a clue but I can ‘t . Not because I know stuff but because I don ‘t .
I don ‘t know what to understand exactly wrt “neural network” ? What do you mean ?
To me , the A.I is running in a similar way than the SETI software wrt fourrier transform to search for electronics patterns but with a thumb up , if I may say .
Then , the Engine (should we call an A.I an Engine ?) is designed to filter out the EM spikes treated by the RAM and concentrate its brain power on electronicaly hide the rest and/or twist the returns .
To answer your question , Heuristics are not good enough since they somehow bet on recognition and statistics . I think it is more “flag” related with a kind of 3D engine running the stuff with a huge library at hand (the Rafale EM 3D mapping) .
Cheers .
BluewingsRegarding Libya , the Rafales were not the only French aircraft to penetrate for ELINT and Recon prior to the first strikes , some Mirages also did .
We did it this way because we could and because it was the best way to get Intels on Libya ‘s air defenses .
We used the Rafales (SPECTRA) to map the Libyian defenses in real time . It was a bit risky but easy to archive .
Regarding SPECTRA , it starts during mission planning when the system is feeded with all known informations about adverse systems (radars and such) and an electronic battleplan is given to the system , i.e some frequency range with be more closely watched by the digital receivers .
During the flight , all the Libyian ‘s EM activity is pin-pointed , recorded and analysed (by the A.I) for immediate or futur use .
The findings are filtered in real time , some are displayed on one of the side display (left or right , Pilot ‘s choice) and some are simply recorded and followed by the system . If some self-defense ECM mesures have to be undertaken , the A.I is taking charge .
From now on , the job is to lower the aircraft ‘s RCS and/or to fool or cancel the adverse EM returns . Monopulse radars don ‘t stand a chance here .
If active cancellation is not chosen by the A.I (i.e because of big external load) , efficient DRFM techniques (a la Typhoon but with a discret beam) will still do the trick .
After mission debrief , SPECTRA ‘s “library” will be updated in a couple of “clicks” and quickly be reloaded for the A.I to run the new numbers .
Luckily , I found a smaller PDF than the one I previously had , which shows rather clearly how it works . Some nice data about the various ICMS suites as well :
http://www.2shared.com/document/YpT-WB87/dia2desetembro_EW_THALES2_PRIN.html
That should give you some nice infos .
Wrt the difference in the technology used in SPECTRA and Praetorian , it is not so easy to prove and explain because many variables are not known to us , the general public .
Bragg Cells (optical) vs. Superheterodyne (digital) is a 25 years old fight and it seems that right now (2011) , the digital way is going to get the upper hand over the optical way .
But , the progress made in cristal video and IFM receivers are going to bring together the two technology . Thalès has been working fast on it for years .
Praetorian (DASS) is very little more than a generic self-defense system when SPECTRA is an entire different beast . I said many times that Rafale without SPECTRA is unthinkable .
The system is what makes the Rafale so efficient in its omnirole role . SPECTRA is also the main reason behind the A2SM Hammer , we wouldn ‘t have developped and fielded such a weapon without the means to use it .
Cheers .
BluewingsnocutstoRAF :
Did Dassault offer SPECTRA as part of the package for MMRCA, or was it a dumb downed version?
I believe that France offered the version of SPECTRA used during the evaluation , which seems to be 1st “F3” batch . Now , will India decide to pay for the SPECTRA databank is a different matter and I am pretty sure that it is not for sale anyway . India will have to build the databank by themselves .
SPECTRA plays in a different league than Praetorian .
Praetorian is a system primarely designed to counter and fool incoming missiles and in general every close by monopulse radars . Its DRFM techniques are optimized for such threats , it is even written in the Praetorian PDF .
SPECTRA goes beyong that .
Hardware wise , everything shows that the idea and goal behind DASS is to provide a top notch protection against closing AtoA and AtoG missiles .
Not much has been given wrt ELINT treatment capabilities . Same wrt precision and discrete jamming of adverse fighter radars .
Furthermore , the “listening” capabilities of Praetorian , sensitivity and treatment are not in the same league . Superheterodyne for one (Typhoon) and Bragg cells for the other (Rafale) . SPECTRA can filter a little bit less than twice as much frequencies simultaneously than Praetorian .
Wrt jamming , Praetorian only has 2 DRFM channels specialized in monopulse treatment using 3 normal fixed arrays while SPECTRA is using 2 dual channels (4) , both capable of handling monopulse and multipulse treatment and is using 3 AESA antennas wich allow bean forming , output power flexibility (EMCON concept) , real-time response , etc … All the benefits from AESA technology .
Then , we could talk about the softwares running the 2 systems wrt data fusion , real-time treatment and most importantly , the self-learning capability (the A.I.) . There , only one system has such capability : SPECTRA .
The fact that an Artificial Intelligence is running (partially) an ECM suite is new and demonstrate Thalès ‘s know-how .
I got an excellent PDF explaining everything on my hard-drive but it is rather big and I don ‘t know how I can upload such stuff .
TMor :
I’m under the impression that some are trying to take half of the credit in claiming (with little information about DASS) that both system are on pare.
Exactly , well put . DASS is nowhere near SPECTRA and in fact , it is like comparing apples and oranges .
mrmalaya :
The thing is, we don’t have any evidence that either SPECTRA or Praetorian are more capable than the other.
At the contrary , we have plenty of evidence !
Evidence from so many meetings that it would be hard to count , evidence from real Ops , evidence from technical papers , etc …
Cheers .
BluewingsNicolas10 :
This reminds me of the Mirage 2000 that crashed at sea and was recovered almost intact. I think it was in the HAF thread. Considering several Super Etendards came home after a SA7 hit, I think Dassault really makes sturdy planes!
Yes , Dassault ‘s planes are very sturdy but this is not the main reason why some M2000s are almost intact after a crash . When in good shape and left on its own (crew ejected) , engine off , the aircraft becomes a rather good glinder and when it stalls , close to the ground , it falls slowly in a flat manner .
It ‘s the arrow tip syndrome .
Should I start on Dassault ‘s aerodynamics ? 🙂
Cheers .
Sign In
