BluewingsScorpion , I have to thank you . Thank you 🙂
In the pdf you gave us :
http://www.selexgalileo.com/EN/Common/files/SELEX_Galileo/Products/Praetorian.pdf
it is said that Praetorian is using two DRFM , with independant resources
I have been looking for such official info for a long time .
I ‘ll be back on this soon .
I also note with a smile than you wrote on F.16 (I quote) :
Spectra uses DRFM, techniques generator and AESA jamming antennas and is described as offering defensive, offensive and stealthy jamming modes. It’s RWR/ESM reportedly offers ranges up to 250+ km, has a bearing accuracy <1° with 3-D localisation of threats, meaning azimuth and elevation bearing and ranging. It offers ELINT capabilities and can generate targeting data for weapons such as AASM.
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&p=181969
Should I take you in the Team :rolleyes::D
Cheers .
BluewingsTMor :
I don’t blame you for discussing about technology, but for the methodology
I try to stick to the subject at hand .
This is another example : you systematically talk about both, and thus, compare both…
Why ?
This is a thread about MMRCA , so about the 2 remaining fighters , isn ‘t it ?
If the Indians want an air superiority fighter , both will do fine . If they want the better bomber …
Scorpion :
In this case it doesn’t. The antenna isn’t going to change frequency agility as the antenna just directs the beam, the transmissions themselves are generated by the TWT-transmitter.
Re-read what I said and re-read what you said . We both agree , we have no case 🙂
Explain us how the accuracy of the beam steering itself is higher on AESA than on PESA. I was talking about the accuracy of the beam steering, maybe you refer to the beam shape and thus to possibly thinner beams owed to beam shaping, which is something different.
True BUT I am talking about a MSA and a PESA (Typhoon/Rafale) , not you ? :confused:
The discussion was actually about RWR/ESM, re-read what was written.
I know for God sake ! 😡
Just to make things clear : the Rafale is also better equipped than the Typhoon regarding RWR/ESM . It is again about design , planned goals and NOT ABOUT who ‘s the best , for cry out loud ! 😡
Are we still talking about RWR or are you changing th topic yet again?
I was talking about jamming and not anymore about RWRs . You didn ‘t see me turning left ? :rolleyes:
If you believe that DASS could be retrofitted to any aircraft of your choice you are mistaken.
Prove it , because I can ‘t so far . DASS (Praetorian and the towed decoys) are generic systems .
Actually , the towed decoys could be fitted on any good ECM system .
Cheers .
BluewingsTMor :
Will we ever stop this f**king Typhoon vs Rafale debate ?
Some little minds indeed think that it is a pi$$ing contest when others are seeing it as a technological discussion .
They aren’t even funny with verified facts, so, when (French) people keep on using unverified information… Where are we heading to ?
TMor , if you think what all we know about Spectra is on your site , you are mistaking .
So , instead to spit on me , do somme REAL work and update your “brochure” style site . No bad intended .
Personaly , I am interested in ECMs and ECCMs because of the technology involved as well as the concepts behind the systems and why this or that system has been chosen .
There are no official blueprints on the Net , obviously . So , what one can do ?
Who ‘s behind Praetorian and Spectra ? Which Firms are involved including the sub-contractors ? What these Firms are making ? What ‘s the technology employed ? What are Superheterodynes ? What are Bragg cells ?
Can one add 1 to 2 to make 3 and start making educated guesses ?
Reading a “brochure” is not good enough , we all know it .
Regarding the MMRCA , I am pretty sure that the Indians have been briefed on the capabilities of both aircraft and they surely ran some tests .
I believe that Praetorian and Spectra don ‘t share the same goals and that right from the begining .
Thinking that the Typhoon ‘s secondary role is to fly alone a nuclear deep strike penetration is wrong . It ‘s true for the Rafale .
It doesn ‘t need one to be a genius to know why the Eurofighter as been made the way it is . It is an air superiority fighter with a secondary AtoG role .
It is the reason why I say that Praetorian (DASS in general) has a diffrent design and different goals than Spectra . As an example , the Typhoon is better equipped to face EM driven “furballs” than the Rafale (towed decoys) . Its anti-monopulse radar capability at close range is probably the best on the market today .
Whatever some people think , I know DASS rather well .
If India wants a fighter capable to to go deep inside Pakistan or China , the Typhoon is not the aircraft to choose . It doesn ‘t have the ESMs and ECMs tailored for the job . It also lacks range and its RCS is bigger than Rafale ‘s RCS .
Spectra has now quite a reputation in France as well as abroad , while the system has never been used as a jammer , or only with “degraded skills” ! Its reputation comes from its capabilities in ESMs , in ELINT , etc …
Rafale ‘s first RedFlag saw the Americans going “berserk” about the French sucking ‘Trons” at every opportunities , remember ?
Spectra has a better “ear” than most other ECM suites because the system was designed to pinpoint adverse EM emissions from very far away , to allow the pilot to act very early in hostile territory . It is indeed so important that it is linked to the autopilot and can propose a new course to the pilot .
Something the Typhoon ‘ autopilot can ‘t do , AFAIK .
Today , I still think that if one wants to penetrate safely , the best 2 aircraft are the B2 and the Rafale . One is near invisible and the other knows how to hide .
Scorpion :
It’s not the antenna which changes the frequency… You get a clue…
Ok , now I know what you ‘re talking about . Thx .
There is very little difference in fact . We both agree that ‘s the front end who ‘s matter , if the back ends are similar .
The mm waveband begins at 30 GHz
I give you that and the pdf supports it . My own doc is saying 20 Ghz .
Anyway , I am going to look into it .
All bands same accuracy stated where?
I got you on this one Scorpion 😉
Bands don ‘t matter . It is about beam forming (when emitting) .
Nonsense the AESA doesn’t automatically increase the accuracy.
Of course it does , beam forming again . Do you forget your basics ? Waky , waky :rolleyes:
From:
Eurofighter’s plane finally comes in
by Michal Fiszer
Sep. 15, 2005
The accuracy of the RWR/ESM is to be below one degree in azimuth.I have seen more sources on this, but I’m to lazy to search for it now.
This is about RWR/ESM , so about listening and not JAMMING . Sure Praetorian can pinpoint threats very accurately (I would hope so seeing what it is made of) but it can ‘t respond in kind : it hasn ‘t got any AESA antenas !
What a surprise, but despite the lack of any data/information you still assert superiority for one system over another!? Speaks volumes to say the least!
I really need to start a new thread :rolleyes:
I am willing to share some technical data but not here and I don ‘t want people to see it as a pi$$ing contest . We can ‘t compare apples to oranges .
Spectra and Praetorian and 2 very different piece of kit .
As DASS is tied to the Typhoon
Yes but no . I said earlier on :
“”Spectra doen ‘t work on another aircraft . “”
Many reasons to this . To put it bluntly , Spectra is Rafale during the flight . At all time , the system knows what the overall RCS is when an adverse radar is tracking . It knows what do do to lower the “left over” RCS . It is what I called on the different site the “Baby Active cancellation” process . Against some types of radars , it works marvels . Against AESA radars , it doesn ‘t work yet . Yves Chaltiel talked about long time ago .
To archive the trick , the aircraft shaping MUST be linked to the ECM databank first . This is a huge amount of work mostly done in anechoic chambers and through CAD . Then , the placement of the AESA antenas on the aircraft must obey to some mathematic rules (based on wavelength) .
Etc , etc …
All of this just to be able to “compete” (?) with true VLO aircraft when its time to bomb safely .
The Typhoon hasn ‘t been build for that task .
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion :
Would you be so kind to explain us what impact the PESA front end has on the TWT based transmitter in comparison to the MSA front end!?
I am sorry but , as I understand it , your question doesn ‘t make sense to me .
A radar is TWT based or transistor based . Do I miss something ? :confused:
Feel free to open a new thread and answer the following questions about DASS and Spectra:
1.) What’s the exact frequency range of both systems?
2.) What’s the number of channels and their range to cover them?
3.) What’s the dynamic range gain of each system?
4.) What’s the bearing accuracy in all different bands?
5.) What’s the power output of each respective jammer?
6.) What are the exact modes of each jammer and how do they work?
Much of what you ask in not in the public domain but you ‘ll find some of your responses in an old post of mine :
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?t=105835
In short :
1.) Praetorian stops at 20 Ghz when Spectra goes up to 40 Ghz .
2.) see my old post
3.) see my old post
4.) Spectra ‘s bearing accuracy (and beaming accuracy) is of less than a degree in all bands (AESA emitters) . Praetorian ‘s accuracy is not in the public domain but it should be a good deal less than Spectra because of lack of AESA emitters .
5.) not in public domain
6.) not in public domain (only some of the Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) techniques are known)
What one can do is to dig out what the components are or can be on both systems . Then , one can try to understand the technology at hand and the “hows” and “whys” behind the concept . It took me few years to get enough doc (and I still find some from time to time) and now , my mind is made up .
The combo Rafale-Spectra is a one of its kind concept . In fact , Rafale without Spectra is unthinkable and Spectra doen ‘t work on another aircraft .
I might start a new thread where I could upload various documents in a spirit of sharing .
Cheers .
BluewingsTMor :
But the forum was an easy way to classify information in different appropriate sections.
I agree . Not a big site but full of verified facts .
Good job , as usual 🙂
Cheers .
Bluewings+1 with Twinblade .
Wrightwing :
You’re assuming the RWR detects the F-22/F-35’s radar in time
(RWR = Spectra) Indeed I do . In fact , as soon as it goes live .
Secondly, jamming a narrow beam AESA radar is easier said than done(and your also forgetting that the radar might be playing some EA/EW tricks of its own).
Correct . Spectra may fail (?) .
Thirdly, jamming a LPI datalink is easier said than done, since it must first be detected.
It will be detected (the easiest way to jam) and if if it ‘s not (the hardest way to jam) , keep in mind that what is jammed is not only the LPI emiter (the fighter) but also the reciever (the missile itself) because Spectra can pinpoint it with narrow beams during the missile ‘s flight .
Btw , this is something Typhoon ‘s towed decoys have a hard time to do as they are not AESA and they do move , trailing behind .
Forthly, you’re forgetting the HOJ features.
HOJ is useless against directional jamming as the missile is following the electronic bait and not the fighter anymore . Typhoon ‘s DASS is archiving it by fooling the missile with false range (if Dopller is positive , explosion is delayed , if Doppler is negative , exlosion occurs too early) . Rafale is archiving it by forcing the missile to follow the beam , driving the missile away .
Fifthly, you’re forgetting the third party targeting and/or passive shots(if the enemy isn’t EMCON)
That ‘s indeed the best way to score . Jamming the up-link and/or the missile seeker is still possible and unavoidable .
it doesn’t take very long to cover 20-30km at Mach 4+, so if the RWR doesn’t detect it VERY quickly, or the pilot jam/maneuver, the Pk, is pretty good
True . I never said otherwise and it is where the 5thgen fighter lead lies .
Lastly, you’re assuming that a non-stealthy fighter could get within that range, without having already been fired at, and/or maneuvering defensively already.
I did take that onboard . This is again about how much trust a pilot puts in his/her aircraft .
If you think that your ECMs will do the trick BVR , the best thing you can do is to try to close in as fast as possible to put the 5th gen fighter in a WVR fight , to get parity with short range IR dogfighter missiles .
Cheers .
BluewingsWilde :
Every RWR is listening on many frequencies, because they must not only detect the signal of a specific radar but all radars in the vicinity.
Correct but not all RWR are equals , far from it .
They can pick up radar signals from all types of radar, be it a missile seeker, another aircraft, AWACS or radar stations/SAM sites.
True regarding the “listening” process , as long as it is sensitive enough wich is not the case for all RWRs .
The main problem is down to interpretation . If you don ‘t know exactly what has been painting you and where exactly it comes from , you ‘re in the sh*t . All you can do is to try to blanket the frequency and the near-by frequencies and hope . It sometimes work but it is not “discret” (you ‘re gonna wake-up some “listening” defensive devices here and there) and you don ‘t target THE target .
So frequency hopping certainly does not make a radar undetectable by an RWR.
It helps a great deal as the train-pulse is divided and sent simultaneously on many frequencies . A RWR capable to detect a “painting” as such from an AESA radar is a great RWR . That ‘s the first step .
Very few RWRs on the maket can archive it , very few .
It’s the randomness of signal strength and signal information, that makes a radar LPI. And with an RWR designed keeping that in mind this only means, that the RWR should have a hard time identifying the signal emitter.
Yep .
But it surely can recognize if it is being tracked.
No , unless to be very good . because :
And with current missile technology being tracked can be considered the same as being painted.
Here we are ! 🙂
When the combo RDY+Mica was first used in a joint exercise (years ago) , the M2000s scored an amazing 40-nil against MLUs .
The adversary confused a simple “bleep” on their scope , thinking that a radar had a short read on them , while the Micas were already flying .
By the way, both MSA and PESA are really not what the people with the real toys consider LPI.
Compared to AESA radars , it is true but the Pesa offers some nice capabilities a MSA radar will never give , like beam forming and output power flexibility (as well as speed) , which are all contributing to the LPI factor .
Cheers .
BluewingsTR1 :
So why was the UAE not impressed with amazing Spectra?
They are impressed by the system . What they ask from Spectra is to do what our next gen ECM pods will do . Not an easy task and almost impossible at this time .
What we can do (they ask for) is to wider the already very wide band . Presently , Spectra covers all the bands used by directed weapons , by fighters and by most of the existing SAM systems . What the UAE is asking for is more bands to be listened simultaneously . While France is leading in such technologies , it is going to take a lot of brain power and some years to archive .
Then , they also ask ~as it seems~ for a system like the ICMS Mk3 but better .
The difference in between Spectra and ICMS Mk3 is not really known but I have my guess : both databanks are similar , accuracy in azimuth and ranging is similar , sensitivity is better with Spectra , blanket jamming on open frequencies is better with ICMS (might be that) , ELINT is better with Spectra , output power is better with ICMS (might also be that) .
or the Rafale in general.
Well , that is far fetched . At the contrary , they like it and ask more from it .
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion :
Just out of interest nothing else.
:p While I have the utmost respect for you and the fact that I rather like what you post , you did not convinced me on this one , Scorpion 🙂
Find it yourself . lol !
No bad intended , 😉 It is rather easy to find .
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion :
Is it known whether all 4 Rafale lost thus far were fitted with a OSF?
I can give what you ‘re lookin for but I am more interested in why in hell do you ask ?? :confused:
Cheers .
BluewingsSign :
LPI isnt a faint signal, its just hard to detect. example a TX very high energy short burst and frequency hopping.
Exactly .
If I may add a bit , today a radar signal is not anymore a single pulse fired on one or few bands . What we use now is call a “train-pulse” , which consist in sending a coded pack of multiple pulses then wait for the return and count how much of the sent coded pack is back . It helps to recognize the real “train-pulse” (or a part of it) from a possible jamming .
On a mechanical radar , each “train-pulse” is using the same frequency . Same with a PESA radar , but the “frequency jumping” after each “train” is much faster . The power used to send the “train” is also more flexible with a Pesa .
With an AESA radar the “train-pulse” can be divided in bits and be sent on various random frequencies .
This is what is so hard to recognize as a radar signal for a RWR . If the RWR is not listening on many frequencies at the same time and is not “intelligent” enough to add 1 to 2 to make 3 , the “train” signal is discarded and the pilot doesn ‘t know that he has been painted .
In this regard , the (Pesa) RBE2 has a little edge on the Captor (a bit more LPI , if I may say) and Spectra is better than DASS (Spectra is superior to DASS in every way . I can discuss about it but in a different thread) .
That added to the lower RCS is giving the Rafale (for now) an edge in AtoA .
When both fighters will have their AESA radar and Meteor, the Rafale is likely to stay ahead because of its superior passive detection and ECMs .
Flying a wee be faster at high altitude and maybe , maybe a bit higher is NOT going to tip the balance in favor of the Typhoon .
But since India knows about it and they are looking for a Multirole , the decisive factor might well be money and cost over the years .
As far as we know , the prices put forward by the Indians favor the Rafale …
Cheers .
BluewingsSeahawk :
1/10th with the fixed probe, is hard to believe.
I see it the other way around , the 1/10 is because of the fixed probe .
Without it , the overall RCS would even be a wee bit lower .
Cheers .
BluewingsRedready :
corrected your post four you
Fair enough , I take notice .
EE :
Superior aircraft with time? You said you don’t think so…I’m not sure I understand what you mean…Could you explain a little more, please? Do you mean it won’t be superior in the future to what it is now, or?…
I meant superior aircraft with time compare to the Rafale .
Swerve :
Gripen NG a paper plane in the same way the F-35, MiG-35, & F-16IN are paper planes, i.e. that what’s flying now is not fully developed. That is not what one normally calls a paper plane.
It is going to take 10 years for Gripen NG to be where Rafale is today , at least , if it ever exist one day . No bashing intended , the NG is also very promising .
Scorpion :
If I stick to your own data Rafale’s RCS would be 0.1 to 0.2 sqm whereas Typhoon’s would be 0.625 to 1.25 sqm. Depending on the values this is hardly working out as 1/20th of the RCS in either case.
It is 1/10th , the number I believe to be correct . The 1/20th was only a very wild guess of mine .
And that’s based on what?
Based on various known French pilots but you seems to discard them while it is all we have . Nothing I can do here …
Cheers .
BluewingsScorpion:
Those RCS figure floating around the internet are ball park figures at best. Taken them for face value is naive to say the least.
EADS said that the Typhoon ‘s RCS is 1/8 of the Tornado ‘s , who has a rather big RCS , around 5 to 10 square meter depending on its wings position .
Dassault said that the Rafale ‘ s RCS was 10 to 20 times smaller than the M2000 , depending on the position of the aircraft . The M2000 ‘s RCS is said to be around 2 square meters .
Do the math .
A 20 times smaller frontal RCS is exactly explained how?
By the fact that an AtoA Rafale detect an AtoA Typhoon first and every time (with a 40km margin , so it seems from my own math) .
Anyway , this discussion is getting silly and off topic . I am probably the one to blame , I appologize if I have polluted the thread but Iam convinced that the RCS of Rafale is lower , without making the difference a big game changer . None of the two aircraft are VLO anyway and will be detected by good radars sooner than fighters like the F-22 or the J-20 .
Btw. did you miss my last reply or did you ignore it?
Well , you agreed with many of my points . So , I agreed to disagree on the other points . 🙂
********************
Back on topic ,
What India told us is this :
1) India refused the US “strings” and also discarded the US fighters as not good enough .
2) The Mig was clearly the weakest link .
3) The Gripen is a paper plane .
They kept the two best stuff at hand (1st point) and told the USA they don ‘ want to see their fleet grounded or weaponless because one man pushed a button in Washington (2nd point) .
Presently , on capabilities , cost and tech transfer , Rafale is ahead and combat proven in various scenarios (but not all them yet like AtoA , naval and nuclear (!) strike) .
Why would India buy the Typhoon ?
Do they truely believe that it is going to be the superior aircraft with time ? I don ‘t thinks so , they know better .
Do they want the UK to be a stronger partner , knowing that the UK will never be let down by the USA , so good political repercussions and ties will be maintained ?
Hard to say …
On the other hand , France seems very kind to make some deals with Brazil and India , which are both going to be “Veto” Nations at the UN Concil sooner rather than later . Sarkozy has been working hard to spread the idea that the World should now see Brazil and India lke equals .
It might help 🙂
Cheers .
BluewingsSnow Monkey :
I think the most relevant thing anybody can share are the most recent AdA maintenance man-hour numbers for Rafale…
And I suppose availability numbers and turn-around times could be relevant as well, in terms of cost per sorty per day, etc.
Again , spot on . In this regard , if we take A-Stan and Lybia ‘s numbers , the French proposal (Rafale) has something to show off 🙂
But in the end , money runs . I still bet on Rafale .
Cheers .
Sign In
