Phaid :

Looks like a GBU-16.

Yes , I think it is . Who is using it over Libya right now ?

Cheers .

TR1 :

Wow, what kind of altitude was that launch from? How was target acquisition performed?

At 55km , it can only be from high altitude using GPS guidance from known coordinates or third part targeting .

It ‘s indeed a very long range kill with an AASM … :eek::)

Cheers .

While I’ m here ,
Erkokite :

I was always under the impression that any BVR edge demonstrated over the Typhoon had more to do with RCS than radar.

The AdlA says that it has more to do with SA (situation awareness) but they also said that the RCS factor was part of the equation .
Personally , I don ‘t think that the RCS difference is that big but the AdlA knows better than I do .

The RBE2 has a much lower range than CAPTOR.

This is one thing that has never been proven , sorry to say .
One can find may BS internet sites who give the range vs RCS for many radars but they don ‘t have a bloody clue anyway . Did they call every radar manufacturer and ask for the classified data ???
From what we heard here and there from the users , the Captor seems to have a slightly better range than the RDY (M2000) which is quoted by Dassault with a 150km range against a fighter size target .
The PESA RBE2 is said to have a similar range than the RDY .
So , the Captor seems to have a slightly better range than the PESA RBE2 .
But by how much ???
As you said :

It does have some nice E-scan advantages

Indeed .
Range is not the most important factor while being very important .
If one can read in between the lines , the various Rafale/Typhoon meetings went down to who shoot first .
Whatever the RoE are , more often than not they are on the Rafale ‘s side simply because our pilots can identify the threat first , thanks to the long range TV cam .
Also , maybe Spectra can read Captor very early while Pirate is having a hard work with the RBE2 …

Cheers .

Quote from the Guardian :

Britain is working on plans for a military no-fly zone over Libya and is considering whether to arm the opposition forces in the east of the country.

David Cameron, the prime minister, said the UK is “taking the lead” on steps to isolate the “illegitimate” Gaddafi regime.

Setting up a no-fly zone over Libya is a nice idea but arming the opposition is not .
It has been debated here in France too .
Typhoons could indeed take off from the Santorin island and police the Libyan sky with ease with only one in-flight refuelling on the way in and another one on the way back .
I welcome the idea 🙂

I am sure that France will not send any Rafale over there but if we decide to , they would (most probably) take off from Corsica and use two in-flight refuelling on the way in and another two on the way back .
The USA are also thinking about a no-fly zone and also putting troops in . It has been reported on French news …

Cheers .

Phaid :

Only your source seems to have been lost. I’m sure it was just an oversight on your part and you will straight away provide the evidence for these detailed claims.

It wasn ‘t an oversight because I thought that you had the links already .
You obviously know the one about the 2000 modules rated at 4w each because you read it before to answer my original post , and the link saying that the original APG-77 only had 1500 modules is wiki through a US site .
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-77

What raised my eyebrows is the total output power : 12kw (citation needed) .
Or it is a mistake (the original output power of the 1500 modules is unknown but should be around 6kw) , or the person is talking about the radar version using the same modules as the F-35 ‘s APG-81 .
Which would rate these modules at only 6w each .
I don ‘t believe it . From a personal guess , the APG-81 modules should be somewhere in between 12 to 15w each .
GaAs , SiGe and MEMS should double that , at least.
Thalès is working hard on it 🙂
******************************
Just a question (:diablo:)
What could the actual Typhoon do in A-Stan beside protecting an already “friendly” airspace ?
Can it drop anything or maybe just leaflets written in Arabic to ask the talibans to surrender ?

Cheers .

Phaid :

I am curious about the physics about your claim: you say the original version has 1500 modules, and the current version has 2000 modules, but they use the same modules? That is fascinating.

Yes the 1st operational APG-77 only had 1500 modules but we don ‘t know what output power each module had .
The (V)1 version , as I said , seems to have 2000 modules rated at 4w each .
Did something get lost in the translation ? :confused:

Now , am I wrong ? Well , maybe … :rolleyes:
I ‘ve been looking into my HD to see what I already had and I found something who could go your way , Phaid :

However, the Air Force has changed the primary mission of the Raptor from air superiority to strike. This might seem odd, considering how the Air Force’s argument
for not cutting the F-22 rested on its very different mission compared to the Joint Strike Fighter. Even more unexpected is the plan to add many air-to ground capabilities to the APG-77. Unfortunately,these new capabilities have recently become classified, and very little
information is available.
What we do know is all these changes will not be cheap, and RDT&E and modification funding will remain high, alongside already high production dollars. We forecast more than a half-billion dollars a year in total F-22A radar funding for most of our forecast period,

The cost of the program is high , which is telling us that the modules could have been changed for better ones .
Do we have anything official on the matter ?

Phaid :

Well, other than the shorter range and lack of modes, yes, hands down.

-1) We don ‘t know about the true range of the RBE2-AA yet .
Thalès has recently said that the 50% increase in range over the Pesa version has been demonstrated .The actual Pesa RBE2 is known to track a F-16MLU at 150km , so the Aesa radar should increase this range to 210-225km , which is probably on the par with the APG-80 .
Just going with the RCS numbers , an enemy Flanker will be spotted at 250km . This should give the Rafale driver plenty of time to decide what to do .
-2) The needed radar modes are software related and it only is a matter of time .

As I said , the RBE2-AA will only start its operational life early 2013 and much left to be done .
But it looks very promising 🙂

Cheers .

Sintra :

BW

Selex works with their own modules, they also work with the same UMS TR modules that Thales uses and by 2006 BAE systems were offering to them their own modules of their North American Foundry (the ones used by the AN/APG-81).
The Captor E will use either Selex TR modules, or the exact same UMS modules that are on the RBE2, both options are available.

Exactly ! 🙂 This is why I said that if both companies use the same components , Thalès will still come on top with the end product because they design better . 🙂
It is my opinion anyway .
Some say that Arsenal is a better team than Man-U and that A. Wenger is a better coach than Sir A. Ferguson 😉
It ‘s another opinion . 🙂

Now , what I am trying to say is twofold . The MMICs and Aesa modules for the RBE2-AA are more advanced than the ones used on the AN/APG-63(V)2 for example .
They have a better output power , they run cooler , they are also smaller and lighter .

The F-22 radar , the AN/APG-77 is using 2000 modules providing 4w each (8000w in total)
http://www.f-22raptor.com/af_radar.php

Now , according to Thalès , it seems that the RBE2 is using 838 modules rated in between 10 to 20w each but they don ‘t want to say yet . That would give a total output power of 8380w or 16760w (which is more than the APG-77).
It seems that the correct number is around 10kw , so 20% more than the -77 .
It is not surprising when one look at the calender , column “years” .

That does NOT turn obligatory into a better range because it depends on how the radar is working , beam forming , etc …
While the US has a big edge in this domain because it is a mature technology for them , the RBE2-AA provides the needed tool to really explore the technology in real Ops .
We have an excellent piece of kit and it is the futur who will tell us if Thalès had it right or wrong .

Blue Apple :

10% increase in range means a 40% increase in output power. That’s why the electrical system has to be redesigned, it has little to do with the engines.

I know what you mean but you also know what I mean 😉 , if I may say :p
If you use the engine to produce more juice , you loose thrust , CQFD .
This is the reason why I did bring the 9t engine in . It would sort out all the little annoying things we are facing now , like the UAE contract and the full use of our new radar and with quite some watts to spare .
It is all I am saying . 🙂

Cheers .

ppp :

And Selex engineers are also very clever chaps, so theirs too must be the best AESA modules in Europe. Therefore, we have a situation where both are the best

lol !
Seriously , if both are doing the same shopping for the best stuff , the Thalès people would come up with the better end product . I am sure .
Their ideas and ways to do things are a lot more inventive than Selex even if they look strange at the first glance . I believe that there is is simply more brain power within Thalès staff .

Ero Senin :

It is very surprising that the Rafale, which is both very low altitude and high altitude designed and meant to operate, would not have coverage by Spectra for a 140° beam on the belly and on the back.
Hence my statement.

Correct . This diagram is plain wrong .
Spectra lives in a 200km diameter bubble .

To go back on topic , the RBE2-AA ~while being the best radar in Europe~ has the bad luck to be fitted on an aircraft who can ‘t bring the best out of it because the said aircraft can ‘t unleash the maximum output electrical power needed to explore the 220km+ range .
This is what the UAE demands is about .
Dassault said that a total re-design of the electrical power generation is needed to get even a 10% increase in range .

Dassault and Snecma know that only the 9t rated engine will bring the needed juice to fully power the radar and the planned formal arrays . The Rafale will not go faster or accelerate faster because the engine will give the same thrust but more juice .

More than 10 years ago , I already said that the Rafale ‘s total electrical output power was going to be a bit … short .
Nevertheless , the actual Rafale F3 + RBE2-AA combo can detect a “vanilla” F-16 (5 meter square target) at 180km , a F-15 or a Flanker at 210km .
Plenty enough to use the Meteor in anger . 😎
These aircraft with their respective radars will not detect the Rafale at this range .

Cheers .