jackjack :

what is really funny here is that sweetman used you guys here on key as a source for his AC article, and you guys are using him to back you, it only gets funnier

What is really funny is that you have an astonishing bad faith and you look like to have the IQ of an oyster .
Then , you really should try to learn the beautiful French language , as least a little bit . I quote you :

to me ‘active stealth’ is general

No . In French we say furtivité active which is a short-cut for active cancellation . Since you don ‘t know our language , I don ‘t blame you .
But please , stop to try to teach us French , merci 😡

As Mr Sweetman said , it is not French posters who are the source . It is a document from the French MoD allowing funds for the DGA to give a big stack of money to Thalès and their partners to archive active cancellation .
As many posters said (you can trust Arthuro) , so many Governments have allocated money on AC for more than a decade (USA , France , UK , Sweden to say a few) that you just can ‘t troll against it .

Since you are an American jackjack , let me remind you few things about the B2-Spirit . Its design started in 1979 (!) .
The first aircraft has been delivered in Missouri in 1993 and it did reach OIC in 1997 , 4 years later (!) .
At that time , the USA already knew that a VLO aircraft had very few “peaks” on various bands . So , they started to work on a “radar” (strange but we ‘re mid 80s) to cancel these “peaks” with active cancellation .
This idea was brilliant . 🙂
Unfortunately , we ‘re in mid 80s and the technology was not there . They even had to pay a fee for wrong advertising .

Now , we ‘re in 2010 ~which is 20 years later~ and the French GoV and DGA are allocating money and have been doing so for the past 12 years to the AC technology .
And you are … jackjack , an internet poster telling us that it ‘s all in vain …
I certainly don ‘t want to look-down on you jackjack but you should get a grip , really 😉

Active Cancellation (AC) is the futur ECM War mode , nothing else .
It will not make aircraft invisible , it will not do any “Klingon Device” .
The goal is to cancel the strongest “peaks” and leave the adverse radar with very low peaks just over the noise level , which can be jammed with the usual means like side lobe attacks and deceptive jamming .

Without going again into how radars work , it is already possible to divide a radar range by 4 using the actual best ECM suites . ECCMs are becoming less and less capable because “locking” few bands within a chosen band (X Band as an example) and trying to sort-out the real signals from the jamming is increasingly difficult .

Now , AC can be a decisive advantage against A2A missiles .
I don ‘t need to explain the differences in between a fighter Aesa LPI radar and a missile radar 😉 .
Fooling the latest is way more easy !
Unless the adverse fighter is choosing to use its “fire and forget” missile like a semi-active missile and guide it all the way to the target , I can ‘t see the missile ‘s radar getting a lock …
But the adverse fighter is loosing its “fire and forget” capability , it has to keep a constant lock and it can ‘t turn away .

Now , imagine just for a moment that you can force an adverse fighter to come at 30-40km (or less) from you to be able to get a firing solution with a decent pk .
Then , imagine that your radar has been off all the time and only the RWR and the jamming suite took care of the situation at hand .
Then , imagine that your ECM suite is good enough to give you a “kill basket” at 60km for a “fire from the hip” launch with a salvo of EM missiles .
Then , imagine that you have a TV and a LRF to give you a positive firing solution at 35km for a salvo of IR missiles .

What you imagine is the Rafale .

The goal of active cancellation is to escape early (long range) the adverse radars by dealing with the very few “peaks” and fool the A2A EM missiles .
Nothing more .

Cheers .

jackjack :

yes, it looks like my belief from what i read was wrong

This is what I told you 3 days ago (page 6) :
“”No . They intent to use an Aesa radar as a jammer . It ‘s not done yet .“”
and there (2 days ago , page 9) :
“”Aesa radars are not used yet as jammers and we ‘re in 2010 . Check better .“”

Maybe , just maybe , you should give me a bit more credits 😉

its much like the rafale’s ground hugging radar that is height limited at this times still, so it seems

“Height” limited is a big word . Every radar has its own limitations based on technology and tasks .
While it is true that the Pesa RBE2 follow the French “habit” to fly real low and has been designed to help the pilot(s) to undertake belly on the ground flights at high speed in all safety , the Pesa RBE2 can still detect a high flying target at around 100km while the Rafale is flying less than 100m off the deck . 😎
This is something the Captor can barely do because its scanning speed is far lower . Undertaking an autopilot terrain following at very low altitude using the radar while scanning around is not something the mechanical radars are good at .:(

The Aesa RBE2 is going to give our Pilots even better capabilities .

at least you wont have the concern of aesa jamming with its new radar, rafale isnt getting it todate, although it technically could in a future upgrade

True . Thalès is working on it but I don ‘t expect to see the system fielded before 2015-2016 .
In this regard , it is going to be interesting times because we ‘ll see how Thalès is intending to use the radar . I think they will follow the ECM/Aesa combo . I mean linking Spectra and RBE2 and using the radar in some situations to get more output power in jamming or more importantly , using both ECMs AND the radar to jam far more frequencies at once , simultaneously, in the 120 degree front sector .

Future will tell …
***************
Blue Apple :

You do realize that Rufus and Herald simply spend their taime making up things about French hardware (or every topic when it comes to Herald). By posting this reference you essentially concede the debate.

True . then :

I don’t care about BW claims, I put him on the same level as Herald & Rufus.

Sorry to hear that . Of course I disagree 😎

Cheers .

jackjack :

so in other words you are telling fibs and its just a guess b/c it sounds good

You didn ‘t read what I ‘ve asked you to read . 😡
Take your time and respond 2moro , no need to race 🙂

Cheers .

jackjack :

its very simple BW, put up a link that shows rafale has the bragg cell tech you are talking about
it shouldnt be hard for someone as smart as you

There is none .
One only has to understand how the system is working to know that Bragg Cells are present . In the same way , one only has to understand that the ALR-94 (F-22) is also using them and that the Typhoon and Gripen are not . But it is beyond your understanding 😡

The differences in between the ALR-94 and Spectra are mostly in the receivers sensitivity amps . Both systems have probably the same bands range (with an edge for Spectra in S , Ku and K bands) and both systems can accurately give the exact bearing of the emitter .
Spectra is also said to archive some kind of ranging through interferometry .

The hardware behind Spectra IS the World best .
One knowledgeable person only has to check this link :
http://matech.braggcell.com/products/index.php?TYPE=1

and read through the different articles to make his/her mind 😎

i dont know where they sourced components

Now , you know .

jackjack , not being cocky but you should just listen and read . Then , think , make your own mind up and come back here 😉
Please , spare us your non-sense and learn a bit .

Cheers .

Erkokite :

I don’t have anything against BW (I’m normally on good terms with BW), but I agree BW’s understanding of Bragg cells in ECM systems seems a little misinformed.

If you want to stay on good terms with me , you ‘ll better prove me wrong rather than just … talking 😉
I believe that I know what I ‘m talking about and unless you have better infos than I have , you shouldn ‘t talk this way .

Erkokite , what would be the use of an active phased array if you don ‘t have the means to use it :eek::confused:
Think about it 😉
Spend some time on a good search engine , read French language then build your own picture 🙂

Cheers .

Stop ! 😡

I think that few posters need to learn a bit more before they keep posting 😡
As I see it , many believe that a top notch RWR only “listen” to few frequencies at once , simultaneously .

That ‘s wrong😡
The problem is , as long as they don ‘t admit the fact , any discussion will go pear shape and in the twilight zone because the corner stone doesn ‘t exist .

Do I have your attention , Gents ?

An advanced RWR based on Bragg Cells is like a mirror . Whatever light waves you are directing at it , it is reflecting . I use optical light instead of radio waves to make it simpler , but it works the same .
Whatever hit the “mirror surface” (the RWR receivers) is acknowledged and can be reflected as it is . As I said before , that would not be of any use .

An advanced RWR is listening on bands L , S , C , X , Ku and K .
Obviously , many things are done through software like filtering and band survey and this is mostly done BEFORE the mission because a good Airforce knows what kind of RF threats they will face .
If it is mostly adverse fighters with some ground military radars , the bands L , S , X will be high priorities and the ECM system will use the needed databank , a bit like a Chess program is using one type of opening library against one player .

If the threats are mostly SAMs , the bands L , S , Ku , and K will get the priorities . And so on … 😎

One also have to understand that duplicating a radio wave while amplifying it to just over the real “Echo” is done in real time by a jammer using Bragg Cells and if it uses a fully digital back-end , active cancellation becomes possible (Spectra around 2015-16) .
As some said , the jammer do not need to understand if the signal is coded , compressed or both . It only has to duplicate it and add some false data on the fly to archive a fool lock from the adverse radar where the range , bearing , ping numbers and azimuth will be wrong .
It can also attack the adverse radar through side-lobes jamming and in doing so , totally *******-up the overall radar picture and putting “snow” on the adverse HUDs .
The ICMS MkII onboard the M2000-5F is said to do marvels in this regard 😎

One also have to understand that a radar is only asking for one thing : getting as much good multiple returns as it can get . Then , the radar is sorting out all the returns through filtering , keeping the best ones to build its picture .
This is how it works but this is also where the adverse jammer is fooling the radar 😎
The best returns will be the ones the jammer is sending back :diablo:
This is how ECMs work .

Now , better the RWR is , better the advantage in BVR is (for early detection) and better the jammer is , better the survival factor is .
This is where the Rafale can beat the F-22 Raptor .
The F-22 doesn ‘t have any jammer and only counts on its radar to direct Amraams . A good RWR will get the APG-77 “pings” before the F-22 gets a lock , from there on , the game is not anymore in the F-22 driver ‘s hands .

The Rafale ~or another well equipped fighter~ will simply stay outside the APG-77 range (3 to 9 O ‘clock) , manoeuver to get in a favorable position and use its passive systems (IRST , TV , IR seekers or even LRF if needed) to fire with a good pk .

The real problem is not to be able to jam every radars around , but to detect them and turn around them to get in position .
This is the USAF stance with the ALR-94 onboard the F-22 🙂

So please , don ‘t tell me that the French approach is wrong because you would dismiss the F-22 ‘s tactics right away :diablo:

The problem is that the Rafale has a top notch active phased array jammer while the F-22 has nothing .

Cheers .

I believe that I need to go back on what Lindermayer said :

BW – im going to say it again, and hope that you will stop with the Rafale spanking typhoon crap because, as you have previously noted nobody is willing to discuss typhoon – and the reason is partially this troll like behaviour, people look at the comments and think it isnt worth responding.

??? :confused:
– The Judge : “Irrelevant , the Procurer clearly stipulated his question and backed it up with known and admitted facts“
– The Procurer : “Yes and I ask the Defender to respond to the question !“
– The Defence Advocate : “Objection !“
– The judge : “Refused“
– The Defense Advocate : ………………………….

What would you say Lindermyer ?

You just can ‘t brushed off the latest meetings . You also noted the weak responses from the various Typhoon ‘ s people .
Something happened and some have to deal with it ASAP , I ‘m talking about upgrading the Typhoon ‘s radar and onboard electronics .

5 years ago , I would have chosen to be in a Typhoon against a late Russian fighter . Today , I have almost changed my mind :o:mad:

Europe should have left the Eurofighter program and followed Dassault .
We would be better of now , the European Rafale would be F4+ with a price tag of around 45 millions Euros for a C version , 50 millions for a B version (twin seater) and 55 millions for the M (Navy version) .
The Logistics would also be a breeze 🙂
The Interoperability would be second to none Worldwide 🙂

Cheers .