Wrightwing :
The ping will make it back before the signal is analyzed, identified, and the jammer sends a signal of its own.
Yes .
You see that I am with you on this one , because of Physics laws .
What you don ‘t seem to understand is how an Aesa radar works in the first place , secondly you greatly underestimate Bragg Cells and to a lower extent Superheterodyne .
An Aesa radar need multiples reflected “pings” to build a picture . Thousand times per seconds , an Aesa radar send multiple (hundreds) “pings” on various frequencies and hope to get enough “returns” to buid the picture .
That is how it works .
Bragg cells are basically “mirrors” , they can reflect back the exact signal received (to make it short) but it would be of no use , obviously .
That would make the reflected signal even stronger ๐ก
What can be done in a matter of nano-seconds (using a simple line of C++) is to change the phase of the signal (active cancellation) and “reflect” it with optical cells (Bragg) in almost real time .
This is doable and has been done against old radars but the problem lies elsewhere .
“Active cancellation” is a big thing and I don ‘t think that the rafale is using it as we speak (May 2010) .
To archive the trick , one needs to know pretty well the planned RCS of the fighter at some critical angles , with and without external stores .
A couple of months in a good anechoic chamber and some various 3D CGI tests will provided what is needed to start to work on it .
In fact , I am repeating myself . I have been through this before ๐
Never mind …
The real challenge is to be able to “mimic” and “duplicate” that out-of phase signal simultaneously on many bands carefully chosen with 3rd gen DRFM techniques . So far , it seems that Thalรจs has its hands on something ๐
*****************
Now , let ‘s forget about “active cancellation” and let’ s have a talk about May 2010 ๐
If the Rafale were 200km away, it wouldn’t be considered a threat yet, first of all, as the APG-77 prioritizes targets by range, and the amount of time that they are illuminated and subsequently tracked. Secondly, it would take more than 1 ping to correctly identify what the ping was, much less respond to it.
At 200km away , the Rafale wouldn ‘t be considered at all while Spectra would consider the “pings” .
As I said , thousands of “pings” can be stored and analysed in matter of seconds and/or minutes .
This shows a fundemental misunderstanding of how the APG-77 works. It doesn’t send out constant broadcasts to the maximum range that it can achieve. It might do a brief periodic sweep to see if anything’s out there, but until the target gets within a certain distance, its track is only periodically updated. It doesn’t get a constant track until it’s within range to engage.
We know that a radar is working differently when is it scanning than when it is tracking , obviously (again) . That also means that less “active modules” are used for long range detection than when tracking .
It is precisely where a top notch RWR does marvels . ๐
Spectra :
First , it will warn the pilot that an adverse radar is scanning from that sector and at long range (very low signal) . The pilot can turn 30 degrees left or right and stay outside the detection range while still listening the “pings” . No need to jam , we ‘re not detected yet …
(What a huge advantage it is already in BVR)
If the adverse fighter is flying high and fast (T-50 ? Mig-31 ? SU-27/35 ?) , it could end-up close enough to get a positive lock .
From there on , the radar would try to get a track and a firing solution .
To do that , the adverse radar will change “modes” from detection to tracking . It will start to send many more “pings” (thousands) to try to get the best available picture to display to the pilot . If it is a good Aesa array , it will also “lock” some frequencies with ECCMs to try to keep the “lock” at all cost .
This is where Jammers are having a problem ๐ฎ
Deceptive active jamming with beam forming (active phased array) have great difficulties to “fool” the ECCMs . One have to understand than the “locked” frequencies chosen by the adverse radar software can change very rapidly and unless the jammer can “blanket” the most obvious frequencies , few “pings” will help the adverse radar to keep the lock .
Fortunately , a well made active phased array jammer will simply respond in time where the most obvious PEAKS are . ๐
In doing so , very few “workable” “pings” will reach the adverse radar .
*******************
Lindermyer , I ‘ ve never bashed the Typhoon .
I only say that the Rafale is a better overall fighter with a lower RCS , better sensor and integration , better MMI , better ECMs , better A2A capabilities , better A2G capabilities and it is carrier capable . ๐
I am not bashing .
Cheers .
(Edited)
Sorry .
Cheers .
32 x 32 will be enough for the F-35 ‘s pictures , thank you ๐
It is ugly .
Cheers .
Sign :
and it must be very broadband and fast sampling, to detect.
Very cleverly put ๐ I like the sound of it ๐
Cheers .
Edit :
on the first picture , only the antennas at the base of the canards are active . Everything on top of the vertical tail is passive .
The second picture shows the active rear antenna .
Btw , good post TooCool 12f .
Cheers .
jackjack :
i’ll try again,with some aesa radar, they use the big powerful aesa antenna to jam
No . They intent to use an Aesa radar as a jammer . It ‘s not done yet .
i have asked you before to post the antenna/s that rafale uses to jam, you said you would
well i’m still waiting
There :

and there :

Spectra is indeed an active phased array . I should have employed this appellation first , Aesa only symbolize the technology .
djcross :
DRFM is useless against a frequency agile radar because the radar always gets a clean first ping at the new frequency.
Wrong . :diablo:
-1) The RWR is always the first to get the ping since the reflected signal did not travel its way back yet ๐
-2) The RWR will get the ping even if the signal is very low .
Example : an APG-77 will not see a Rafale at 200km (reflected signals are too small) but Spectra will acknowledge the “pings” .
In this scenario , the Rafale pilot can simply stay outside the detection range of the APG-77 for minutes on while Spectra is “learning” the techniques used by the adverse radar . After few minutes of this “electronic deciphering” , the DRFM techniques (if used) will have a great chance to follow the LPI radar .
Cheers .
I said :
“”I might even be way short …””
The first incarnation of Spectra (more than 10 years ago) was said to be capable of detecting radar emissions within a 200km bubble . (first Fox-1s pdfs data)
10 years later , something is telling me that it has become the jamming range ๐
Cheers .
except the long range jamming is done with the aesa antenna
Spectra is Aesa .
the spectra jammer is small and power limited
We don ‘t know the official output power . Is it “limited” , is it “huge” , is it what is needed ?
mainly for deception jamming, as most are and i havent seen its effective range posted
You don ‘t know how the system is working and nobody on public forums knows the range .
I posted the 150km range with a pencil beam accuracy because the technology involved is telling me that it is possible .
I might even be way short …
Cheers .
I remember having some strong words with FS on Strategypage (Philippe on airdefense) when he said multiple times that a good ECM suite can lower a radar detection range by at least 30% (so lower the overall RCS by 10% or more) .
He was off the pace , really . ๐
A top notch ECM suite will literally ******* up your Fire Control System as far as 150km away . You will not be able to get anything about the real position , altitude , bearing and speed from the ****** .
A well made electronic attack on your radar ‘s side lobes can even make you lost the track/lock you have on your own wingman(s) .
The actual Spectra (T3) with its Aesa Emitters/Receivers , GaN tech , powerful software and pencil beam precision can wreck havoc within your FCS while EM/IR Micas are airborne .
If we ever fight Saudis , we ‘ll kill their Typhoons with a 20-1 ratio (my opinion).
The French Pilots ~since they have the Fox-3 capability~ have been training very hard in BVR . It did cost us a defeat in dogfight against Harriers ๐ฎ
Since , we went back on basics too ๐
The very first time the French pilots used a French tactic in a fox-3 engagement , the M2000-5Fs from Dijon (:)) scored an amazing 40-0 during a Nato training .
We know how to fight BVR and with the Rafale , we have an excellent tool , thank you very much ๐
Meteor will only makes Rafale better ๐
Cheers .
Something is bugging me … ๐ก
I think about the encounters in between the Rafale and the Typhoon .
The two fighters have met on many occasions : Singapore , South-Korea , Med Sea , Corsica , ATLC , etc …
The only time the Typhoon had a positive score against the Rafale was during the Singapore evaluation . In a BVR encounter , the Typhoon scored 2-1 . The same day , the very same Typhoon scored 4-0 BVR against the F-15K . (Rafale scored 2-0 BVR against the F-15K)
The encounter over the Med Sea did not bring anything meaningful , both airForce were happy with their aircraft and pilots .
But in Corsica and recently at ATLC , the Rafale spanked the Typhoon , why ? :confused:
I remind people that the added score is 15-2 in favor of the Rafale . That ‘s a 7 to 1 ratio ! ๐ฎ
What is bugging me even more , is the fact that the 2 Rafales against the 4 Typhoons had to “mimic” semi-active missiles and they had to keep a constant lock on the Typhoon(s) at all time including missile flight time to archive a positive “virtual” kill .
How is it possible ?
My first guess was : Dass RWRs are not up to speed and can ‘t detect and Pesa RBE2 .
If it is the case , it is telling us that the Typhoon will get in trouble against Russian Pesa and Aesa radars ๐ฎ
If it is not the case , why the Typhoons did not manage to :
-1) use ECM to break the lock and score an half point (if allowed) ?
-2) use a very energetic flight profile (they were 4 fighters) to evade and comeback ?
-3) did not reply with their own Amraams ?
More I think about it , more I blame the Typhoon ‘s sensors : the Captor radar and the DASS system . The MMI might also have its role , like Lt.Col Grandclaudon said .
The RDI radar onboard the M2000-5F is an excellent A2A radar and as long as something is in range (150km) , it does what it says on the tin .
M2000-5F pilots reported many times that they had trouble to keep a “clear” lock on an A2A loaded Rafale at over 100km . Even without ECMs , it is there on screen then it is not anymore … Then it is there again and 2 seconds later it ‘s gone again . It depends on what “profile” the Rafale is showing in real time .
Like any other fighter . ๐
That clearly means that the Rafale ‘s airframe is “discrete” .
The Captor radar is said to be the best or one of the very best mechanical radar there is , with a range of over 200km against a 5m2 target which is 30% better than the RDY and 15% more than the RDY-2 onboard M2000-9s .
But it seems to have trouble to lock onto a Rafale at 80-100km , which is the range where the Rafale (playing a Mig-29) can “virtually” fire a Russian semi-active missile and keep the lock . ๐
It tells me that the Dassault Fighter has a lower RCS and better sensors . ๐
Cheers .
Bloodshot :
the Typhoon I believe has the highest composite usage of any combat aircraft currently in service with carbon fibre composites alone accounting for 40% of it’s structural weight, and composites in general for 85% of it’s surface area.
This is exaggerated .
If it was the case , the Typhoon would be lighter than the Rafale but it isn ‘t .
Both aircraft have about the same size :
Rafale :
Length: 15.27 m (50.1 ft)
Wingspan: 10.80 m (35.4 ft)
Height: 5.34 m (17.4 ft)
Wing area: 45.7 m2(492 ft2)
Empty weight: 9,060 kg (20,000 lb)
Typhoon :
Length, 15.96 (52,4)
Wingspan 10.95 (32,11)
Height, 5.28 (17,3)
Wing area, 50 (538.2)
Weight empty, 11,000 (24,200)
The difference in weight empty in almost 2,000kg . That ‘s 2 tons ! So , don ‘t tell me that the Typhoon ‘s airframe is more advanced than Rafale ‘s or I ‘m going to laugh and roll on the floor ๐
Cheers .
jackjack , stop it for God sake !
All you ‘re doing is simple copy/paste . I ready told you :
Try better and say what you have to say . I ‘m fed up with you , you keep posting basics like a 14 years old Google fan .
In between your ears , you suppose to have what we call a brain . So , use it and tell us with your own words what you think .
Cheers .
jackjack :
does this mean you dont want to compare the rafale and sh low rcs features ?
There is no need to compare , the Dassault Rafale wins hands down . ๐
Let ‘s talk about real “discrete” aircraft like the Rafale , Typhoon and Gripen , shall we ?
Cheers .
We , Europeans , need to get Russia on own side on this one ! ๐
Just kidding …
Cheers .
We are 10 years away from 2020 and I can already see this :

Give the “thing” top notch Aesa radar , long range 5th gen IRST , long range IR missiles (200km+) , very good to excellent ECMs and you end up with an aircraft specialized in killing stealth platforms ๐
Cheers .