djcross :

If a Thales or Selex product has the same capability, or the plan for a plan to provide the capability, show it!

The RBE2 Aesa doesn ‘t have GMTT / GMTI (detection and tracking of moving ground target) yet and nothing is funded yet , which I deplore greatly . I see it as a very valuable tool and I think that it should be implemented .
Nevertheless , SAR+TV+LRF can do a good job and the AASM can now hit moving targets , so it shouldn ‘t be too much of a problem .

Cheers .

Djcross :

F-35 is designed to fly through an IADS, then locate, identify and kill CCD’d mobile targets. This is something no Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen nor F-15/16/18 or F-22 can do.

Oh really ? Tell me , are you drunk ?
This is precisely one of Rafale ‘s many goals . Check again the airframe and the various onboard systems for cry out loud !
By posting such BS and nonsense , you don ‘t do yourself a favor …

Cheers .

Aurcov my friend , you do not know what you are talking about .

Cheers .

Moon_light :

Rafale the range information to be able to launch Mica ( the range can be provide by various source like Radar , LFR or data link from AWACs )

And by Spectra , by another Rafale or by any other fighter equipped with Link-16 , etc … BTW, Rafale demonstrated a 180* kill with a MICA using Link-16 target datas froim another Rafale in June 2007 :

“” complex combat scenario was created with a Rafale pilot being chased and threatened by an enemy aircraft (actually a C22 drone) approaching at a distance of several nautical miles from its rear sector. A second Rafale, acting as wingman, acquired the target and provided target designation information to the first aircraft via the Link 16 data link.

On being launched, MICA carried out an extremely sharp 180° manoeuvre in its inertial guidance phase, a manoeuvre made possible by the missiles exceptional agility provided by its thrust vector control feature. MICA then advanced towards the designated target which it destroyed. The MICA missile used during this training session was the RF variant, featuring an electromagnetic active seeker.””

That was a World first , 6 years ago .
Moon , you said :

doing such job RWR will required longer processing time than the radar because the job of Radar is easier ( assume that it can even do it )
EX : if the radar take 5 sec to give firing solution , then it may take RWR 15 – 20 sec to do that

No . Google instantaneous frequency measurement :

“”Most radar warning (RW), electronic countermeasures (ECM) and electronic intelligence (ELINT) systems employ instantaneous frequency measurement (IFM) to identify threats, map the electronic battlefield and eventually implement deceptive countermeasures. “”
“”An instantaneous frequency measurement receiver is capable of measuring the frequency of each individual pulse in real time.“”

To put it simply , when the radar signal bounces on the aircraft , it can be manipulated in real time . This is what is called real time deceptive jamming .
Very few ECM systems have this capability .
How would you explain this :

The CATbird avionics testbed for the F-35 program has proved capable of detecting and jamming F-22 radars.

Spectra also shows clever real time deceptive jamming , its using special DRFM techniques to lower Rafale ‘s RCS and do signal manipulation to fool the adverse radar into thinking that the echo is not its own original train pulse , so it ‘s not taken into account : no detection .

But , some clever AESA radars use encryption to code their signals and the echoes must be recognized as “true” . If not , it ‘s jamming and it is discarded by the radar : the jamming doesn ‘t work .
That means that the ECM system , to be able to jam such radars , has to work much harder . Obviously , cracking the code in real time is often impossible so the trick lies elsewhere . The ECM suite goes around the code , it simply doesn ‘t mind the code . It understands where the spikes across various frequencies are and it manipulates the coded echoes to make them “unreadable” by the radar . The AESA radar knows that something is around there but it can ‘t compute a firing solution .
The F-22 uses coded radar signals but the F-35 can jam it .

Cheers .

@ Moon_light ,

Your post #267 is good .
Now , the way the defeat LPI radar is to combine few techniques : a clever antenna array , a lot of processing power (number crushing) , ultra fast memory and a lot of it , Digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) and strong Fast Fourrier Transform algorithms (FFT) .
You try to lower the threshold but in doing so , you get tons of data , most of them being noise . A lot of processing power and strong FFT sort out the real echoes from the noise . Keep in mind that the RWR must listen on multiple bands at the same time , so you imagine the sheer amount of data the system has to process . Dedicated processors working in chain take care of it .
DRFM is used to :
-1) recognise the pulse train signal across various frequencies and memorize the “hops” .
-2) tell the system what to send back (and how) for jamming purpose .

Remember that the radar signal is stronger before to “hit” the aircraft than after the “bounce” . A LPI radar doesn ‘t use brute force because its goal is to be … LPI , so the power used to emit the pulse trains is low . This is important .
If the signal bounces onto RAM , the return is even weaker or can be inexistant . When the LPI radar listen for its pulse trains returns , these can be too low to be workable , its lost in the noise and can ‘t be retrieved .

You ask :

and btw if iam not wrong interferometry required at least 3 ship formation ? ( same as triangulation ? )

No . You need a special antenna equipped with multiple “listening connectors” , usualy 5 (or more) often disposed in a cross shape (like the “5” on a dice roll) . By mesuring the difference in phase of the incoming signal in beween connectors , I know with great precision where the signal comes from and I can do ranging as well if the system is top notch .

M2000 , Rafale , Typhoon , Gripen NG have 3 antennas of this type . The F-35 uses 10 antennas (!) over the leading and trailing edges of the wing leading and trailing edges of the horizontal tail.

Aurcov :

In real life, an EF (w or w/o Pirate) wouldn’t survive against an F 22.

You forget that BVR , it ‘s the missile who does the killing , not the fighter . Replace the F-22 by a X-Wing if you want , it is still the Amraam who will try to do the killing . Jam the missile(s) and you survive the BVR combat , whoever the launcher is . Then , it is WVR combat with IR missiles and canon and this is a very different story .

Cheers .

Until not long ago , passive targeting from the RWR was an unknown quantity and has been debated to death on every military forum .
Now , we know . 😎

But the problem is still the same , if the adverse fighter switches its radar on for ten seconds then switch it off , a missile could be fired against it but could not be updated in-flight because no further data would be available . The missile would likely miss the target by miles when it goes live .

Moon_light :

i think that AESA radar do have some effect against RWR , yep it’s signal can be detected by modern RWR but
1- not at long range
2- may be recognize as noise rather than radar due to spreading frequency and changing frequency too fast

RWRs do marvels nowadays . This is not the place nor the time to post data but I can assure you that LPI radar are not really LPI anymore . Thanks to advanced techniques and top of the range Aesa jammers , they can be detected , tracked , classified , duplicated and/or jammed . It is still a hard work mind .

Cheers .

Hehe 🙂

Cheers .