You read between the lines and keep get it wrong. This source mainly talk about EW suits improvements and there’s nothing in it that’s related to Captor-E.
Try again.

I never heard anything about dinner party dress code improvements but I can’t wait to try on these new EW suits. May cause problems for phone reception though.

http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-protection-sophistication/

The latest support to self-protection will however originate from the new aesa radar which is to replace the Captor system, providing it a spiralled programme with passive, active and cyberwarfare RF capabilities.

Neither Dassault nor SAAB seem to mind. Winners look for ways, losers look for excuses..

They have already decided on the SAAB, a smart business mind knows this, just as S. Korea had already decided on the F-35 pre-competition. Knowing this, it’s better to save the time and money.

This is based on six year old news and you have not provided a single source that claims they have abandoned the original back-end and developed a new one. And that is what counts.. There is no all-singing all-dancing Captor – just the old M with a new AESA antenna.

This source is the most recent and suggest full RF cyberwarfare and passive detective capability.
http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-protection-sophistication/

1. What has SPECTRA to do with mid-air?
2. None of the crashed planes was equipped with DDM-NG. If you spent half of the time you use for trolling with studying, we would not have this conversation now.

Clearly their sensory suite wasn’t great either way.

It’s simple. Training concept, dogfights and carrierborne Rafales. Looks like it’s a much more demanding environment.

The Typhoon has been involved in training dogfights and flown 4 times as many hours, including use by the RSAF in high temperatures around sand. A lear jet collided mid-air with a Typhoon in training, Typhoon landed safely afterwards, lear jet didn’t.

Oh yes, it does.. The mention about changed radomes clearly contradicts the previous articles.

Oh no, it doesn’t. Changing the randome doesn’t change the back-end.

There was no clear devotion of partner nations to AESA. That means low priority, slow development, short on funds.. the Captor-E wasn’t developed because it was badly needed – its sole purpose is to keep Typhoon relevant on export market..

Actually, it’s been all about timing. The GR4 will be dropping out of service within the next three years, so all of a sudden a variety of upgrades for the Typhoon have become necessary to the point where they can’t be put back any more. Since those A2G upgrades are needed anyway, it was more efficient to wait for that time and continue to develop the AESA in the background. So when the Typhoon has the full Tornado A2G capability added to it, the AESA is likely to form part of that upgrade package, along with Meteor. The RAF and European AFs can’t afford to do ad-hoc rolling updates like the USAF, so the phasing of capability addition is a slower and more carefully planned process.

http://www.eurofighter.com/news-and-events/2015/02/eurofighter-typhoon-powers-forward-with-new-enhancement-contract

This article doesn’t mention a thing about EW capabilities of the Captor, even in Tranche 3. Quite on the contrary, it mentions pretty much everything else doing the job (DASS, Praetorian, etc.). And I’ll tell you why – because the Captor cannot do any of these. And neither does Captor-E, as we speak.. LOL.. is that a proof? 🙂

You obviously don’t read too good.

http://www.armada.ch/aircraft-self-protection-sophistication/

The latest support to self-protection will however originate from the new aesa radar which is to replace the Captor system, providing in a spiralled programme with passive, active and cyberwarfare RF capabilities.

You reap what you sow.

That’s what Saddam Hussein said in one of his last speeches following 9/11.

I don’t need to.. They know how to test it, you don’t. Your problem is that you want to hear at all costs that AESA alone is a magical game changer and can’t stand the idea that it isn’t. But that is your problem, not mine..

Oh they do, but you don’t know what they test! How many times must I say that. They may well have tested it in the environment of current theatre warzones, which aren’t too challenging.

Do you really think I am looking for your permission?

Please go spam the Rafale thread instead. This is what I don’t get about Rafale people, always spamming threads on other aircraft. Aren’t there any major Rafale capability updates for you to go talk about in the Rafale thread or something?

True, I certainly won’t argue with that. With relatively few fighters (compared to say Russia/US), A2G will always be a role of any fighter in the RAF, even if it isn’t the main focus. Thanks Sintra.

Is the New START threaty falling apart?, news to me..
AFAIK, both Russia and US want to reduce the amount of NC warheads. Both country will save huge amount of $ on this reduction.
As long as this threaty stands, there will be limitation on several issues, like refueling probes on Tu-22M3, strategic subs, etc etc

One sore point for Russia is the Missile shield in Europe.
One sore point for US, is the new ballistics missles Russia are now developing.

The missile shield is a long way from being able to intercept ICBMs in reality. In theory the best place to put it to intercept ICBMs heading for the US is the North Sea, but even with an SM-3 BlkIIA that would offer a very narrow intercept window on older ICBMs, which falls to zero once you factor in detection, acquisition and launch time.

http://breakingdefense.com/2013/10/why-russia-keeps-moving-the-football-on-european-missile-defense-politics/

http://mil.ru/files/morf/Eng_Gerasimov_Assessment%20of%20BMD%20Global%20capabilities.ppt

fact is it’s been officially reported and there was no “other side’s version” so actually, that fisherman has brought the fish to show it

Fact is you weren’t there, and don’t know what happened and have been fed the information by a fisherman.

considering the “R-27 simulation”, it’s done by the rules established for all participants in the exercises… in any case, you choose to take brochure promises at face value, consider the “new features to be developed” as “done”… if we go that route for the Rafale as well,, one can quote the Dassault engineer who talked about spectra not only making difficult for radars to track the Rafale but rather make it outright disappear from the radar scope… how about considering that as todays hard reality? in the endl, for all we know, it might just as well be true, considering the Typhoons were unable to lock on rafales while being in tracking and shooting range for rafales PESA radars at the time, Rafales operations over Lybia before anyone else (and even before the US cruise missiles cleaned up the air defences) and so on..

and how about the F-35 then? maaan, we have the X-wing there, if everything the brochures say is true…

Dude, get some sense. MiG-25s were unable to lock US aircraft in 1991 for the most part (maybe 1 did?) and the MiG-25 has a massive radar. It’s just a factor of a mechanically scanned array, slow scan speed, easy to break lock, lack of frequency agility, target discrimination etc. That SPECTRA disappearing thing would be a bit like the long range passive targeting thing it did, which was later shown to be <20km and non-passive (used laser ranging).

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/new-radar-could-boost-rafale39s-export-prospects-318499/

Now forgive me for being unimpressed, but the seeker head on an R-27ET passively locks from up to 20km away.

Libyan air defences? Now this is just getting plane hilarious (pun intended). Based on your assertions, the Rafale should be able to confortably take on AESA equipped stealth fighters from BVR but the reality is that it can’t but you’ll keep spamming up stealth aircraft threads trying to convince people that it can, along with halloweene and MSphere. There’s a Rafale thread for a reason, go there.

just to be nitpicking, the P-51 was retired in 1984 (Dominican Air Force… ^^ )

another thing: presenting the Radar antenna as a main reflector could work with older ones (parabolic shape) but with flat ones, like an AESA it would require you to point your nose perfecly on your oponent to send him a powerful reflected signal back. In the case of ground-based radar, unless your antenna is tilted downwards, it won’t happen unless you dive on it (and with today’s weapons you’d do that only if you’re making a strafing run or shooting unguided rockets on it – both of which at a range from which nobody needs a radar to see you and shoot back.

What’s more, lukos, you seem to be believing the Typhoon has a better radar and a lower rcs than the Rafale. Strangely, as I reminded it not too long ago, when the two have been confronted in UAE exercises, Rafales consistently shot down Typhoons from BVR while simulatîg Su-27s armed with R-27 missiles (SARH missiles). They had to detect the Typhoons, lock on them, and then maintain lock for the duration of the missile’s flight. Not only Rafales did their part, but they did it pretty much without the Typhoons ever being able to detect or lock them in return. So either Typhoons radars are total crap, or Rafale’s RCS (airframe combined with SPECTRA) is quite better that the Eurofighter’s solution. In any case, if, even locked (so, normally knowing from which direction comes the radar signal) the Typhoons couldn’t get a lock to fire back, the must have been a significant advantage to the Rafale in that area

Yes but an aircraft with a smaller radar is greatly limited on range unless they have the radar pointed directly at the target. A larger radar can achieve greater range even pointing off centre and not reflect as much of the enemy’s radar signal. In reality though, even a slightly off dead-on position will still reflect back some energy due to the actual irregularity of the modules themselves, but the further off dead-on the better, hence why newer larger fixed AESAs, like the APG-81, are tilted slightly.

That’s another fisherman’s tale. You’ll often note that when two sides face each other in training, two completely conflicting reports comeback, hence why I don’t believe any of them. And hell, if they achieved any hits simulating R-27 SARH missiles, they obviously didn’t simulate them very well, given their 1 in 27 success rate in the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict against far less sophisticated defensive aids systems. Which is another thing I should mention, achieving a missile hit against the Typhoon whilst deploying Brite Cloud, TRDs and cross-eye jamming, with a SARH missile, not a chance in hell, especially not one with a 1 in 27 success rate against lesser ECM suites. However, at present the Rafale does have a better radar and EW system because the the Typhoon is still operating a legacy mechanically scanned radar but the Captor is being replaced with the Captor-E within the next 2 years, which is a completely new design that’s been in development for some time along with a new EW suite. So the advantage the Rafale had will be overturned completely, since the Captor-E is bigger, has more advanced modes and is a full replacement. One of the advantages of the German’s stalling, although there aren’t many, is that more technology development has taken place during that time. This is nothing to do with RCS, which is better on the Typhoon for all the reasons already mentioned (recessed BVRAAM carriage, retractable IFR probe, smaller tail, smaller canard span and swash-plate mounted radar. What it is to do with is the fact that mechanically scanned radars are total crap against modern jamming systems, which is why so much was invested in IRST, this was anticipated, they knew mechanical scanned radar would be useless. In a proper engagement, locking would be done via IRST, which is effective at up to 150km depending on the target, with 50-80km realistic for fighter engagement, which is pretty much the outer limits of a realistic engagement with current gen missiles at typical altitudes. Then you have the HMDS/PIRATE/ASRAAM advantage WVR. SPECTRA is all well and good but if you have passive enemies WVR, HMDS comes up trumps, along with wider FoR on the PIRATE vs FSO.

http://www.selex-es.com/documents/737448/17674588/body_mm07797_Pirate_IRST_LQ_March14.pdf

Multiple target tracking
Where engagement (detection, tracking and prioritisation)
of multiple targets in A/A, look up/down operations over
the whole field of regard or in a selectable volume are
executable. Passive ranging data is also available.

Single target tracking
Where angle tracking of a single acquired target can be
commanded. Automatic re-acquisition capability is available.

Slaved acquisition
Where line-of-sight is slaved to externally defined pointing
angles and automatic acquisition of a single target is
activated.

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html

Although no definitive ranges have been released an upper limit of 80nm has been hinted at, a more typical figure would be 30 to 50nm.

The IIR sensor is stabilised within its mount so that it can maintain a target within its field of view. Up to 200 targets can be simultaneously tracked by the system using one of several different modes; Multiple Target Track (MTT), Single Target Track (STT), Single Target Track Ident (STTI), Sector Acquisition and Slaved Acquisition.