Cooling is only an issue if you wan’t to extract performance outside of the cooling margins of the platform. That may not always be the intentions. Sometimes cooling (among others) limitations force you to choose GaN instead of GaAs.

Agree.

This means airmen have to spend more time re-applying the stealth coating on the Raptor, which means less time in the air. The F-35A Lightning II has similar issues with its stealth coating, he said, but not to the same degree as the F-22.

https://www.airforcetimes.com/articles/growing-readiness-woes-only-7-in-10-air-force-planes-are-ready-to-fly

Is there an upgrade path now for GaN modules on the APG-79? If not maybe Boeing could to try and convince Raytheon to invest its own money for the upgrade. If that APG-79 variant were to be used for jamming, would it be sufficient to be at parity in terms of first shot if the SH uses stealth pods that don’t increase its clean RCS?

A moving antenna with the ability to look ( and jam ) at 90+ degrees would also be nice, but I take it that would be too expensive to develop.

Problem isn’t i guess to invest in GaN antenna development, it is probably more or less advanced already (despite of huge cooling problems etc.). The problem is in cost of modules.

I don’t get it. What’s the advantage of a split array? The radar beams aren’t really ‘beams’ anyway – just high frequency pulses. Emitting actual beams would make the emission susceptible to DRFM spoofing. So as long as you can shrink the mode switching time to close to the pulse frequency, it should be nearly indistinguishable from a physically split array. ??

As said above, higher duty cycle. And think about the future. What can you do with a radar with physically separated antennas? (especially if you master ttile modules architecture, which Thalès do?)

US modules only have been used on the DRAA demonstrator (Démonstrateur Radar à Antenne Active) in 2002. The 2004 DRAAMA radar (Démonstrateur Radar à Antenne Active Modes Avancés) has already used European modules. The actual RBE2-AA has used TRMs made by UMS (Germany) from the very start.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/Fox_Three_nr_7.pdf
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwide/aerospace/press-release/thaless-rbe2-aesa-radar-successfully-completes-new-series-tests

Yes, except that UMS is half german half french btw. Nvm.

Yeah, calling the Rafale a “catastrophe” for our air force was probably an exaggeration on my part. :p Its not a bad plane but i dont think its the right plane for us. And the BAF seems to think that way too. They see the F-35 as the most transformational option out there. Another important factor is the success story that the F-16 EPAF framework was. The BAF clearly doesnt want to lose the close ties build with other EPAF partners over the last four decades and its another reason that might favor the F-35.

What concern me is: is the Rafale even able to handle high-intensity threats right now? How would the Rafale fare against “double-digits” SAM systems like the S-300 and S-400? I know the SPECTRA EW suite has a good reputation but its effectiveness against current “double-digits” sytems and future ones (S-500) is open to question. To me, the Rafale doesnt look particularly well-suited against the future threats of tomorrow like increasingly advanced SAM systems, 5th gen fighters or even 6th gen fighters (in the 2040s?).

Thanks. 😉 Yeah, perhaps not THE cheapest option but certainly the one who give us the most bang for the buck. 🙂

Well hint : type NATO MACE Xii and Rafale about S300. About RBE2, it evolves constantly. Yes when it was inducted they decided to stay on same modes as the PESA. Do you really think it is a static config? NEw modes are arriving next year. Anw, we should have a fair comparison here. We will see. EPAF was nice. Training in France also. Where will pilot train? . Remember “5th Gen” is a LM gimmick about F-22 (and it is true in US context, it is THEIR 5th Gen). (And btw, F-35 do not comply with LM’s own definition of 5th Gen). Citing data fusion and data links as revolutions is maybe true in US context. It is not worldwide. Oh i forgot! µIt US so it is uber alles.

Btw hopsalot, AdA was very happy with the change from US modules to European ones. Much more regularperformances among modules. Physical division of the antenna is coming (MELBAA programfunded in (2014) that will allow simultaneous allowment of diferent parts of the antenna to different tasks. (nad not switching very rapidly like APG81) for ex. I let you guess what will be the next step when will be demonstrated the capability to phusically separate several antennas of a sinle radar…

Or perhaps because the F-35 is simply the most capable and most cost effective (on the long term) option? Or because it has the most growth potential? Or because it has greater interoperability with many of our NATO partners? Those are just little details, right? :rolleyes: The F-16 has been a huge success story for Belgium (for both our air force and our aerospace industry) so you cant blame us if we choose to buy American once again. It would be a perfectly rational decision especially since the F-35 is seen as the F-16’s natural successor.

Thats a very silly thing to say. There is something called NATO you know. As a member of that alliance, Belgium is committed to collective defence. Which means we may have to send forces far away from our borders to defend an ally.

As far as i am concerned, i sure as hell hope we dont go for the Rafale. I think it would be a catastrophe for our air force. We would pay more for a less capable aircraft and with less growth potential. Not to mention that the Rafale is a 30+ year-old design. We plan to fly our new fighters until 2058 and i have a hard believing that the Rafale will still be relevant in the 2030s, 40s and 50s…

Most capable is a judgement not substantiated. Most cost effective imho is certainly not true. More growth potential? It is already struggling to gain weight… And EOTS showed internal thingies do not evolve as fast as … eg. designation pods.