Rafale news XII

[TMor]

TMor,

What on earth do you think the Indian politician was on about when he accused Rafale of having failed in precision bombing in Libya?

MY impression is that he had 250kg bombs in mind, though we have used concrete bombs so as to reduce collateral damages.
Remember that France has expressed interest in Brimstone, and even guided rockets, before, in Afghanistan.
This is all I think about, but I'm not sure.

There have been questions about diversions to Malta, availability, etc., but not, as far as I know, precision bombing, though I have taken my eye off the French ball recently.

AdlA reports 95 percent availability.

The majority of LGBs dropped by RAF aircraft during the Libyan op used GPS guidance (all or nearly all were dual mode weapons) or were said to have done so but I don't think that France has any Enhanced PWs, does it?

SEM use it since 2008 (Afghanistan), and we have learnt recently that the Marine is integrating it on Rafale too. Trials are underway.
Mirage 2000D use it too.

There has been speculation that the apparently high proportion of GAINS guided attacks by Tornado/Typhoon actually camouflaged the use of friendly ground-based designation, is there a French perspective on that?

No idea.

The number of Scalps seems small compared to the RAF Tornado's Storm Shadow tally - no criticism intended, it's just an observation. Were they all from Rafale, or some from M2KD?

Rafale B : 10 Scalp
Rafale M : 4 Scalp
Mirage 2000D : 1 Scalp (2 planned, but only one worked).

If from Rafale, were all from the carrier based Rafales? Has there been a breakdown of weapons dropped just by Rafale, or better yet by AdlA and Aeronavale Rafales?

See above.

And what of the Mirage 2000Ds and Super Etendards? What weapons did they use?

Mirage 2000D : Scalp, GBU-49, at least (probably GBU-12) ;
SEM : GBU-49, GBU-12/22...

Are you blokes still using any indigenous SAMP LGBs?

I don't know...

[Mildave]

The relative small use of Scalp missiles might be attributed to the AASM which already offer good stand off distances at better prices that may have been good enough for most threats present in Libya as well as the fact that the French consider the Scalp as a strategic missile which IIRC can only be authorized by the highest authorities (i.e president, prime minister...) for the most demanding missions.

[TMor]

Interestingly, the last A&C reveals that the use of Scalp EG / Storm Shadow is too complicated, and something will be done to ease its use for tactical missions.

[Bluewings]

Jacko :

There has been speculation that the apparently high proportion of GAINS guided attacks by Tornado/Typhoon actually camouflaged the use of friendly ground-based designation, is there a French perspective on that?

French Operatives were indeed on the ground to provide variious kind of Intels as well as laser designation on some of the bombing , as usual I should say . These personals are not seen as "boots on the ground" in the way that they are not "fighting" but merely doing what is requested from them . They are AdlA SpecOps , understand CPA-10 and also few RPIMAs from the MN . Most Nations use SpecOps outside the UN mandat simply because it is needed in this kind of situation , nothing new under the sun .

Obviously , there are no official reports on this and its is perfectly normal . I know because I was one of them in the 80s (GIA Squadron in Lebanon and Syria which was to become the CPA-10 years later) .
Having "eyeballs" on the ground is still the best way to avoid collateral dammages (as much as possible) .

Cheers .

[swerve]

There has been speculation that the apparently high proportion of GAINS guided attacks by Tornado/Typhoon actually camouflaged the use of friendly ground-based designation,

Well, probably most of us saw the pictures of ex-British army/RM people in civvies wandering around rebel-held parts Libya with guns & personal radios, & read the speculation by ex-senior officers about what contacts they might still have with their former employers.

[mrmalaya]

on the engine again...

so that is fascinating. is that official about the cooling channel being designed in from the beginning reduce the IR profile of the aircraft?

Where did those little piccies come from?

These sorts of things don't make it invisible though do they? Just less obvious from distance to less sophisticated sensors?

Still, good stuff. I assume this originated in the French strike requirement for the Rafale rather than to help it in A2A combat?

As to Scalp being complicated, is there any evidence that Stormshadow is complicated for the RAF? And what could Scalp operational complications mean?

[TMor]

These sorts of things don't make it invisible though do they? Just less obvious from distance to less sophisticated sensors?

Nothing is invisible.
But it is said that the engines do not increase the IR signature of the Rafale.

Still, good stuff. I assume this originated in the French strike requirement for the Rafale rather than to help it in A2A combat?

That's what I think too. Nothing can help when flying high.

As to Scalp being complicated, is there any evidence that Stormshadow is complicated for the RAF? And what could Scalp operational complications mean?

The decisions were taken by UK and France altogether during a meeting (on February the 17th of 2012).
They need more flexibility. They should achieve this with software modifications :

• easier mission preparation ;
• improved dynamics (range, trajectory...).

[mrmalaya]

oh i see. Yep I've read that this is more of an update to the weapon than an operational change.

Personally I think a long range Scalp/Stormshadow answers a lot of problems, but you need to be able to change its orders reliably once you've let the thing go from distance.

[Mercurius]

So, either the Coalition were huge p*ssies, taking all those precautions against an impotent, senile ADS, or it was still dangerous enough.

You do not win wars by being a nice guy and giving the enemy a sporting chance. You win by hitting the enemy with the most effective weaponry in your arsenal for the class of target that the enemy presents, while offering the least possible chance of allowing the enemy to harm to you. No matter how great your technological superiority over the enemy may be, and how limited his defensive capability might be, you are always at risk.

During the Algerian War, one of France’s most experienced counter-insurgency experts was killed by a peasant armed with a shotgun.

The repeated use of the same flight path and inadequate stand-off jamming allowed Serbia a ‘one-off’ kill against the F-117.

When those crazy French were waltzing around without invisible stealth bombers and dedicated jammer planes.

The french jets went into Libya prior to any preventive strike or cruise missile bombardment.

But the Rafale first strikes took place 1 day before those massive cruise missile and B2 strikes which destroyed most of the Lybian defensive network.
So yes, the Rafale proved to be able to fly and fight through a fully operational and intact SAM network.

Is this image of French fighters ‘waltzing around’ the skies over Libya in the face of an operational SAM network an accurate one? According to French MoD press releases, air operations in the first two days were in the area of Benghazi. Before the conflict began, the area’s SAM defences seem to have consisted of two batteries of SA-2, two of SA-3, and one of SA-5. Most of these sites were close to Benghazi.

Do we know if these sites were operating normally, had been attacked by the rebels, or if some or all of their crews had defected or deserted? It is possible that the only SAM systems that the Rafales faced were the mobile shorter-range systems used by the regime’s forces in the area. And my friends in Sagem would want me to remind you of the use that the Rafales made of the ASSM standoff weapon on the opening day of the conflict.

That's what I call vague.

Having had some professional involvement in EW, I rated it as “factual”.

please... That's a bit facile.
At least do a drawing or something.

I indicated how Jackonicko’s assertion regarding Spectra angular coverage could be checked by anyone wanting to challenge it by looking at the location of its antennas. I was not volunteering to do the job myself, given that I was not challenging his assertion.

Did I say modern ?
No I said fully operational.
BTW, old does not mean harmless.

I have just returned from seeing my doctor, who tells me that in most respects I am still 100% operational. But a long country walk last weekend made it very clear that 100% operational capability in a seventy-year old body does not amount to much when you are trying to keep up with friends who less than half your age. Reality is equally harsh for ageing air-defence and SAM systems.

Against a MESA or PESA, maybe. Tracking an AESA on the other hand, is a very different prospect.

What makes an AESA a different prospect from the other types?

The Rafale's radar doesn't need accurate coordinates from the SPECTRA - the AESA's scan rates are near instantaneous.

While the high scanning rate of a PESA or AESA allows a small angular sector of sky to be searched faster than is possible with e mechanically scanned radar, beam dwell time on target will be shorter, degrading the detectability of a target.

Last time I checked TRD is but one way to get the job done.

The USAF concluded some three decades ago that towed or expendable decoys were the only adequate countermeasure to sophisticated monopulse threats. Their continued development of such hardware strongly suggests that this is still the case.

[Bluewings]

mrmalaya :

so that is fascinating. is that official about the cooling channel being designed in from the beginning reduce the IR profile of the aircraft?

Of course ! You don 't design an engine this way just for the fun of it

Where did those little piccies come from?

The first one is from a Snecma pdf and the second one from the F-22 site .

These sorts of things don't make it invisible though do they? Just less obvious from distance to less sophisticated sensors?
Still, good stuff. I assume this originated in the French strike requirement for the Rafale rather than to help it in A2A combat?

TMor responded to your questions and I can only agree with him . Wrt A2A combat , having a reduced IR signature doesn 't bring much really ... It can help to reduce the detection range of a FLIR and/or IRST but it is almost useless against today 's IR missiles seekers . I say "almost" because it is still an help when the flares are flying in the way that the engine exhausts are cooler than normal engines .
But a clever IR seeker is almost impossible to fool nowadays ...
***************
Mercurius , I have been reading your posts for ages now and I enjoy everything I read from you . You 're a clever chap .
But this , I don 't get it :

Before the conflict began, the area’s SAM defences seem to have consisted of two batteries of SA-2, two of SA-3, and one of SA-5. Most of these sites were close to Benghazi.

Do we know if these sites were operating normally, had been attacked by the rebels, or if some or all of their crews had defected or deserted? It is possible that the only SAM systems that the Rafales faced were the mobile shorter-range systems used by the regime’s forces in the area.

While you 're on it , why don 't you say that they were plastic or wooden decoys ? Or maybe their crews commited suicide ?
More seriously , I am sure that the SAMs were 100% operational as well as all the coastal defenses . NATO had enough Intels to feed the various partners (and France has her own Intels from Sats to Operatives on the ground) and if the Lybian ADS were inexistant or powerless , why :
- the USA proposed to france the help from the Growlers (which was refused)
- the huge tomahawk volley on the third day

I indicated how Jackonicko’s assertion regarding Spectra angular coverage could be checked by anyone wanting to challenge it by looking at the location of its antennas.

With all the respect due to Jacko , one doesn 't need multiple antennas for Interferometry to work , one is enough . The trick is about signal understanding , math and software . As an example , the RWRs on the late M2000s are all on top of the tail but since the ICMS MKII , they are capable of interferometry :



By the way , the sheer amount of mounted antennas and all the gathered datas have to be handled by a clever system to provide the pilot a clear view of the situation at hand and this is what we usualy call "data-fusion" .
All aircraft are not equals in this regard .
The 4th gen aircraft are way behind jets like F-22 and Rafale . AFAIK , they are the only 2 aircraft using the EMCON concept where all EM emisions are carefully tailored in real time with regard to the situation at hand .
This graphic is telling :



This is all about "discretion" (EM stealth) which provides a rather big edge in A2A since you can avoid enemy detection (or at least retard it) and it gives you the opportunity to manoever outside the enemy detection enveloppe without being EM detected since you manage your own emissions .

What makes an AESA a different prospect from the other types?

Power management and frequency hoping . A Pesa radar has a big edge on a MSA radar just because of the scanning speed and an Aesa radar has an astonishing power management capability .

The USAF concluded some three decades ago that towed or expendable decoys were the only adequate countermeasure to sophisticated monopulse threats. Their continued development of such hardware strongly suggests that this is still the case.

This is old technology . While shaffs and towed decoys are still doing a rather good job against monopulse radars , they are not a given against latest EM missiles . Towed decoys are very usefull against HoJ (Home on Jam) missiles but the best way is still to fool electronicaly the missile seeker by feeding it with wrong data rather than deafening it with brute force (towed decoys) .

Cheers .

[TooCool_12f]

er, one question: which aircraft use towed decoys today?

[bgnewf]

er, one question: which aircraft use towed decoys today?

Super Hornets, Tornado's, Typhoons, B-1B's just off the top of my head.

[Bluewings]

I also heard that some F-16s were using the towed ALE-50 ...

Cheers .

[Mildave]

Final Countdown

Ghazala Wahab

New Delhi: The last mile determines whether eventually you will look back with satisfaction for a job well done or regret the opportunities missed. Hence, even as the tempo has to be maintained, the strides need to acquire flexibility and imagination to tide over the last few hurdles. The chief of air staff, Air Chief Marshal Norman Anil Kumar Browne’s current state of mind would be a bit akin to that of a long distance runner: a combination of pleasure and determination; anticipation and anxiety.

The so-called mother of all defence deals, the MMRCA, after the selection of Dassault Aviation’s Rafale aircraft as Lowest-1 on January 31, is now in its final leg. Proving the naysayers wrong, the over half-a-decade long acquisition process is finally going to culminate into a contract for 126 fighter aircraft on ACM Browne’s watch.

“The IAF is the main driver in this project and everything is moving on track,” he says matter-of-factly in an exclusive interview to FORCE. “While I cannot discuss details of the ongoing Contract Negotiations Committee (CNC), I will only discuss the process of acquisition which has been adopted as per Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) 2006. The CNC is likely to wrap up all discussions in the next eight to 10 months and we will sign the contract in the financial year 2012-2013. We have made budgetary provisions for the MMRCA in this financial year.” If things move to plan, then ACM Browne would rather have the contract signed on 15 December 2012. Surely, he would like to present the MMRCA to the IAF as a return gift on his birthday.

However, for the moment, he is conscious of what a big deal the MMRCA is going to be, not only for the IAF, but for the nation in general and the indigenous aerospace industry in particular. “MMRCA will mark a significant growth in terms of aviation production portfolio of Indian companies right up to the component level,” he says, referring to the inflow of key technologies into India once the process of license-production of the fighter starts.

[Mildave]

Is this image of French fighters ‘waltzing around’ the skies over Libya in the face of an operational SAM network an accurate one? According to French MoD press releases, air operations in the first two days were in the area of Benghazi. Before the conflict began, the area’s SAM defences seem to have consisted of two batteries of SA-2, two of SA-3, and one of SA-5. Most of these sites were close to Benghazi.

We never said Rafale went into the most defended area. They still operated into denied airspace along Mirages 2000D. Maybe I shall remember you that another aircraft got shot during that time from the rebel camp ?

Do we know if these sites were operating normally, had been attacked by the rebels, or if some or all of their crews had defected or deserted? It is possible that the only SAM systems that the Rafales faced were the mobile shorter-range systems used by the regime’s forces in the area. And my friends in Sagem would want me to remind you of the use that the Rafales made of the ASSM standoff weapon on the opening day of the conflict.

So ? They used the AASM because it's the most effective AtG weapon currently cleared on the Rafale and it was the right tool for the job. I guess between satellites, C-160G and certainly ground operators they had a good idea were the fixed radars were and could either avoid them when necessary or destroy them. Testimonies from the pilots show that Libyan radars tried to get a lock on them for hours without success. As I said earlier, SPECTRA + AASM is a pretty effective combo. The future capability to update directly data from satellites will make it even more effective. For now L-16 allowed the strike teams to get update from the C-160G operating in the area for weeks before the bombing began.

I indicated how Jackonicko’s assertion regarding Spectra angular coverage could be checked by anyone wanting to challenge it by looking at the location of its antennas. I was not volunteering to do the job myself, given that I was not challenging his assertion.

If you're not ready to back up your assertion with the facts that allowed you to draw such a conclusion then I'm afraid you're walking very close to the valley of trolls... But I shall not fear , I'm sure you and your buddy will be able to provide us with more than the "its obvious" kind of line. Thank you in advance.

I have just returned from seeing my doctor, who tells me that in most respects I am still 100% operational. But a long country walk last weekend made it very clear that 100% operational capability in a seventy-year old body does not amount to much when you are trying to keep up with friends who less than half your age. Reality is equally harsh for ageing air-defence and SAM systems.

The conflict took weeks before it started during which time Libya certainly tried its best to acquire hardware on the black market. They already had quite a arsenal of MANPADs and other StA weapons. They "could" have upgraded their radars (which would be the most critical in any defence, not the missiles themselves), and given how resourceful they were during all the conflict I doubt, or I would be very surprised if they didn't do their best to denied their airspace. It's not like Benghazi wasn't a obvious target for the west to start. Just look at that title, French Rafale stop massacre in Benhazi... Catchy isn't it ? Something I'm sure Sarko will be proud of...

What makes an AESA a different prospect from the other types?

In this context beside been way better at LPI modes ?

While the high scanning rate of a PESA or AESA allows a small angular sector of sky to be searched faster than is possible with e mechanically scanned radar, beam dwell time on target will be shorter, degrading the detectability of a target.

ESA radars have software that will automatically form and adapt the beam in order to make it has effective has possible for the task at hand. That mean if the radar detect something, it's going to automatically spend more time scanning that thing before moving on. So you're argument about beam dwell time is completely irrelevant here. Not only the ESA radar can spent as much dwelling time as it want, but it can even do so without sacrificing much in term of resources for the other tasks. Try and do that with an MScan...

The USAF concluded some three decades ago that towed or expendable decoys were the only adequate countermeasure to sophisticated monopulse threats. Their continued development of such hardware strongly suggests that this is still the case.

So a few companies that have spent some money on that particular technology is trying to get as much bucks as possible by providing a few upgrades and selling it to some countries whose airforce is familiar with that kind of system... Have you had a look at recent development in fighter aircraft like I don't know, Rafale, F-22, F-35, Su-35, PakFa etc. ?

[eagle1]

India Expects to Conclude Dassault Jet Deal in Few Months
Wall Street Journal , March 29


NEW DELHI – India expects to conclude a deal to buy 126 Rafale fighter jets from France's Dassault Aviation in the next few months, junior Defense Minister M.M. Pallam Raju said Thursday.

"We hope to conclude the deal as soon as possible," Mr. Raju said, adding that decisions need to be taken on setting up a factory to manufacture the jets in India and on technology sharing.
The defense ministry on Jan. 31 said Dassault had emerged as the lowest bidder for the contract, edging out Eurofighter GmbH, which had offered the Typhoon jet.

Mr. Raju also said the ministry will publish a document highlighting its defense procurement plan for the next 15 years.
"The document will include details on the requirements of the three armed forces to enable local companies plan their joint ventures and investments," he added.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

[Mercurius]

While you 're on it , why don 't you say that they were plastic or wooden decoys ? Or maybe their crews commited suicide.

I am sorry if my questioning whether, when a regional capital is in a state of insurrection, the defensive sites around that capital may be affected by the unrest, strikes you as unreasonable. It seemed reasonable to me.

I made no claim that this was in fact the case – but only raised the possibility.

More seriously , I am sure that the SAMs were 100% operational as well as all the coastal defenses .

Alas, I have no such certainty. I vaguely recall reading a report that one or more of the SAM sites around Benghazi had fallen into rebel hands, but the only way of being sure of the status of these installations on 19 March 2011 would be to study contemporary intelligence reports.

why :
- the USA proposed to france the help from the Growlers (which was refused)
- the huge tomahawk volley on the third day

Not having been involved in the tactical planning of the operations, I have no knowledge of either the Growler operations or the targets assigned to the Tomahawks, so cannot comment of these points.

With all the respect due to Jacko , one doesn 't need multiple antennas for Interferometry to work , one is enough . The trick is about signal understanding , math and software . As an example , the RWRs on the late M2000s are all on top of the tail but since the ICMS MKII , they are capable of interferometry :

Interferometry is a technique that requires two simultaneous observations from two locations. Last night I pulled from my files details of several EW sensors that use Interferometry. All used multiple antennas, although these were sometimes mounted in close proximity to one another

Power management and frequency hoping . A Pesa radar has a big edge on a MSA radar just because of the scanning speed and an Aesa radar has an astonishing power management capability .

Power management and frequency hopping were in use long before the arrival of electronic scanning. In several AESE briefings I’ve sat through in the last year or so, the subject was not even raised, som it seems that the presenters did not consider it a significant feature.

This is old technology . While shaffs and towed decoys are still doing a rather good job against monopulse radars , they are not a given against latest EM missiles . Towed decoys are very usefull against HoJ (Home on Jam) missiles but the best way is still to fool electronicaly the missile seeker by feeding it with wrong data rather than deafening it with brute force (towed decoys) .

The point of using a monopulse antenna is to deprive your opponent of many of the techniques used in deceptive jamming.

And a towed decoy does not deafen its target with brute force – it is based on deceptive jamming. For example, the ALE-55 is linked to the parent aircraft’s EW techniques generator via an optical fibre incorporated within the towing cable.

If you're not ready to back up your assertion with the facts that allowed you to draw such a conclusion then I'm afraid you're walking very close to the valley of trolls... But I shall not fear , I'm sure you and your buddy will be able to provide us with more than the "its obvious" kind of line. Thank you in advance.

What assertion? What conclusion? The only assertion I made was that Jackoniko’s claim could be checked by studying the antenna locations on the aircraft. I offered no opinion on the accuracy of his claim, so am under no obligation to produce data that supports or does not support his statement. All I did was to indicate a potential approach that would cast further light on the question, should anyone be interested in pursuing it.

And while I think I may have met the gentleman socially at an aerospace event some years ago, that does not make him my ‘buddy’.

They "could" have upgraded their radars (which would be the most critical in any defence, not the missiles themselves), and given how resourceful they were during all the conflict I doubt, or I would be very surprised if they didn't do their best to denied their airspace.

No such upgrade programmes have been reported. And Libya’s attempts to defend its airspace seem to have been singularly unsuccessful in the face of NATO SEAD operations. For example, as the rebel forces closed on Tripoli, a major SEAD operation was mounted in the Tripoli area.

ESA radars have software that will automatically form and adapt the beam in order to make it has effective has possible for the task at hand. That mean if the radar detect something, it's going to automatically spend more time scanning that thing before moving on. So you're argument about beam dwell time is completely irrelevant here. Not only the ESA radar can spent as much dwelling time as it want, but it can even do so without sacrificing much in term of resources for the other tasks.

But in order to get that initial detection, you need to get enough power reflected from the target. Since beam dwell time is one of the factors that influences the amount of energy returned, reducing dwell time reduces detection range.

So a few companies that have spent some money on that particular technology is trying to get as much bucks as possible by providing a few upgrades and selling it to some countries whose airforce is familiar with that kind of system... Have you had a look at recent development in fighter aircraft like I don't know, Rafale, F-22, F-35, Su-35, PakFa etc. ?

Are you seriously suggesting that the US EW community to too lazy or set in its ways to look for alternatives to towed decoys? I know enough about its current R&D plans to be aware of at least some of the technologies under study. They are pushing the state of the art.

As for looking at recent fighter developments, few technical details have been published on the Spectra, and even less about the EW systems of the F-22 and F-35.

All we know about the Su-35 EW fit is that it uses active jammer from local or group protection active jammer; is fitted with radar-warning, missile approach warning, and laser warning systems; and chaff/flare dispensing system. I have seen no reliable information on the EW plans for the PakFa and its Chinese equivalent.

[Jackonicko]

Posted on the wrong thread in error. Apologies

[Mildave]

What assertion? What conclusion? The only assertion I made was that Jackoniko’s claim could be checked by studying the antenna locations on the aircraft. I offered no opinion on the accuracy of his claim, so am under no obligation to produce data that supports or does not support his statement. All I did was to indicate a potential approach that would cast further light on the question, should anyone be interested in pursuing it.

I was not volunteering to do the job myself, given that I was not challenging his assertion.

Sorry if I was under the impression that you agreed since you said you were not challenging his assertion...

No such upgrade programmes have been reported. And Libya’s attempts to defend its airspace seem to have been singularly unsuccessful in the face of NATO SEAD operations. For example, as the rebel forces closed on Tripoli, a major SEAD operation was mounted in the Tripoli area.

I was just wondering whether, when a country is in the brink of war, the defence site protecting its airspace could not receive some upgrades to their radars in order to make them more effective. The use of B2s, Tomahawks, and Growler simply seems an over kill for a country whose air defence installations are in the hands of rebel or deserted, wouldn't you agree ?

But in order to get that initial detection, you need to get enough power reflected from the target. Since beam dwell time is one of the factors that influences the amount of energy returned, reducing dwell time reduces detection range.

Because you're using a fixed antenna, and your radar waves are automatically managed by your mission computer, it will adjust to whatever mode your radar is on. If you're trying to detect long range targets then you'll spend more time, more energy and higher frequencies scanning the sky. Because you don't have to rotate your antenna, you don't have to wait on a fixed part of the sky before moving on.

Are you seriously suggesting that the US EW community to too lazy or set in its ways to look for alternatives to towed decoys? I know enough about its current R&D plans to be aware of at least some of the technologies under study. They are pushing the state of the art.

No sir I'm not. I'm simply suggesting that companies usually upgrade existing products because developing brand new one have a lot of risks involved and very few countries have the fund or political will to do so. As such they can offer limited upgrades to some customers at lower cost, or sell new equipments to new customers while relying on existing experience. It's always better to sell something with the tag "in service with X+ other air forces around the world" than "well you're the launching customer so would you mind testing that bit of overpriced equipment for us please ?"

As for looking at recent fighter developments, few technical details have been published on the Spectra, and even less about the EW systems of the F-22 and F-35.

True enough and most of them are still in development and upgrades, but we do know none of them have gone the towed decoy path.

All we know about the Su-35 EW fit is that it uses active jammer from local or group protection active jammer; is fitted with radar-warning, missile approach warning, and laser warning systems; and chaff/flare dispensing system. I have seen no reliable information on the EW plans for the PakFa and its Chinese equivalent.

The modern approach "seem" to be to spread the EW all around the aircraft rather than use a towed decoy. Of course the future will tell us more about that... Oh and what happen when you lose your decoy ?

[Nicolas10]

Slightly off-topic, but watching the news, I was under the impression that NATO set up a 'no fly zone' to avoid Libyan aircrafts to bomb civilian peaceful protesters. But here I only read about rebels... I'm quite confused. Some even suggest that those rebels might have taken SAM sites? Shocking

Nic

[Mildave]

Oh kido, don't be naive

[mrmalaya]

so i was wondering about late at night....

Rafale currently carries the ASMP (?) right. This was designed to penetrate soviet defences and destroy civil or military sites?

How much longer will there be an airborne nuclear weapon for France? I assume that the SLBMs are good enough to do the job of deterrence in this day and age, but am I drawing too many parallels with UK policy?

I am particularly interested in this aspect because it seems to contribute to the importance of Rafale carrying out deep strike (almost as if this ability is an asset of great national importance).

All questions asked in the best possible way....

[Mildave]

First the Rafale is carrying the ASMP-A, which is a upgraded version of the ASMP with better range, stealth and precision. It also has or should have a new warhead IIRC. It's goal is allegedly to penetrate any enemy defences.

Second contrary to the SLBMs which purpose is to annihilate the enemy in a second strike, the ASMP-A first role is to be a last warning deterrent. Its goal isn't so much about pure destruction, but to demonstrate the will of France to no back down or that they really do mean business. As such its EMP effect from high altitude explosion might be enough.
Plus military satellites are proliferating. Right now its mainly for communication but soon enough most great powers will have their own network of IR satellites that can detect any SLBMs launch pretty effectively. You won't see the ASMP-A coming.

Lastly, the deep strike capability currently shared by Mirages 2000N and Rafale is about been as survivable and discreet as possible in order to carry out the mission (release of nuclear weapons at stand off distances) while not been detected but still been able to detect and protect yourself from any threat that may come your way, which is why the passive targeting requirements isn't just to impress exports customer but a real requirement. Because these requirements are strategic and part of France nuclear deterrent, they are going to be paid special attention and receive appropriate funding which won't all come from the air force or marine budget but from the entire defence budget plus some additional funds that are part of the nuclear "civil" agency.

It will also include tanker, awacs, satellites, intelligence, EW libraries, jamming, deception tactics etc. Everything a plane that do not possess the ability to magically disappear might need to carry out the nuclear deterrent even inside denied air spaces. Now because the Rafale come in the same variant (or almost) no matter the mission, every aircraft in the air whether policing or doing conventional strikes have the same capabilities that were developed for the nuclear deterrent. It as if you could get your SLBM submarine to be an attack submarine, a OPV, a destroyer, a supply ships etc all at once... (well it's a picture obviously but you get the idea...)

[Nicolas10]

so i was wondering about late at night....

Rafale currently carries the ASMP (?) right. This was designed to penetrate soviet defences and destroy civil or military sites?

How much longer will there be an airborne nuclear weapon for France? I assume that the SLBMs are good enough to do the job of deterrence in this day and age, but am I drawing too many parallels with UK policy?

I am particularly interested in this aspect because it seems to contribute to the importance of Rafale carrying out deep strike (almost as if this ability is an asset of great national importance).

All questions asked in the best possible way....

IMO deterrence requires submarines + an air vector. If you have just one vector it's much easier for your potential enemy to know where the threat comes from and try to deny it.

Say you have 2 or 3 nuclear subs at sea. If your opponent know the location of them they can act accordingly. If you have three subs, and dozens of fighters capable of launchink air launch nuclear missiles, then things get more interesting.

And the fact that there is such emphasis on deep strike in enemy territory only make things easier for tactical strike with Scalp missiles, or even AASM.

Nic

[AlphaZulu]

Plus military satellites are proliferating. Right now its mainly for communication but soon enough most great powers will have their own network of IR satellites that can detect any SLBMs launch pretty effectively. You won't see the ASMP-A coming.

Huh?
That's a strange idea... It's far easier to detect an air raid than a sub launch.
And once the nukes are on their way, either you launch a ripost or you don't, but in both cases its pretty much "end of game" for you...

If you have just one vector it's much easier for your potential enemy to know where the threat comes from and try to deny it.

On paper, you're right. But...

Say you have 2 or 3 nuclear subs at sea. If your opponent know the location of them they can act accordingly. If you have three subs, and dozens of fighters capable of launchink air launch nuclear missiles, then things get more interesting.

... as said above, locating a SSBN is hard. That's the point. Except perhaps (if you got the right tools) when she launchs its missiles, but then it's too late.
On the other hand, a handful of undercover guys with binoculars, or an imagery satellite would know easily what's going on on your opponent's nuclear air-bases: those don't move, and are pretty hard to hide underwater...

Let's be clear: Both vectors are credible & complementary. Since France got SSBN (and the now decommissionned land-based missiles), the subs are for when it matters, constant vigilance & immediate alert. The aircrafts for the "show-off", no more 10 or 15' permanent alert. But when needed, activity on a nuke airbase is "visible", and participate to send a "message" (that's not me saying that, but FAS & FOST officers together...)

----------

Anyway, back to the Rafale:
M10 @ AIA Clermont-Ferrand, first "F1" to be upgraded to "F3".
French text, nice pics.
http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=119261

Cheers
AZ

[merlin2]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...googlenews_wsj

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/d.../1/178050.html


Nothing is sure until all the documents are signed mate..

[Mildave]

...

All good, but you forget that Rafale M can also carry the ASMP-A, and it would be very hard to detect them on a aircraft carrier. In addition for countries like Russia or China, detecting submarines isn't that hard either. Detecting SLBM launch is even easier. The Russian have had a ABM defence for ages now. Beside because every Rafale could potentially carry the ASMP-A it won't be that easy to tell.

[eagle1]

Telugu Desam Party's Rajya Sabha MP M.V. Mysura Reddy wrote to Antony alleging deviations in procedure. Officials involved in negotiations say the probe will delay the deal by only a "month or two". Ministry of Defence (MoD) expects the deal to be signed before March 31, 2013.

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/d.../1/178050.html

Indeed, the situation is the negotiations are not stopping despite the probe.

Two of the 15 members in the defence ministry's Contract Negotiation Committee (CNC) have questioned the methods adopted to conclude that Rafale was cheaper than Eurofighter Typhoon in lifecycle costs.

"But the matter was resolved, with the observations of the two being recorded...all committees face dissent from one or more members...it does not mean the process will come to a stop," said a senior official.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/i...w/12461756.cms

[eagle1]

Thales delivers first production RBE2 AESA radar to Dassault Aviation
Thales , March 30


Neuilly-sur-Seine – In February, Thales delivered the first series-produced RBE2 radar with active electronically scanned array (AESA) to the Dassault Aviation facility in Mérignac, France. The radar will now be installed on Rafale C137, the first Rafale with this new capability, which is scheduled for delivery to the French defence procurement agency (DGA) this summer. A comprehensive three-month flight test programme conducted with the first production RBE2 AESA radar at the Istres air base demonstrated the qualities of the radar and confirmed the expected levels of performance prior to delivery to Dassault Aviation.

The RBE2 AESA radar was delivered in line with the contract schedule, demonstrating the new radar’s technological maturity and further consolidating Thales’s European leadership in radars for combat aircraft.

The RBE2 AESA will give the Rafale a number of key advantages:

- Extended range for full compatibility with the latest-generation long-range missiles, such as the Meteor, combined with the ability to detect low-observable targets
- Higher reliability for reduced cost of ownership (no major maintenance is required on the active array for 10 years)
- Waveform agility for high-resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) imagery and increased resistance to jamming


The Rafale will be the only European combat aircraft under full-scale production with an active-array radar. The operational superiority of this omnirole combat aircraft, which was demonstrated most recently during Operation Harmattan in Libya, is now further assured for the full spectrum of French Air Force and Navy missions relying on the new technology.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/Press_Rel...tion/?pid=1650

[eagle1]

Rafale F1 renovation started
Mer et Marine, 30 march


The images are impressive and give a good idea of ​​the scope of work. At the Atelier Industriel de l'Aéronautique (AIA) of Clermont-Ferrand , its on a cabin that seemed almost naked that Service Industrial Aerospace (SIAé) teams began working a few weeks ago. This aircraft is hardly recognizable, the M10, one of 10 Rafale F1 standard of French naval aviation. The modernization project of these devices has indeed begun. It must be remembered that the M1 to M10 were delivered urgently by Dassault Aviation from 1999 to replace the F-8P Crusader, whose last survivors were so out of breath. Constrained by the schedule of withdrawal of the old interceptors, Dassault has delivered to Navy aircraft with limited capacity, with the sole mission of air defense for the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle. It was only from 2006 that the Rafale was able to conduct air-ground attacks with the arrival of the F2 standard with the M11, the aircraft became completely versatile with the F3 standard in 2008 (all F2 has since been retrofitted to F3 standard). In 2008, the decision was made to mothballed M2 to M10 Rafale, so 9 units, in order to modernize them later. Only the M1 continued to flight, for the benefit of Dassault at the the Istres air base, for testing new equipment.

impressive pictures of the rafale M1 brought to the F3 standard here (one year per aircraft upgrade) :

http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=119261