Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Future of Belgian Air Component

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #81
    Originally posted by LoneWolf View Post
    Yeah, calling the Rafale a "catastrophe" for our air force was probably an exaggeration on my part. 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! It 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...
    Last edited by halloweene; 30th March 2017, 21:52.

    Comment


      #82
      Originally posted by halloweene View Post
      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...
      Source this please- AESA have "near simultaneous modes" in other words interleaving modes. Which U.S. ones did the AdA use? There are several foundries in the US, maybe DGA shouldn't buy the cheapest ones . What is the timetable for this physical division because there is nothing, zero information on it other than:
      - THALES has this to say on their site
      "Active electronic scanning makes it possible to switch radar modes quickly, thereby enabling operational functions to run simultaneously"
      -https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/active-electronically-scanned-array-aesa-rbe2-radar

      In other words, it's exactly the same as the US AESA only smaller and with an older back end.

      Nevermind, I found it http://www.air-cosmos.com/futur-rada...e-rafale-25687

      Goods not as advertised Hallow, it is for the Rafale mid-life update in the late 2020's-30's of an advanced AESA that does not yet exist.
      Last edited by FBW; 30th March 2017, 22:48.

      Comment


        #83
        Originally posted by FBW View Post
        Source this please- AESA have "near simultaneous modes" in other words interleaving modes. Which U.S. ones did the AdA use? There are several foundries in the US, maybe DGA shouldn't buy the cheapest ones . What is the timetable for this physical division because there is nothing, zero information on it other than:
        - THALES has this to say on their site -https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/active-electronically-scanned-array-aesa-rbe2-radar

        In other words, it's exactly the same as the US AESA only smaller and with an older back end.

        Nevermind, I found it http://www.air-cosmos.com/futur-rada...e-rafale-25687

        Goods not as advertised Hallow, it is for the Rafale mid-life update in the late 2020's-30's of an advanced AESA that does not yet exist.
        It's an upgrade of an upgrade, a set of path that have been much too common those late years. Bring a marketing thingy that see moderate usage (OP request, Excessive cost, poor reliability or moderate achievements ) and wait for the full capabilities to be release by yet another funded program later. Honestly, what usage have those 32 something AESA? They don't even call it LRIP when it should be.

        Edit: oops, not the Rafale thread. Sorry for the OT.

        Comment


          #84
          Originally posted by LoneWolf View Post
          The Rafale has a higher flyaway cost (~$110 millions) than the F-35 ($85 millions and shrinking) and has high operating costs too.
          No.

          The exact Fly Away Unit Cost, Recurring (93.512 million US$) or Non Recurring (98.994 million US$), for a 2017 aircraft is available in the USAF Budget wich is public (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/8...-24-102038-590 pages 71 and 73).
          Theres no exact equivalent number available for the Rafale.
          Last edited by Sintra; 30th March 2017, 23:54.
          sigpic

          Comment


            #85
            Originally posted by FBW View Post
            Source this please- AESA have "near simultaneous modes" in other words interleaving modes. Which U.S. ones did the AdA use? There are several foundries in the US, maybe DGA shouldn't buy the cheapest ones . What is the timetable for this physical division because there is nothing, zero information on it other than:
            US modules only have been used on the DRAA demonstrator (Dmonstrateur Radar Antenne Active) in 2002. The 2004 DRAAMA radar (Dmonstrateur Radar Antenne Active Modes Avancs) 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-...Three_nr_7.pdf
            https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/world...w-series-tests

            Comment


              #86
              Originally posted by MSphere View Post
              US modules only have been used on the DRAA demonstrator (Dmonstrateur Radar Antenne Active) in 2002. The 2004 DRAAMA radar (Dmonstrateur Radar Antenne Active Modes Avancs) 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-...Three_nr_7.pdf
              https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/world...w-series-tests
              Yes, except that UMS is half german half french btw. Nvm.

              Comment


                #87
                Originally posted by Sintra View Post
                No.

                The exact Fly Away Unit Cost, Recurring (93.512 million US$) or Non Recurring (98.994 million US$), for a 2017 aircraft is available in the USAF Budget wich is public (http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/8...-24-102038-590 pages 71 and 73).
                Theres no exact equivalent number available for the Rafale.
                I stand corrected.

                By 2019, its fly away cost is expected to fall to $85 million though.
                Last edited by LoneWolf; 31st March 2017, 00:39.

                Comment


                  #88
                  Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                  Well hint : type NATO MACE Xii and Rafale about S300.
                  I actually searched that before, Rafale did join MACE XII with F-16A and F-4 but apart from some internet rumor, there isn't any official information regarding how well it done or the K/D ratio

                  Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                  Sensors? Not so sure (RBE2 AESA more recent than APG e.g.)
                  While the technology level between them two are up to debate, it is undeniable that APG-81 has much bigger aperture. That will give it quite a bit of advantage in range and resolution compared to RBE-2

                  Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                  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
                  APG-81 can form multiple beam at the same time ( in fact, practically speaking, any AESA can do that because they use seperate T/R modules instead of rely on a single traveling wave tube ,so different part of the aperture can transmit at different frequency )
                  Last edited by garryA; 31st March 2017, 03:12.

                  Comment


                    #89
                    Originally posted by garryA View Post
                    APG-81 can form multiple beam at the same time ( in fact, practically speaking, any AESA can do that because they use seperate T/R modules instead of rely on a single traveling wave tube ,so different part of the aperture can transmit at different frequency )
                    Not what Halloweene was talking about. He was talking about different modes operating simultaneously,. The APG-81 can't do that (according to open source material), neither can the RBE2. They use interleaving which is pretty much the same thing to the user- generating a SAR map and track while scan for example, the switch is measured in nanoseconds so I'm not convinced it's that imperative. (In the case of the APG-77 and APG-81, studies by DARPA of using the AESA as a datalink while tasking the antenna as a sensor have been demonstrated. It is unclear how far this has proceeded into operational use):
                    https://defensesystems.com/articles/...it1-radar.aspx
                    http://www.aviationtoday.com/2006/08...smitting-data/
                    http://defense-update.com/features/d...rcraft-com.htm


                    He is talking about different parts of the array tasked simultaneously. From what is available, this was very much a study Thales was funded to do for a future Array for the Rafale (meaning not the current radar). According to the link above, it was funded in 2014 for some future mid-life update for the Rafale in the late 2020's early 2030's pending maturity of the technology.
                    Last edited by FBW; 31st March 2017, 04:23.

                    Comment


                      #90
                      Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                      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.
                      Which new modes specifically? Even if the radar gets a software patch it is still early 90s tech with a new antenna. You could do worse, but you could certainly do better.

                      We will see. EPAF was nice. Training in France also. Where will pilot train? .
                      Who cares if training is in France? Do you really think a country is going to pick a plane based on where the training is? There is going to be F-35 training happening all over Europe.


                      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! It US so it is uber alles.
                      I remember when all the fanboys used to claim that 5th generation was a marketing ploy. Of course now we have the F-35, F-22, PAK FA, J-20, J-31, and several emerging programs in Korea, Japan, Turkey, India. It is getting harder and harder to pretend the evolution of fighter aircraft stopped when the Rafale flew isn't it?

                      The fundamental truth is that the Rafale is an excellent 4th generation fighter, but that it has its roots in the early 1980s. Conceptually it was advanced in the late 1990s, but time doesn't stand still. You can't honestly expect it to stay competitive with jets decades newer with more advanced technology and more advanced operational concepts.

                      Btw hopsalot, AdA was very happy with the change from US modules to European ones. Much more regularperformances among modules.
                      Even if I believed you, and I don't, the deficiency was almost certainly with the French engineers who had never built a fighter AESA before. The US had no difficulty with hits own AESAs, of multiple different designs from multiple venders. Shoot, the USA had more fighters with AESAs flying when France first trialed an AESA antenna on the RBE2 than France has flying today.

                      You are also seeking to compare the modules the US was willing to export in the early 2000s with what Europe is producing a decade+ later.


                      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...
                      I am not sure that will offer much real utility, especially given the small antenna in the Rafale.

                      Comment


                        #91
                        Originally posted by FBW View Post
                        Not what Halloweene was talking about. He was talking about different modes operating simultaneously
                        I beg to differ. See 1:32

                        Comment


                          #92
                          Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                          I beg to differ. See 1:32
                          It uses interleaving, it is near simultaneous (nanoseconds). The array is not divided and tasked in different modes at the same time, the fast switching is one of the advantages of an AESA set.

                          From SLD- presentation by Michael Skaff (principle engineer on the F-35) https://www.slideshare.net/robbinlai...ne-for-the-f35

                          APG-81 Radar Active Electronically Scanned Array Interleaved Search and Track Data Link Air-to-Air Target Detection/Track Synthetic Aperture Radar With Effective BDA Ground Moving Target Detection Cruise Missile UCAV 231 2011 Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
                          Last edited by FBW; 31st March 2017, 04:46.

                          Comment


                            #93
                            Originally posted by Loke View Post

                            F-35 will be the next Belgian fighter jets; that's for sure. Rafale may be able to handle most (or even all?) of the missions however it will be more expensive than F-35 and it will be less capable. Add in the added value of operating the same a/c as most of NATO (and the Netherlands in particular) and it becomes a no-brainer.

                            Gripen NG is not for countries that consider the F-35 -- it is for countries that do not consider the F-35 and want something Western but cost-effective. E.g. Switzerland (and I guess also Austria, when they need to replace their Typhoons 15 years from now).
                            There was some political tension about the F 35 in Holland and there was and continues to be a 4 alarm poltiical inferno for the F 35 in Canada. These new prices being thrown around for the F-35 are not cash and carry costs. They are numbers put out there by PR teams and politicians to calm things down a bit.

                            Isn't the French jet faster, more maneuverable and better rate of climb ? And it looks better. Way better. And its built inside the EU. It wouldn't surprise me if the Belgian economy is somehow connected to the the French jet.

                            Comment


                              #94
                              Originally posted by FBW View Post
                              It uses interleaving, it is near simultaneous (nanoseconds). The array is not divided and tasked in different modes at the same time, the fast switching is one of the advantages of an AESA set.
                              I see your point. But if the interleaving mode has such short time difference then what is the point of dividing the array into sub-arrays for different tasks ?. You will lose out on accuracy and detection range
                              Last edited by mig-31bm; 31st March 2017, 04:53.

                              Comment


                                #95
                                Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                Not what Halloweene was talking about. He was talking about different modes operating simultaneously,. The APG-81 can't do that (according to open source material), neither can the RBE2. They use interleaving which is pretty much the same thing to the user- generating a SAR map and track while scan for example, the switch is measured in nanoseconds so I'm not convinced it's that imperative
                                Fair enough. But since we know AESA can form multiple beams, i think this is a software problem rather than hardware problem.

                                Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                                I see your point. But if the interleaving mode has such short time delay then what is the point of dividing the array into sub arrays for different tasks ?. You will lose out on accuracy and detection range
                                Interleaving mode leads to high duty cycle.
                                Last edited by garryA; 31st March 2017, 04:51.

                                Comment


                                  #96
                                  Originally posted by mig-31bm View Post
                                  I see your point. But if the interleaving mode has such short time different then what is the point of dividing the array into sub arrays for different tasks ?. You will lose our on accuracy and detection range
                                  That's what I was saying. In any case, Halloweene was pointing this out as a future advantage of the Rafale. The use of the array as a data link while performing sensor functions as demonstrated by Raytheon, NG, and L-3 communications does sound promising. There has been nothing else reported on this since the testing. Does make one curious.

                                  Comment


                                    #97
                                    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
                                    I think that at the end, the image of US as a functioning democracy will be reinforced. .
                                    I don't think you appreciate what everyday Europeans think about the election of Trump. The guy is the antithesis of what Europeans think a public figure should be. And they didn't know an American existed that was so stereotypical of what they think Americans are like.

                                    The whole election right from the primary season till now was one big dumpster fire and its still not over.

                                    Comment


                                      #98
                                      Originally posted by LoneWolf View Post
                                      Oh please, the Rafale and F-35 arent even playing in the same category. The technological gap between the two is real. Its useless to deny it.

                                      The Rafale has a higher flyaway cost (~$110 millions) than the F-35 ($85 millions and shrinking) and has high operating costs too. It will most likely be more expensive to upgrade as well since there is only a handful of Rafale operators and relatively few aircraft in use (compared to projected F-35 numbers).
                                      The higher tech jet is not at all practical for small country and air force. You don't have economies of scale to deal with the problems that are going to come with the F 35 nor would you want the hassle. I dont think Belgium is that involved in war games either. So many of these features wont be used. If there is a tech gap, its on things that you wont be using anyway.

                                      As far as flight and maneuverability, I think there is a gap in the Rafales favor.

                                      But I get it. You want the shiny new toy along with the status symbol that is stealth.

                                      Comment


                                        #99
                                        Originally posted by FBW View Post
                                        It uses interleaving, it is near simultaneous (nanoseconds). The array is not divided and tasked in different modes at the same time, the fast switching is one of the advantages of an AESA set.
                                        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. ??

                                        Comment


                                          Originally posted by halloweene View Post
                                          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! It US so it is uber alles.
                                          We only have rumors, no hard facts regarding the Rafale's performances during those exercices. Keep in mind too that Slovakian S-300s used in those exercices are early 90s models (S-300PMU). I dont think they are truly representative of current or upcoming "double-digits" SAM systems.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X