Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 3 of 10 FirstFirst 1234567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 299

Thread: Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    767
    Err.. the size of the antenna isn't classified. And its entirely independent of the T/R density.
    You forgot that along with Spectra Dassault perfected the Tardis effect for nose cones...

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    So where does the official diameter figure comes from ? Dassault ? Thales ? AdA ?

  3. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,839
    There are pics of Egyptian Rafale on net. The nose is one of the smallest. Not much different than Gripen/F-16
    Can't believe they can't enlarge nose in 30 years

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    It has not prevented the rafale to perform well in technical evaluations and exercises, even against design with biger nose, there is so much more. Gripen/F16/SH size like is ok anyway. In some competing designs, bigger can also hide a lack of sofistication where raw power is to compensate for lack of sensor fusion, integrated avionics etc. Or their massive RCS. The more you radiate the more you become visible also, it can play against you. At that game modern RWR with 3D geo-location must be part of the consideration. It has been almost ten years that rafales display long range BVR passive shots with EW only.
    Last edited by eagle1; 7th February 2018 at 22:51.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,693
    Err.. the size of the antenna isn't classified. And its entirely independent of the T/R density.
    It is officially classified, sorry.

    ut let's imagine you have a 10 GHZ frequency , apply lambda/2 "rule" and you will find something very close to 1000 (that should tell you about the exat size)

  6. #66
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene
    It is officially classified, sorry.
    You can 'classify' the diameter of the tyres as well, its not going to prevent people from being able to measure them.

    ut let's imagine you have a 10 GHZ frequency , apply lambda/2 "rule" and you will find something very close to 1000 (that should tell you about the exat size)
    What are you on about? Frequency has nothing to do with the physical size of the antenna (edit: assuming we're talking about an X-band radar).
    Last edited by Vnomad; 7th February 2018 at 23:40.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,002
    Frequency has nothing to do with the physical size of the antenna
    It does when it comes to AESA/PESA antennas. In order to be able to steer the beam, then the signal from one T&R needs to "interfere" with the T&R next to it. This requires precise spacing.

    http://www.radartutorial.eu/06.anten...ntenna.en.html
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #68
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by SpudmanWP
    It does when it comes to AESA/PESA antennas. In order to be able to steer the beam, then the signal from one T&R needs to "interfere" with the T&R next to it. This requires precise spacing.
    That impacts the density of the T/R modules. It does not impact the size of the antenna, which will remain a constant until the aircraft undergoes rhinoplasty.

  9. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    Often but not always the case. Let's take Dassault Aviation official words on page 14 of Fox Three n°9
    Still generic statement versus actual photos. Point is, if the number of T/R modules is not classified and they can publish how many T/R modules the radar has, then there is no point for them to go out of their way to make all mock up with the same 838 modules while still fit Rafale nose. By contrast, if they intended to hide the real number of T/R modules then the number on the mock up still more likely to be real than the one they claimed, since it is it more likely they did not expect people to actually count it. Furthermore, Rafale nose is pretty small and the radar is vertical, it is quite unreasonable to assume RBE2 has the same aperture area as APG-79 as superbug nose is bigger and its radar is canted.
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    Or their massive RCS. The more you radiate the more you become visible also, it can play against you. At that game modern RWR with 3D geo-location must be part of the consideration.
    In modern battlefield, data share is a given, a squadron of 20-25 aircraft may have 1-2 transmitting while the rest can remain silent and get information through data link, and geolocate by radar still much faster and more accurate, so RWR alone can't cut it.
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    It has been almost ten years that rafales display long range BVR passive shots with EW only.
    It was something like 7.8 nm against a Mirage if i recall correctly.
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 8th February 2018 at 00:50.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    5,002
    That impacts the density of the T/R modules.
    Exactly.. I think we were basically saying the same thing from both sides.

    If you know the freq and the size of the nose then the number of T&Rs can be roughly calculated.
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  11. #71
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    746
    Well the antenna size would not be affected by number of T/R modules unless you're using lower frequency. At lower frequency the spacing requirement increase, means larger antenna or lesser number of T/R module that can be accommodated.

    If one wish to calculate the number of T/R module that could be accommodated in a size/area of antenna, you can use one method in Skolnik's Introduction to Radar System 3rd edition. Which assume 100% "fill factor" (entire face is covered by elements) With following equation :

    Nt=(4*A*Ef)/Lambda^2

    Where :
    Nt=Number of elements
    A=Antenna Physical Area
    Ef= This is a "fill efficiency" factor that i added myself as the original equation assume 100% which, does not correspond to real world. Zhuk AE in example has "fill efficiency" of about 64% this is because of the TRM cold plate design or other antenna structure elements, which precludes anymore TRM/Radiator to be packed in the antenna
    Lambda = Wavelength.

    I found 55 cm to be reasonable for the RBE-2 Antenna size prob i would use 60 cm. If we assume 3 cm wavelength (10 GHz) and 95% "fill efficiency" The number of TRM will be 1003. Going higher frequency say 12 GHz would allow 1445 modules to be packed.

    Regarding RBE-2's "censorship" Well i tend to believe that what we are seeing is a demonstrator or early variant which work in same frequency of early RBE-2. The "more than 1000 elements" variant could be in the future or planned.

    One thing we can establish is that the RBE-2 must operate in high end of X-band. This allow precise ground mapping, GMTI and probably ground target recognition based on ISAR imaging, it can be done in 3.2 cm wavelength or typical X-band fighter radar, but going higher frequency would allow higher resolution.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthflanker
    I found 55 cm to be reasonable for the RBE-2 Antenna size prob i would use 60 cm. If we assume 3 cm wavelength (10 GHz) and 95% "fill efficiency" The number of TRM will be 1003. Going higher frequency say 12 GHz would allow 1445 modules to be packed.
    Well the dia. you take is the operative factor. At 60 cm, the max no. of TRMs would be 1000 but at 55 cm that falls to 840 (all else remaining the same).

    Also, X-band is 8 GHz to 12 Ghz, so wouldn't one normally take the lower end of the spectrum as the limiting case?

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad
    Well the dia. you take is the operative factor. At 60 cm, the max no. of TRMs would be 1000 but at 55 cm that falls to 840 (all else remaining the same).

    Also, X-band is 8 GHz to 12 Ghz, so wouldn't one normally take the lower end of the spectrum as the limiting case?
    Well if one desire to maximize number of modules with given antenna aperture, higher frequency would be preferred. and i went on 10 GHz just for the sake of assumption and it's quite reasonable for early estimate.

    and about 10 GHz is just lies in the operating frequency for earlier RBE-2.

    Name:  good value.png
Views: 558
Size:  39.2 KB

    and let's not forget sake of convenience as 3 cm wavelength is a good round number everyone like to crunch.

  14. #74
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    2,835
    Quote Originally Posted by stealthflanker
    Well if one desire to maximize number of modules with given antenna aperture, higher frequency would be preferred. and i went on 10 GHz just for the sake of assumption and it's quite reasonable for early estimate.
    My point is that if you want to operate your radar across a band of frequencies, the number of T/R modules you'd populate the array with would correspond to the lowest frequency required. Right? For example, wouldn't an antenna with module density ideal for 10 GHz and above suffer distortion at say.. 9 GHz?

    I would think at least, for a fighter FCR AESA, spanning most of the X-band would be par for the course, even at the cost of a lower net wattage.
    Last edited by Vnomad; 8th February 2018 at 11:26.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by Vnomad
    My point is that if you want to operate your radar in a band of frequencies, the number of T/R modules you'd populate the array with would correspond to the lowest frequency required. Right? Wouldn't antenna with module density designed for 10 GHz and above suffer distortion at say.. 9 GHz?
    Yes. While my point is that to be 1000+ TRM RBE 2AA will have to operate not in 9GHz.

  16. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    Still generic statement versus actual photos. Point is, if the number of T/R modules is not classified and they can publish how many T/R modules the radar has, then there is no point for them to go out of their way to make all mock up with the same 838 modules while still fit Rafale nose. By contrast, if they intended to hide the real number of T/R modules then the number on the mock up still more likely to be real than the one they claimed, since it is it more likely they did not expect people to actually count it. Furthermore, Rafale nose is pretty small and the radar is vertical, it is quite unreasonable to assume RBE2 has the same aperture area as APG-79 as superbug nose is bigger and its radar is canted.
    Dassault official statement did not say "close to 1000 modules" or "around 1000 modules" but "more than 1000 modules". Proving your point with a mock up is a dead end, and of course their is a point in hiding the exact number of modules. I don't think you would find the exact/precise number for any manufacturer. SH radar is not that big, you have to fit the gun in SH nose. I was just referring to an interview in the weekly A&C where a Thales project manager told current RBE2 AESA was similar in performance to the APG-79.

    In modern battlefield, data share is a given, a squadron of 20-25 aircraft may have 1-2 transmitting while the rest can remain silent and get information through data link, and geolocate by radar still much faster and more accurate, so RWR alone can't cut it.
    That's true for NATO forces, less sure for the rest. Anyway, you would have AWACS support in your scenario so what the point. You would get the global picture from a third party.

    It was something like 7.8 nm against a Mirage if i recall correctly.
    That was a shot in rafale six, but in the frontal emisphere, range is much more important. It is routinely used in exercises with confirmed kills and first report dates from ATLC 2009 in the UAE. From a personnal discussion with a rafale pilot during at a Paris air show, this tactic is usually used for defense but even if the Pk is lower it forces your oponent to break engagement. With the newer version of SPECTRA coming this year, it will be even more accurate and deadly.

    From AFM :

    The current Thales RBE2 AESA radar
    will be further improved. It will benefit
    from the introduction of two new air-tosurface
    modes: a ground moving target
    indicator (GMTI), to detect and track moving
    targets over land, and a UHR (ultra high
    resolution) mode, to replace the current
    HR functionality for synthetic aperture
    radar (SAR) imagery, offering superior radar
    image quality at very long distances. The
    ability to interleave radar modes will be
    enhanced, thus helping provide aircrews
    with even better situational awareness.
    The Spectra electronic warfare/selfprotection
    suite produced by Thales and
    MBDA is fully integrated. It is composed
    of a wide range of systems: a Détecteur
    d’Alerte Radar (DAR, or radar warning
    receiver), a Détecteur d’Alerte Laser (DAL,
    or laser warner), a Détecteur de Départ
    Missile (DDM or DDM NG, or missile
    launch detector), a high-power radar
    jammer, and decoy dispensers that can
    launch a range of flares and chaff.
    Over the coming months, Spectra will
    be improved, with bandwidth extensions
    for the detectors and jammers to cover
    lower and higher frequency bands, thus
    providing an instantaneous reaction
    against any type of pop-up threat.

    “Our objective here is to obtain extremely
    accurate RF emitter geolocation and 3D
    tracking, including of airborne radars,” said
    the programme director
    . “The capabilities
    of a single Rafale to locate and track a threat
    without resorting to traditional, but timeconsuming,
    methods of triangulation or of
    bearing measurements along the aircraft’s
    flight path will be significantly improved. It
    is a very important step forward, and the
    recent progresses made by Spectra will boost
    the capabilities of the Rafale in that field.”
    Also GaN technology and additional emitting panels should sound appealing, not to mention integrated offensive jamming in the radar & emitting panels :

    GaN technology
    Thales and the DGA are actively preparing
    the future radar developments that will be
    introduced on Standard F4.2, incorporating
    cutting-edge Gallium Nitride (GaN) technology
    for the radar and jammer antennas.
    Thanks
    to additional radar apertures, detection
    capabilities will be unmatched and electronic
    attack capabilities will become a reality.

    The programme director explained: “Even though
    we are entirely satisfied
    with the current RBE2 AESA
    radar, we are already working
    on the next generation scheduled
    to appear on new-build aircraft in 2025.
    “For the same volume, GaN technology
    will offer an expanded bandwidth, more
    radiated power and an even easier ability
    to switch from one mode to another, or
    from one functionality to another. With
    the same antenna, we will be capable of
    generating combined, interleaved radar,
    jamming and electronic warfare modes
    as part of an electronic attack mission.
    “GaN emitters will not be restricted to the
    radar and they will also equip the Spectra
    suite. For example, for the antennas in
    the wing apexes, ahead of the canard
    foreplanes, we could obtain a very quick
    emission/reception cycle, either saving some
    volume or augmenting radiated power.
    On Tranche 5 Rafales, we will have at our
    disposal twice the amount of transmitted
    power for the radar and jamming antennas.

    Thales has already produced and tested
    in laboratories a series of GaN module
    prototypes for the new radar and initial
    testing results look extremely promising.
    “Following the entry into service of the
    AESA in 2013, the deliveries of the Meteor
    in 2018 will push the Rafale into a class of
    its own – we will be the only ones in the
    world operating a fighter equipped with
    an AESA and a ramjet-propelled missile –
    but we have to keep investing to maintain
    our leadership. This is the reason why this
    GaN technological path is so important,
    especially for the development of additional
    emitting panels and apertures that will
    offer extended radar angular coverage.
    “It is not just an improvement; it is a
    real technological breakthrough in the
    field of detection.
    Jamming modes will
    not be left untouched and will push the
    Rafale’s electronic warfare capabilities
    to unprecedented levels thanks to the

    introduction of what we call ‘smart jamming’,
    with a wider band coverage and GaN
    emitters from 2025. These capabilities
    will be further expanded thanks to the
    adoption of MFAs [Multi-Function Arrays].”

    The Rafale’s Front Sector Optronics (FSO)
    will be fitted with a new-generation infrared
    search and track (IRST) sensor optimised
    for the tracking of air targets, either alone,
    or in conjunction with the RBE2 radar.
    Last edited by eagle1; 8th February 2018 at 13:50.

  17. #77
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    Well the dia. you take is the operative factor. At 60 cm, the max no. of TRMs would be 1000 but at 55 cm that falls to 840 (all else remaining the same).

    Also, X-band is 8 GHz to 12 Ghz, so wouldn't one normally take the lower end of the spectrum as the limiting case?
    Well that would be more in line with DSI magazine quoting 1001 modules for RBE2 AESA.

  18. #78
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    259
    Taking the opportunity of the current thread here to ask a naive question

    All things being equal ( same T/R modules [ characterized by their transmit /receive thresholds ), same T/R spacing/distributions, same total power output avaialble , no cooling issues assumed , Same frequency ...etc ) only assuming no limitation on surface . Increasing the number of module by X% how does that convert into percent increase in detection range ? . Is there any equation out there to compute that ?

    While I can see obvious benefits in having more T/R modules : simplier cooling, better power distribution per individual T/R , better agility (more modules to play with ), lesser latency and or interference ( individual T/R submitted to less power so faster at transitionning from transmit to receive mode ...etc ), possibly better range at same power via beam forming on more modules at lesser invidivual power per module compared to more power per individuals on fewer number of modules (would have to be computed though ).
    However, I still struggle to put some form of numbers around how increasing the number of modules would "theoritically" translate in radar performance increase when all other things are considered equal .
    Am sure they exist ( just by virtue of increasing aperture size ) , but to which extent ? . Is that as simple as a 100% increase translate to 10% or more range increase at same power ,and this indifferently of the individual T/R threshold in Transmit and Receive ?, or is that more subtil to the point that there is for a given power output and T/R characteristics an optimum where the gain to be expected from additional number of T/R modules would be relativelly marginal ?

  19. #79
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Cemetery Junction
    Posts
    13,574
    MiG-31BM
    By contrast, if they intended to hide the real number of T/R modules then the number on the mock up still more likely to be real than the one they claimed, since it is it more likely they did not expect people to actually count it.
    I'm sure they knew that people would count. People always count.
    Juris praecepta sunt haec: honeste vivere, alterum non laedere, suum cuique tribuere.
    Justinian

  20. #80
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    SH radar is not that big, you have to fit the gun in SH nose.
    The cannon and bell feed are behind the radar, there is a hole leading to front but it has very small diameter because M61 is a 20 mm cannon. Anyway, APG-79 is big because it is canted at around 60°, physical T/R modules count give around 1363 modules.

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    I was just referring to an interview in the weekly A&C where a Thales project manager told current RBE2 AESA was similar in performance to the APG-79.
    I haven't seen the interview but how can he know how well APG-79 performed? If 2 radar made by the same company then i get his point but APG-79 is made by Raytheon rather than Thales

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    That's true for NATO forces, less sure for the rest. Anyway, you would have AWACS support in your scenario so what the point. You would get the global picture from a third party.
    Soviet has datalink since the 80s with Mig-31, iam sure most near peers airforce has datalink by now, and with advanced long range missiles like R-33, R-37, K-100, PL-15, Meteor, AIM-120D then AWACs are very vulnerable.

  21. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    2,010
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    That was a shot in rafale six, but in the frontal emisphere, range is much more important. It is routinely used in exercises with confirmed kills and first report dates from ATLC 2009 in the UAE
    Can you post these reports? Iam interested

    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1
    With the newer version of SPECTRA coming this year, it will be even more accurate and deadly.
    From AFM Also GaN technology and additional emitting panels should sound appealing, not to mention integrated offensive jamming in the radar & emitting panels
    Those are for F4 standard still in development and introducing in 2023-2025 time frame from what i can remember.

  22. #82
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,363
    From India:

    "The demand that the Government disclose the details and value of the contract for the Rafale aircraft contracted in 2016 is unrealistic. The approximate acquisition cost of the Rafale aircraft has already been provided to the Parliament. The provision of exact item-wise cost and other information will reveal, inter alia, details regarding the various customisations and weapon systems, specially designed to augment the effectiveness and lethality of the assets, impact our military preparedness and compromise our national security."

    [...]

    Furthermore, the ministry said that no Indian offset partner for the 2016 deal has been selected by the development agency- Dassault Aviation. Even Sitharaman while answering a question on the Rafale deal on Monday had explained, "Details of Indian Offset Partners have not yet been provided by the French Industrial suppliers and as per the provisions of Defence Procurement Procedure (DPP) - 2013 they need to do so at the time of seeking offset credits or one year prior to discharge of offset obligations through their Indian Offset Partners."
    Source:
    Eco Times.com
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 8th February 2018 at 18:46.

  23. #83
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    Can you post these reports? Iam interested
    These are two instances available/translated on the net, but you have many more exemples in the specialized press like Air & Cosmos, Air fan, Raid aviation etc...

    ATLC in DSI:

    The Rafale makes the buzz.

    Concurrently, the Rafale shown one's claws. At the end of the last autumn was held on the Al-Dhafra air base, the annual edition of ATLC (Advanced Tactical Leadership Course). Organized since 2000 by the UAE Air Warfare Center, ATLC aims to help air forces pilots of the Arabian Peninsula to improve their tactics and techniques by confronting them to the pilots of major Western air forces. For this particular case, the Rafale from the Air Force take the opportunity to confront their main competitors on the international scene. Especially since , in parallel , stood the Dubai airshow, which could be used as a sounding board for results obtained during the exercise.
    The AdA has shipped on site for five weeks, from November 8 year December 12, not less than 6 Rafale and 3 Mirage 2000-5E. A detachment served by only 125 people and which required only 60 tons of material. The availability rate of the Rafale, which have accumulated 220 flight-hours in 148 missions, while shotting down - virtually meant - not less than 61 hostile fighters, was 97% for the entire period. And no missions has been canceled . According to Lt. Colonel Fabrice Grandclaudon, squadron leader of the EC 1/7 in Saint-Dizier and commander of the detachment," the weapon system Rafale, taking its place in COMAO (raids) of thirty different combat aircrafts, made at the ATLC the demonstration of his extraordinary flexibility. And to cite the case of this mission on November 29 during which a Rafale pilot, has launched, in barely 66 seconds, 3 Mica on 3 enemy planes (two virtually destroyed) and six AASM bombs on as many targets, some 48 km far . All destroyed!

    Versatility is not an empty word.

    Better yet, december 7, a pair of Rafale which protected a SAR combat device shot down 10 incoming hostile fighters while dropping six AASM on 6 different land targets forty km far , everything without leaving their CAP racetrack.In addition, the Rafale OSF allowed the positive identification of hostile fighters forty kilometers far. And, December 6, a MICA has been assigned its target - indeed virtually destroyed - only with the SPECTRA system. SPECTRA which was also capable, twice, to detect and classify - and to propose flight path changes to the pilot to avoid detection-specific envelope - some air defense systems (SA-6) that even the American F-16 CJ specialized in the SEAD mission (suppression of air defense opponents), yet also in flight, were not able to collect.. Certainly, the F-16 CJ in question had not been equipped during the flights with their common SEAD equipment, namely the HTS pod (HARM Targeting System), while their threats library had not been refreshed to integrate some of the air defense radars in the area. SEAD was not their daily mission. But it was not either the case for the Rafale. And yet, the Spectra, with no other equipment than those onboard daily, has done better than the F-16 CJ which, however, are specialized in the SEAD mission. That's the difference between multirole who need to return to land on its base to switch from one type to another mission and versatility that allows flight operations at the same time in different roles. It also demonstrates, incidentally, the ability of the AdA to quickly take advantage of "hostile" ground-radar records tunes operated the day before and to integrate them into the rafale SPECTRA library. This allowed the Rafale to classify them without any difficulty. In short, the performance was moderately appreciated by our American allies! Especially since the six F-22 Raptor deployed there by the 27th FW Langley FS/1st proved incapable of giving the beating promised to the Rafale. Of the six dofights - gun limited - which pitted the two types of aircraft in the Emirians skies in late 2009, only two saw the virtual destruction of a Rafale. Other meetings were concluded without a winner. A "performance" for the Rafale against the most modern [and most expensive] fighter in the world, presented as particularly agile thanks to its steering nozzles and moreover stealthy. Because the Rafale was, according to the lieutenant-colonel Grandclaudon, "a serious challenger in matter of maneuverability " And the french pilot to regret that his USAF colleagues had not allowed the simulated employment of MICA missiles during these confrontations.

    The Typhoon were inferiors.

    Concurrently, November 16, the Rafale gave, according to the french pilot, a memorable beating to the RAF Typhoon - the most recent version - which were also deployed in the UAE for the ATLC. To put it bluntly, Lieutenant-Colonel Grandclaudon said the two air battles - battles with IR-guided missile and cannon - which opposed Rafale and Typhoon gave a score of 7 wins for the first and 0 for the second, the only Rafale considered as having been destroyed flew below the allowed flight floor ! Obviously this statement has immediately raised an outcry among British pilots, relayed by the media and the Anglo-Saxon specialized blogosphere, including claims that the Typhoon did not fly as such during the fighting, but simulated "red" attackers, MiG-29 and Su-27 in that case. So, the 1/7 Provence squadron leader made a point to recall that 2 of his Rafale were also"red chest" (MiG-29 index "Charlie") when they shot down 4 "blue" Typhoon - flying as Typhoon - while being reduced to use virtual russians AA-10C missiles to be guided by the Rafale until the impact on their target, which forbade to shoot multiple targets at once . For Fabrice Grandclaudon, the limitations of the "red" plastron role don't prevent a weapons system to show its real capabilities, because the pilots are taking advantage of the real human-machine interfaces and sensors on board, one of the Rafale has benefited from a refresh of its tactical situation by his teammate via Link-16. In other words, even if some of them simluated Su-27, the British pilots virtually shoot down were using the sensors and the avionics of their Typhoon and not those of a Su-27! And the french pilot to recognize, with great sportsmanship, that the Typhoon pilots who had been opposed to the Rafale the week preceding the ATLC were young and relatively inexperienced, as the French already benefits from lessons learned from 3 operational detachments in Afghanistan (one year of presence in all) and 4 of its pilots had participated in Red Flag 2008.

    Some advantages that make the difference.

    However, he heavily emphasized the performance of the french system in the field of arms data fusion, from his point of view the main reason of the superiority obtained. Instead of each sensor to display its studs (aircraft detected) on a specific screen, forcing the Typhoon pilot to operate an intellectual gymnastics , annoying in combat stress, to check if the plot of its corresponding screen of electronic warfare was or was not the one visible on the radar screen or IRST, the Rafale's systems present to the pilot a single plot on a screen, the system automatically compares the plots provided by the various sensors on board and decides if it is or not the same plane. The french pilots have also appreciated the agility of the antenna of the electronic RBE2 radar - The Typhoon has for now only a mechanical antenna - allowing to refresh the situation in the whole volume monitored. But they insist, for close combat, on the perfect controllability of their Rafale, thanks to the excellence of FBW, to the extreme limits of the flight envelope.. To point the nose toward the target and to design it to the weapons system in the absence of a viewfinder-HMD while operating at very low speed. What are not necessarily capable of the main opponents of the Rafale ...
    Well obviously, one should not rejoice in excess. The extremely positive results of these meetings have been obtained in special circumstances. The pilots had been set specific roles by the commander of the COMAO device and were therefore not free to exploit in depth all the potentials of their weapons system. The results have been different perhaps in other circumstances (nevertheless, some time ago, another meeting between Typhoon and Rafale, in Corsica, was also turned into "massacre" at the expense of the first 8 losses to 0 ). But, simply put, the EC 1 / 7 pilots are particularly satisfied with their stay in UAE. Their demonstration has , aptly, made a strong buzz [noise] among the aviators of the region and troubled the Anglo-Saxons until now convinced of the utter superiority of their planes. A disturbance also compounded by the loss - virtual of course - of an F-22 gun shot by an UAE Mirage 2000-9 flown, this time, by a French experimented pilot. Really, when everything goes wrong ... P
    another one from captain Romain who wrote a book on rafale in Afganistan:

    Cne Romain:

    One must first know that France has a very high credibility worldwide in terms of jamming. So one should be particularly ill informed to think there could be a beginning of a gap in Spectra.
    Spectra is a accomplished self-protection system that we are developping every day with programming, testing and with software and hardware updates: month after month ,Spectra is evolving.
    In my opinion, i think we are currently using only 2/3 of Spectra capacities: We still have much work to do to optimize our jamming libraries and methods of use.
    Finally, just to give you an idea of what stealth is or isn't : to be 100% stealth, one should neither be seen nor to let others know they are seen ... For example, a stealth aircraft that would use its radar to fire a missile, would be suddenly no longer stealth
    One of the great strength of the Rafale is here: we do not need to activate our radar to fire our missiles far beyond visual range ..


    Corentin

    Hello Captain,
    Thank you for these clarifications! I am perhaps too curious but can you explain how the Rafale is capable of firing beyond visual range "passively", and how far?
    Do other airplanes of the same generation (EF, Gripen, F-18) use, to your knowledge, equivalent techniques ?

    Cne Romain:

    The Rafale merges the informations coming from its sensors to give a very reliable and clear picture to the pilot. It's already a considerable advantage over previous-generation aircraft, including EF and Gripen. When the pilot decides to fire a air to air missile, the missile leaves the aircraft taking automatically into account all available informations.
    When the radar is not used, the missile can use the OSF (a TV camera coupled with a laser rangefinder), the informations provided by another aircraft via the MIDS, a heat source detected by the OSF or a MICA IR, or finally a localization by SPECTRA. Faced with these sensors, stealth is useless and we know, thanks to our tests ,that our missiles are very effective in such context.

  24. #84
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    746
    Quote Originally Posted by xman
    All things being equal ( same T/R modules [ characterized by their transmit /receive thresholds ), same T/R spacing/distributions, same total power output avaialble , no cooling issues assumed , Same frequency ...etc ) only assuming no limitation on surface . Increasing the number of module by X% how does that convert into percent increase in detection range ? . Is there any equation out there to compute that ?
    Skolnik's 3rd Edition of Introduction to Radar System have this radar equation for Active array.



    Notice the N^3 factor which is the number of TRM, the

    From there assuming same parameters one can simply determine increase of range by fourth root rules as follow.

    (((NtrmS^3)/(NtrmR^3))^0,25)*Reference range.

    Where
    NtrmS = Scaled number of the TRM
    NtrmR = Reference number of TRM (the known value)

    Suppose we have a radar with 1000 TRM that can detect target at 234 Km. If we increase the number of TRM to 1500. How far it could detect target now ?

    So we plugged in the numbers :

    Scaled range=(((1500^3)/(1000^3))^0,25)*234
    Scaled range=317 km.

    So by increasing number of TRM. The radar range is now about 317 km or about 26% increase.

  25. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    Those are for F4 standard still in development and introducing in 2023-2025 time frame from what i can remember.
    Spectra RWR upgrade with band extension and improved geolocation is being qualified with current new F3R standard (2018) and is now ready and is being or is very close to be fielded to the force. "In the coming months" says AFM from july 2017.

    Point is this capability already exists (read AFM again) but will be significantly improved.

    What has been postponed to F4 standard in the active part of Spectra, the GaN emittors, which were initially due to be part of F3R standard (2018) by the way...So one must bet that it will be ready even before the 2023-2025 time frame as this program is already quite advanced. First SPECTRA with GaN emittors demonstrator flew with the rafale in 2014.

    You "must" read on the first page of this rafale thread post n°8 as well regarding spectra upgrades. At the time of the Aviation Week article, GaN was due to be part of F3R (this year) for spectra.
    Last edited by eagle1; 8th February 2018 at 20:17.

  26. #86
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,363
    to steer a beam, you need electromagnetic power and accuracy. Those are more demanding with the increases in size of the nodule. Smaller nodules are less energy demanding than larger ones, hence even more less energy is lost for the cooling.
    Less cooling, more compactness -> less noise for a given signal. More accuracy hence more range.

    @eagle1: so, it's a software only upgrade first?
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 8th February 2018 at 20:01.

  27. #87
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    The cannon and bell feed are behind the radar, there is a hole leading to front but it has very small diameter because M61 is a 20 mm cannon. Anyway, APG-79 is big because it is canted at around 60°, physical T/R modules count give around 1363 modules.

    I haven't seen the interview but how can he know how well APG-79 performed? If 2 radar made by the same company then i get his point but APG-79 is made by Raytheon rather than Thales
    I haven't count modules for rafale or SH as, at least for the rafale, there is no official information except "more than 1000" from Dassault PR review. However performance was deemed similar by this Thales project manager. I don't find that absurd, even on this forum/thread many are trying to compare radar performances without knowing each system intimately. If you are actualy working on such project, I bet you know where does the current technology stands and where do you stand compared to your competitors with a reasonnable margin of error. Rafale M often encountered SH with APG-79 after all...
    Last edited by eagle1; 8th February 2018 at 20:07.

  28. #88
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    @eagle1: so, it's a software only upgrade first?
    F3R is mostly software driven but as far as the new RWR is concerned, a new piece of hardware is more than likely as you would not get bandwith extensions and improved 3D location just with a software upgrade.
    Last edited by eagle1; 8th February 2018 at 20:10.

  29. #89
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    259
    Thanks for the formula

    What bothers me still is that by that equation, I could have a radar with a detection range of around 780 km with 5 time the number of modules and still requiring the same power. With today's electronic that would make deriving from fighter AESA , attractive bizjet AWACS and very mobile SAM long range radar solutions, very attractive. Not cheap ,but reliable and with minimum specific R&D . And yet this does not seem to happen.

    So where is the trick ?.

    With 10 times modules more we get 5.6 time the range. Would be around 1300 km based on your example with the same power still , just a surface 10 time greater . Would allow for a single static sentinel civil or military radar to cover far beyond most countries borders.

    So all in all , I remain puzzled with the formula wondering how it adhere to reality, or which other factors it failed to encompass.

  30. #90
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,693
    I haven't seen the interview but how can he know how well APG-79 performed? If 2 radar made by the same company then i get his point but APG-79 is made by Raytheon rather than Thales
    Because there are many exchange pilots on FA18 C/D. APG79 is the best known US AESA radar.

    Those are for F4 standard still in development and introducing in 2023-2025 time frame from what i can remember
    No. there are new GaAs smaller modules allowing easier cooling and faster signal treatment for RWR.

    physical T/R modules count give around 1363 modules.
    Another physical count on an internet photo?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

 

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES