Jump to content
AIR-DEFENSE.NET

Rafale and other european jets [English only]


seb24
 Share

Recommended Posts

THALES AWARDED WITH A STUDY CONTRACT FOR THE NEXT GENERATION OF ACTIVE ARRAY RADARS
dga_thales_september2014_copyright_thale
September 30, 2014
KEY POINTS
Thales awarded a technology demonstrator contract for the next generation of active phrased array radars.
These technologies will ultimately equip the Rafale and will be suitable for future unmanned combat air vehicles.

 
 
The French defence procurement agency (DGA) has awarded Thales a technology study contract for the next generation of active phased array radars, including modular processors and multifunction panel technologies. These new technologies will ultimately equip the Rafale combat aircraft and will be suitable for future unmanned combat air vehicles (UCAVs).
 
During the signing ceremony held on 29 September in the presence of Laurent Collet-Billon, Head of the DGA, Jean-Bernard Lévy, Thales’s Chairman and CEO wished to highlight the "strong support of the DGA in maintaining a French sector of excellence in the field of airborne radars. With this technology study contract, Thales will maintain its lead in the field of active radar antennas, which is essential for the future of defence aerospace. "
 
Under the advanced study contract, Thales will demonstrate the technological readiness of various components and design a new generation of multifunction arrays (radar, electronic warfare and communications). The new arrays will also significantly improve range capabilities and discretion.
 
Over the next four years approximately 100 Thales staff, will be involved in these studies alongside a number of SME’s which have already contributed to the development of the Rafale active phased
array radar.
 
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And hi-speed datalink, a the same time. Each part of the antenna doing a différent job.

Bonjour

thanks for answering

but would this happen in RBE 2 aesa radar only in the radome or in conformal part (i.e Wings & fuselarge) of rafale

 

 

Today you could use eight AA missiles plus 3 fuel-tanks, who really needs more?

but if we see other fighters like russian fighters eg Su 30 derivatives / MIg 29 can carry 12 air to air missiles

or even Typhoon they can carry 10 air to air missiles

but rafale 2 center line weapon pods under fuselarge has not been sanctioned to carry air to air missiles in later variants unlike the earliear models

atleast if they could sanction those 2 pods under fuselarge it could carry 10 air to air missiles

CHEERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Technical evolution is to intégrate Radar, Jammer and Communication. This study is a first step but it complement other PEA like GaN for technology Tragedac with a communication part and so on. So the study is not paper only but has to demonstrate the concept.

 

The demonstrator will be a multi-function panel so it will be able to be used for Radar and Jammer and communication. At the end we will merge Spectra and communication and radar perhaps at the Rafale MLU.

so most probably it's not for F3R i think

it is planned for MLU i.e 2025 +

one more thing PIC would the indians be getting rbe 2 aesa radar with electronic attack capabilty

or we have to content with basic RBE2 aesa radar

& btw would the Thales & BEL joint venture be building radar for rafale

CHEERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

so most probably it's not for F3R i think

it is planned for MLU i.e 2025 +

one more thing PIC would the indians be getting rbe 2 aesa radar with electronic attack capabilty

or we have to content with basic RBE2 aesa radar

& btw would the Thales & BEL joint venture be building radar for rafale

CHEERS

On rafale electronic attack capability comes from Spectra with specialised AESA Antenna: Advantage is you have 360° capability and you are not limited in the same band as the radar.

 

Power is not a problem because Rafale locate emitter and don't have to send power in the whole space. And it's not the ennemy radar emission that you have to jam but the return by your plane of these emission. Which is much more lower.

 

So the current AESA antenna is not planned to be able of electronic attack. It will be with the conformal antenna.

& btw would the Thales & BEL joint venture be building radar for rafale

CHEERS

 

It seems likely as part of the offset. Does India will buy Rafale?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So the current AESA antenna is not planned to be able of electronic attack. It will be with the conformal antenna.

so it indirectly means for MLU not for F3R

 

It seems likely as part of the offset. Does India will buy Rafale?

Why the hell are you saying that??

do you have any doubts on that

CHEERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Things India & France needs to codevelop keeping Rafale in mind

 

 

1) New low cost & low size PGM like Spear3   with range of 140/150km for future SEAD missions / Anti armour missions

 

 

 

2) DIRCM for fighter size aeroplanes like Rafale/even indian FFGA  with THALES

9773395065_ecba3de57e_z.jpg

 

 

 

3) integrated avionics /working structure for joint functioning of INDIAN AURA UCAVS / french Neuron in  rafale planes through it's    cockpit in post 2020

 

 

dassault_reveals_CFT_concepts.jpg

 

Many more things are also  there  like HMD/ enclosed weapon pods /CFT/Conformal arrays

but these things  which i meantioned would give rafale an edge in future combat for both the countries 8)  

 

BTW  "why cant france share GaN tech with india" india should insist france to share that tech with us :rolleyes:

 

 

CHEERS 

Edited by DrSomnath999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the point which i want to ask which one is better 

 

a Towed decoy or an expendables decoy like LEA/Britecloud 

 

i have brief idea about Typhoon's towed decoy 

Towed_radio_decoy.jpg

 

but the point is which is effective against HOJ mode of Radar guided missiles

 

TOWED OR EXPENDABLES RADAR DECOYS 

 

I would prefer the latter why?

 

 not becoz Rafale is not having it but to break a missile lock on HOJ mode you need to dispense your RADAR decoys at faster rate from your parent aircraft as quickly as possible if you want to break the missile lock effectively or else missile's  warhead blast radius can also do considerable damage if they come nearby your plane

 

 

 

So Towed radar decoys demerits are

 

1)it is attached by fiber optic cable so it takes time to release the DECOY completely as compare to expendables radar decoys 

  which can be crucial during a closein /terminal phase missile with mACh 4  speed or higher 

 

2) limited number of RADAR decoys can be carried on towed RADAR decoys meanwhile atleast you can carry 4 expendables 

   Radar decoys

 

So Rafale/gripen did a wise thing on investing on expendables Radar decoys 

 

which even LUCA PERUZZI from ARMADA article also claims

 

Selex ES has developed a self-contained expendable Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM) jammer for fast jet aircraft known as the BriteCloud, which is expected to be available on the market by mid-2014. It will provide an off-board capability to decoy RF guided missile seekers and fire control radars, producing large miss distance and angle break lock, thanks to self-contained coherent technique generation processing and high-power batteries that allow at least ten seconds of life after firing activation, in addition to rapid response capabilities.

 

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

 

 

 

3) last but  not the least COST towed decoy is damn costly plus cumbersome to maintain with other electronic system side by side with it like ESM/ ECM suites in case of typhoon

 

 

 

another good article about jamming aspect is this 

 

must read for defence enthusiasts

http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/137/Defensive-aids-systems-electronic-armour

 

 

CHEERS

Edited by DrSomnath999
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Canada's Fighter Non-Decision Decision

In the words of Geddy Lee (of the progressive rock band Rush, if you didn’t listen to FM radio in the ‘70s and ‘80s), “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.” This certainly applies to the Canadian government’s latest move with its long-awaited and controversial fighter buy. The government’s decision to kick the country’s next fighter purchase down the road actually guarantees the outcome the Harper government wants.

Last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced that the country’s 30 year old F/A-18A/B Hornet (CF-18 in Canada) fleet would receive another upgrade, pushing out the replacement fighter buy for another few years, after the next election. CF-18 retirement will be moved from 2020 to 2025.

Ostensibly, this CF-18 upgrade decision was made in order to get past the political controversy associated with Harper’s efforts to buy Lockheed Martin F-35 Joint Strike Fighters in a sole-source decision, and move the problem of which fighter to buy to the next government. In reality, the move puts the decision off until the F-35’s strongest competitor is off the market.

Boeing ’s F/A-18E/F Super Hornet is easily the most important competitor to the F-35 in Canada. It would be a relatively easy transition from the baseline Hornet (although the Super Hornet is a somewhat different plane). It offers very good value for the price (around $55 million unit recurring flyaway, compared with around $100 million for today’s F-35A). It’s also a twinjet, an option that Canada has historically preferred.

Yet in the next year or two, the Super Hornet production line will start to die. The US Navy and Australia are scheduled to take the last EA-18G Growlers (a Super Hornet variant) in 2016/2017. Unless another customer buys more Super Hornets, this option will be off the table for Canada. Not long after, the Eurofighter, F-15, and F-16 lines will close too. The only surviving fighter options, Dassault’s Rafale and Saab’s Gripen NG (along with Russian planes) would be very unlikely choices for Canada. Therefore, an F-35 acquisition will be a fait accompli.

The fighter buy represents a much broader foreign policy debate for Canada. An F-35 decision makes sense if Canada thinks its future defense policy revolves around coalition warfighting capabilities. Canada’s recent decision to join US-led air strikes against ISIL forces shows that the Harper Government believes this to be the case. By contrast, buying an older and less expensive plane (like the Super Hornet) would be more sensible if Canada viewed its future defense policy as one of national sovereignty maintenance. This would involve airspace patrols, maritime patrols, and an effectively defensive posture.

However, last week’s CF-18 upgrade decision effectively ends any debate here. And given the parsimonious nature of this move, an otherwise controversial outcome will be accomplished with minimal debate.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/richardaboulafia/2014/10/14/canadas-fighter-non-decision-decision/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's always surprising to see that Rafale cannot be an acceptable choice for Canada in Anglo-Saxons' media.
Nevertheless, on the strictly technical plan, it is exactly what they need.

Regrettably, considering the very strong influence of their neighbour, another choice will be done, maybe even the least sensible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

An Admiral who did F-35 bashing

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmdfence/197/197vw08.htm

 

Extract:

 

29. However, current procurement plans for the carrier air group (just the F-35B STOVL) operating from a ramp-fitted deck:

 

(a)Preclude 24/7 operations in hot climates and foul weather (See Annex B, paragraphs 33 and 34).

(b)Do not provide any Defence Suppression capability (thereby placing task force personnel and weapons platforms at high risk unnecessarily). (See Annex B, paragraphs 45 to 55.)

©Lack Airborne Early Warning (denying the Command vital early warning of the ingress of enemy aircraft and/or anti-ship missiles). The Hawkeye “mini AWACS” would provide for this comprehensive capability. Although the F-35 radar is sophisticated and modern, it is directional in operation and does not have the broad reach and 360° Task Force area of interest coverage that is vital in a hostile combat environment.

(d)Lack Air to Air Refuelling support (without which safe all-weather deck operations and/or extended combat missions cannot be conducted). (See Annex B, paragraphs 29 to 31).

 

 (e)Provide for very limited radius of action thereby precluding any Deep Strike Capability and any realistic Air Space Denial Capability (the latter resulting in inadequate protection and support of ground forces onshore).

 

63. It is logical for the Secretary of State to have acknowledged that our new strike carriers are at the heart of Britain’s Strategic Defence Policy. But such acknowledgement lacks integrity and credibility when the vital capability required for our new strike carriers is severely diminished by:

 

(a)Allowing short-term fiscal expediency to govern flight deck configuration.

(b)Persisting with a choice of Joint Strike Fighter that will not by any stretch of the imagination endow our new capital warships with a genuine carrier strike capability.

 

64. The F-35B STOVL aircraft of choice brings with it unacceptable flight safety deficiencies and operational limitations that will reduce the Queen Elizabeth capability to that of an Amphibious Support vessel.

 

The serious shortfalls in the capability of the F-35 include:

(a)Expected limitations in the aircraft’s stealth qualities.

(b)No buddy-buddy capability for air to air refuelling. (Flight safety hazard.)

©The loss of the vertical landing capability of the F-35B STOVL aircraft. (Flight safety hazard.)

(d)The aircraft is single-seat and will not be able to provide the exceptional defence suppression, ew/istar benefits of the e/a-18g super growler.

(e)An expected incompatibility of the F-35C aircraft with the Queen Elizabeth class carrier for deck landing in “nil wind” conditions or “light airs”.

(f)Being single-seat, the aircraft will not be suitable for the airborne control of Unmanned Carrier Air Vehicles (UCAVS). This will prevent the UK from deploying a cost-effective strategic level of deep strike capability against those that would do us harm.

(g)If satellite services are interdicted for whatever reason, the aircraft’s ability to conduct precision deep strike missions may be severely degraded.

(h)It is difficult to isolate any operational advantages that the F-35 has over the F/A-18 Super Hornet family of aircraft.

 

And so on

 

 

Edited by Picdelamirand-oil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Air%2BFan.png

 

has anyone read this magazine ??

 

why cant someone post some good scanned/snipped pics of this magazine on rafale here 

 

very good info has been posted on rafale

 

rafale's aesa radar max range is claimed to be 200km here in this magazine

 

or else plz do PM me those snipped pics if it violates DMCA 

 

CHEERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

why dont u join our indian defence forum ??also

 

key pub forums is next to trash when it comes to aviation 

 

only Jo asakura post in pak-fa  thread i follow or else other part in those forum

 

Pfftt !!!

 

 

 

 

 

CHEERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Anglo-French FCAS May Not Be Unmanned

 

http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/2014-11-12/anglo-french-fcas-may-not-be-unmanned

 

though i dont like Chris pollock articles too much but i want to say if it indirectly means the french & UK are planning to built a 5th gen plane which may be manned to compete with future air threats like PAK-FA & J20 

 

if this article indeed becomes true

 

then i dont like to post  this thing here but  i am itching to post this thing as i cant resist BTW it's a french forum so no indian  rafale bashers here for me to worry 

 

so i am posting it

 

"so we are really buying a plane   which would be obsolete by 2030/35 of the parent nation which builts it "

 

so barely INDIA would be retaining real functional advantage for 4.5 gen fighter till 15-20 years after it inducts  it ,plus MLU part should be added alongside it though for whopping 15 billion dollars & that value could be higher also in long run

 

this previous bloody UPA goverment has delayed the deal so much that i wonder how long india would retain the aerial superiority advantage after it inducts it  judging by the pace of our neighbours modernisation drive

 

Advanced long range SAM like S400 , plus more number of AWACS , plus aesa /IRST equipped flanker copies 

& add to that their latest 5th gen fighters like J20 /J31 

 

CHEERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, just read again Oly's answer.

 

Then,

 

"so we are really buying a plane   which would be obsolete by 2030/35 of the parent nation which builts it "

It is exactly what this article wanted you to think...

Do you really think that a supposed all new 5th or 6th gen plane could be operational by 2030? Look at all other programs.

Don't worry, you are buying the right thing at the right moment.

Edited by Gallium nitride
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First, just read again Oly's answer.

 

Then,

 

"so we are really buying a plane   which would be obsolete by 2030/35 of the parent nation which builts it "

It is exactly what this article wanted you to think...

Do you really think that a supposed all new 5th or 6th gen plane could be operational by 2030? Look at all other programs.

Don't worry, you are buying the right thing at the right moment.

 

 

oly has not answered anything related to that link but he had only posted the source thats it!!

 

but the fact is FCAS might not be manned at all why??

 

1)Britain already has F35 & it is big partner in it's program  so why waste money on 2 manned 5th gen fighter from their side

 

2) French also are not interested on manned 5th gen fighter they want an unmanned 5th gen combat aircraft

though it would be integrated with Rafale & would be controlled by rafale pilot through it cockpit 

 

plus marketing a manned 5th gen fighter to other countries wont be  going to be easy for france  as she knows it has very hard time selling it's

rafale & add to that a manned 5th gen fighter would be very costly compare to rafale

 

& britain would not want to annoy US as this plane would be indirectly competeing with F35 in export market if this plane turns out

to be manned

 

so as usual my view is POLLOCK is  very optimistic &  has sensationalized his article with no proper justification at all

 

 

 

 

 

CHEERS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Member Statistics

    5,965
    Total Members
    1,749
    Most Online
    Personne
    Newest Member
    Personne
    Joined
  • Forum Statistics

    21.5k
    Total Topics
    1.7m
    Total Posts
  • Blog Statistics

    4
    Total Blogs
    3
    Total Entries
×
×
  • Create New...