The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft

[Ozzy Blizzard]

It really dosen't matter whether the Rafael employs comprehnsive LO tech or not the fact remains that it RCS is very small compared to the F-15's which would put it at an advantage in BVR and it's important to not that most F-15's don't have AESA's but (IIRC) AESA's are planned for all of the Rafael's in service with the French Air Force.

In order to adequately answer this we need to delve into the effects of advanced RWR, frontal RCS reduction and radars on BVR combat and thats not something i really have the time to do comprehensively. Currently the F15 is for the most part equiped or being upgraded with the APG 63 (v) 2 which is an AESA radar, although it is less capable than the (v) 3 as it uses many (v) 1 components. this would mean that it is not able to utilise the advanced capabilities of newer AESA radars like electronic attack but is generaly more capable than MSA's and PSA's in terms of multiple target engagements, LPI and ECCM. The RBE2 may be found wanting in these area's in comparison as it is a PSA. And as far as the frontal RCS reduction of the rafale, it may indeed be much less than an F15. But in general terms if the Rafale uses its radar it will most likely be revealing its position, and even if it's frontal RCS is really small, small enough to allow it to get into a missile launch envelope without being detected, it still utilises exterior weapons and fuel so i doubt its fronat RCS will allow it to achieve this. Anyway if it tracks the F15 it will most likely be detected by it, so i'm wondering a why limited frontal RCS reduction is a desiscive factor in this type of scenario. It is very usefull i agree but i dont see it being the single factor (in non LO or VLO platforms) that somehow wins the day for them, even in LPI radar equiped fighters. And AFAIK all the USAF's F15's are to be upgraded to the APG 63 (v) 3 which is as capable as the APG 79. The frenchies (or europeans) have only got AESA in the test phase AFAIK, therefore you could assume that their first models will be less capable than mature US designs. The MICA does have some advantages over the AMRAAM, the IR seeker does not give any warning when it aquires the target so the F15 would be relying solely on its radar for warning of the incoming missile. However i'm not sure how well it stacks up against the AMRAAM in the terminal phase.

As for WVR combat there is practically no reason for the Rafael not win in every dogfight with an F-15 even if the F-15 has better missile simply because it's a lot more manueverable than the F-15.

If you think that WVR combat can be dominated by an aircraft simply because it has a slightly better roll rate or wing loading your missing the point by a fair bit. The most important factor is your missile system and its cueing components. Focal plane array seekers are virtually impossible to defeat geometrically, this coupled with TVC means that you can't out turn it or defeat it by maneuever alone within the NEZ. So unless you have very capable counter measures or burn the seeker out with a laser your maneuverability wont matter all that much one the missile has been lauched. The only time when a platforms raw airodynamic performance is important is allowing platform A to point the nose at platform B faster and therefore employ its weapons systems first. But this is only with comperable missile systems. And an advantage in kinemetic performance is also significant in WVR, it allows you to move in an out of missile envilope faster and increases your survivability within the NEZ. But most importantly it decreases the NEZ of their missile systems and increases yours. Given the fact that MICA is an all in one missile and is significantly heavier and slower than the X i would have a hard time believing that it is in fact as capable allthough it may be in the ball park. So again i dont know where the rafales better maneuverability means it wins "consistently" especially given the effect current gen WVR missiles have on WVR combat.

And as for the Python 5 vs. AIM-9X aurguement, the Python 5 (and the HMS that accompenies it) is the most advanced in the world (ask any one). But still the Rafael's more manueverable than the F-16. If it were an Israeli pilot vs. a French pilot the Rafael would get murdered IMO.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but they're both focal plane array seekers are they not, they are both equiped with TVC and have a HMCS. So how exactly is the Python 5 desisvely more capable than the X, the range is inferior, it has an EO component, MAYBE its counter counter-mesures????? And how are Isreali pilots so much better than french pilots? the Isrealies haven't gone up against a real air threat in 30 years. They both have the funds to be extensively trained and have decent time in the air.

 

[eaf-f16]

Correct me if i'm wrong, but they're both focal plane array seekers are they not, they are both equiped with TVC and have a HMCS. So how exactly is the Python 5 desisvely more capable than the X, the range is inferior, it has an EO component, MAYBE its counter counter-mesures????? And how are Isreali pilots so much better than french pilots? the Isrealies haven't gone up against a real air threat in 30 years. They both have the funds to be extensively trained and have decent time in the air.

First of all I want to ask you about the part where you said that if the Rafale detects the F-15 the F-15 will know where it is (I'm not denying or discrediting this so don't take offense). Dose that mean if the F-22 detects an F-15 the f-15 will know where it is? Or dose the F-22 have technology that hampers such efforts to detect it?

But returning back to topic. The Python 5 doesn't have TVC, IIRC. AFAIK they both use canards to achieve their super maneuverability, correct me if I'm wrong. I also think the Python 5 uses lag-pursuit instead of just chasing the target and AFAIK the AIM-9X uses pure pursuit (again, correct me if I'm wrong). IMO Israeli pilots are better becuase everybody says they are very innovative in their tactics. The French air force I think is more "structured" than the Israeli Air Force which means they might not be given the chance to be as innovative as the Israeli pilots. Also not considering the fact that the threats the IAF has to deal with are in general more "real life" than anything the French Air force might have to deal with which may lead to an increased level of training and readiness for the Israeli Air Force than the French Air Force and naval air arm. Then again I could be wrong.

Edit: AIM-9X dose use TVC, sorry.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

First of all I want to ask you about the part where you said that if the Rafale detects the F-15 the F-15 will know where it is (I'm not denying or discrediting this so don't take offense). Dose that mean if the F-22 detects an F-15 the f-15 will know where it is? Or dose the F-22 have technology that hampers such efforts to detect it?

The F22A utilises an Low Probability of Intercept AESA radar which is hard to detect. But even if the opposing platform has ESM capable of detecting its emmitions, it can launch of annother F22's radar using link 16 without emmiting anything. Its a handy trick that 5th gen platforms can use.

But returning back to topic. The Python 5 doesn't have TVC, IIRC. AFAIK they both use canards to achieve their super maneuverability, correct me if I'm wrong. I also think the Python 5 uses lag-pursuit instead of just chasing the target and AFAIK the AIM-9X uses pure pursuit (again, correct me if I'm wrong). IMO Israeli pilots are better becuase everybody says they are very innovative in their tactics. The French air force I think is more "structured" than the Israeli Air Force which means they might not be given the chance to be as innovative as the Israeli pilots. Also not considering the fact that the threats the IAF has to deal with are in general more "real life" than anything the French Air force might have to deal with which may lead to an increased level of training and readiness for the Israeli Air Force than the French Air Force and naval air arm. Then again I could be wrong.

Edit: AIM-9X dose use TVC, sorry.

Then why is the Python 5 so much more capable than the X???????

As far as isreali pilots, i agree they have more modern combat experiance than the frenchies but again its hard ton argue their opertational doctorine and training would allow them to defeat the frenchies every time.

 

[swerve]

... But even if the opposing platform has ESM capable of detecting its emmitions, it can launch of annother F22's radar using link 16 without emmiting anything. Its a handy trick that 5th gen platforms can use. ...

So the Gripen's a 5th gen platform? Was doing that years before the F-22 entered service, & using Swedens own datalinks, not Link 16.

 

[eaf-f16]

The F22A utilises an Low Probability of Intercept AESA radar which is hard to detect. But even if the opposing platform has ESM capable of detecting its emmitions, it can launch of annother F22's radar using link 16 without emmiting anything. Its a handy trick that 5th gen platforms can use.



Then why is the Python 5 so much more capable than the X???????

As far as isreali pilots, i agree they have more modern combat experiance than the frenchies but again its hard ton argue their opertational doctorine and training would allow them to defeat the frenchies every time.

I never said the Python 5 is much more capable than the AIM-9X. I was just saying I believe it's probably the most advanced. If you read my previous post I said I don't think the differences in performance between the Aim-9X and the Python 5 are that great(implying that they might be similar in performance). The only major advantage the Python 5 has is that it's technically closer to a BVR missile than short range missile, as this article put it, http://www.israeli-weapons.com/weapons/missile_systems/air_missiles/python/Python5.html. Please read what I write before putting words in my mouth. I don't mind a friendly debate but don't say I said that the Python 5 is so much more capable than the AIM-9X this is like the second time you do this after I specifically said I didn't mean that.

As for the Israeli pilot vs. French pilots. Again I never meant to say that every time the Israeli pilot will win over the French one. I think one of the things (yes, we all know that the ROE were unfair) the USAF said surprised them when they had Cope India was that the Indian Air Force used tactics that they didn't see before and they were described as "innovative". I think Israeli Air Force operates in sort of the same way. I have never heard, however, that the French Air Force is innovative in their tactics. I think they're, as I said before, a more "structured" force.

Does anybody have any idea as to what the range of the AIM-9X is? I can't seem to find it.

 

[Scorpion82]

Currently the F15 is for the most part equiped or being upgraded with the APG 63 (v) 2 which is an AESA radar, although it is less capable than the (v) 3 as it uses many (v) 1 components. this would mean that it is not able to utilise the advanced capabilities of newer AESA radars like electronic attack but is generaly more capable than MSA's and PSA's in terms of multiple target engagements, LPI and ECCM.

The "generally more capable" depends on much more than the array technology alone. If it doesn't use its T/R modules proberbly it won't be much better than a PESA or MSA, though it would still enjoy some advantages, though there might be disadvantages as well.

The RBE2 may be found wanting in these area's in comparison as it is a PSA. And as far as the frontal RCS reduction of the rafale, it may indeed be much less than an F15. But in general terms if the Rafale uses its radar it will most likely be revealing its position, and even if it's frontal RCS is really small, small enough to allow it to get into a missile launch envelope without being detected, it still utilises exterior weapons and fuel so i doubt its fronat RCS will allow it to achieve this. Anyway if it tracks the F15 it will most likely be detected by it, so i'm wondering a why limited frontal RCS reduction is a desiscive factor in this type of scenario. It is very usefull i agree but i dont see it being the single factor (in non LO or VLO platforms) that somehow wins the day for them, even in LPI radar equiped fighters.

The F22A utilises an Low Probability of Intercept AESA radar which is hard to detect. But even if the opposing platform has ESM capable of detecting its emmitions, it can launch of annother F22's radar using link 16 without emmiting anything. Its a handy trick that 5th gen platforms can use.

So if the F-22 does it, it's useful but not in case of the Rafale?
This sounds just as if you claim the same thing being valid one aircraft, but not for the other. Detecting the enemy first has a distinctive advantage, you can better prepare your attack and manoeuvre your aircraft into a tactical advantages position. This is what the first look is all about, preparation of the first shot.
BTW the F-22 has no LINK 16 transmit capability, only receive. But the F-22 can use its IFDL to do so. BTW Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon are all capable of sharing their data in a similar way. Their NCW capabilities are currently even more advanced. Oh does it make the Raptor now 4.5 generation and the others 5thnfloorl:

And AFAIK all the USAF's F15's are to be upgraded to the APG 63 (v) 3 which is as capable as the APG 79. The frenchies (or europeans) have only got AESA in the test phase AFAIK, therefore you could assume that their first models will be less capable than mature US designs.

I say lets wait for that. AESA isn't that new for the europeans at all. And they could also learn from the lessons the US made with earlier AESA designs. I say lets wait and see.

The MICA does have some advantages over the AMRAAM, the IR seeker does not give any warning when it aquires the target so the F15 would be relying solely on its radar for warning of the incoming missile. However i'm not sure how well it stacks up against the AMRAAM in the terminal phase.

The MICA exists in 2 versions ARH and IIR and why shouldn't the MICA stack up in the terminal phase of flight?

Given the fact that MICA is an all in one missile and is significantly heavier and slower than the X i would have a hard time believing that it is in fact as capable allthough it may be in the ball park. So again i dont know where the rafales better maneuverability means it wins "consistently" especially given the effect current gen WVR missiles have on WVR combat.

112 kg against ~90 kg, a difference but no worlds. And do you have exact speed figures to support your claim of the MICA being slower? BTW turning with 50 g at mach 3 or with 9 g at mach 0.8 makes a difference.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but they're both focal plane array seekers are they not, they are both equiped with TVC and have a HMCS.

Missiles having a HMCS? Wow you never learn out :lol

 

[10ringr]

First of all I want to ask you about the part where you said that if the Rafale detects the F-15 the F-15 will know where it is (I'm not denying or discrediting this so don't take offense). Dose that mean if the F-22 detects an F-15 the f-15 will know where it is? Or dose the F-22 have technology that hampers such efforts to detect it?

But returning back to topic. The Python 5 doesn't have TVC, IIRC. AFAIK they both use canards to achieve their super maneuverability, correct me if I'm wrong. I also think the Python 5 uses lag-pursuit instead of just chasing the target and AFAIK the AIM-9X uses pure pursuit (again, correct me if I'm wrong). IMO Israeli pilots are better becuase everybody says they are very innovative in their tactics. The French air force I think is more "structured" than the Israeli Air Force which means they might not be given the chance to be as innovative as the Israeli pilots. Also not considering the fact that the threats the IAF has to deal with are in general more "real life" than anything the French Air force might have to deal with which may lead to an increased level of training and readiness for the Israeli Air Force than the French Air Force and naval air arm. Then again I could be wrong.

Edit: AIM-9X dose use TVC, sorry.

I'm kinda curious myself. The part about detection when you talked about will he F15 know where the F22 is. Could you elaborate and are you considering the fact that the F/A 22 has Stealth? I'm just trying to follow the train of thought not being difficult here. Hutch

 

[Scorpion82]

I'm kinda curious myself. The part about detection when you talked about will he F15 know where the F22 is. Could you elaborate and are you considering the fact that the F/A 22 has Stealth? I'm just trying to follow the train of thought not being difficult here. Hutch

He ment that due to the RWR the F-15 could detect the F-22. But it was more a question from him than a given fact.

 

[10ringr]

Apparently USAF thinks it's not important to have TVC (except when it comes to the F-22) . I don't think they're interested in AESA radars for the F-15's either. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the AESA radar integrated in the F-15 only for use in Singapore and will only enter limited service in USAF? Or will they upgrade all of the F-15's with AESA's?

Are the Rafale's in service with the French Air Force/Navy all going to be upgraded with AESA's when it's released?

Yes, your wrong (you asked).
Obviously they do feel that TVC is important or they wouldn't have incorporated it into the F/A 22 and F-35 derivative for the M.C. (Yes, I know what it is) The radars they use have given it an unsurpassed record so far and the combination of AN/APG-63 and AN/APG-70 & more recently upgrading the F-15C with the APG-63(V)2 to some. The APG-63(V)3 radar which Singapore is getting along with upgrading our other F-15C/E fighters will be more then enough to handle them when completed though it's very new having only been delivered in June/06. I obviously don't need to point out that while AESA is great in that it reduces the issues of breakdowns and is a better system that isn't to say that the systems we use to do much of the same work is obsolete. I get the feeling that because there's an improvement on an existing method then people immediately assume it's the best thing in the world and it renders everything else obsolete. It's simply not so. It's just more reliable and efficient but we've been tracking enemy aircraft, ships and ground targets before AESA came around and have done so very effectively. It's not as if we had no method of tracking/engaging/destroying targets before it came around. It isn't the silver bullet after all. The radars and ECM's I've not even mentioned so don't think that what I've mentioned is the end all, it's just the beginning! They intend to upgrade the radar on the Rafale. The radar they use is the The RBE2 which uses a passive electronically scanned array (PESA). Understood not to be a very good system because of poor range. There is an active array upgrade but it isn't supposed to be ready until 2012. It's a good thing they use our Airborne E.W.'s! Hope this helps. Hutch

Here's the link to the V3 in case you logically question this:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/08-07-2006/0004411412&EDATE=Aug+7,+2006

 

[10ringr]

He ment that due to the RWR the F-15 could detect the F-22. But it was more a question from him than a given fact.

Oh, thank you. Hutch

 

[10ringr]

The it only has the value of a rumour and should not be interpreted and presented as fact, because, as Preceptor stated, everybody can edit it on a whim.

No one is attacking you. You might consider that before responding to everyone like they're out to get you. They're not. Hutch:shudder

I fail to see where he was doing that, & what relevance your intervention has to the debate. I suggest we keep to substance. - PJI

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

So the Gripen's a 5th gen platform? Was doing that years before the F-22 entered service, & using Swedens own datalinks, not Link 16.

Not that usefull when the enemy AEW&C can see you or the opposing radar can see you. The point i was making was that if the enemy can detect your emitions and therefore this compromises your stealth you can launch of someone elses radar, as you said the sweeds have been doing it for years. All you need is link 16 some software upgrades and AMRAAM/MICA/R77.

And by link 16 i just meant reasonably capable datalink, not "only possible with this specific datalink"

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Aren't you a bit touchie? Still saw cus i outlined the difference in performance capabilities between the Typhoon and 5th gen platforms eh? Mate if you get upset every time someone points out that the typhoon is not a 5th gen platform and the F22, F35 and if it ever happens the PAK FA are your going to be getting upset quite a bit.:cry

The "generally more capable" depends on much more than the array technology alone. If it doesn't use its T/R modules proberbly it won't be much better than a PESA or MSA, though it would still enjoy some advantages, though there might be disadvantages as well.

The most important thing for controlling your beam in an AESA is software, and its also the bit thats the easiest to upgrade once the softwware is developed. And if you read the quote you were reffering to i did state that the APG 63 (2) would probably be superior in multiple target engagements, ECCM and LPI. AESA's (even immature models) are superior in these aspects, but not nessisarily in track and detection ranges v RCS.

So if the F-22 does it, it's useful but not in case of the Rafale?
This sounds just as if you claim the same thing being valid one aircraft, but not for the other.

For one thing he was asking that question in a different context to the conversation reguarding the rafale and F15. What i should have said was that NCW can be used to preserve the F22's stealth.

The reason i didn't bring this into the discussion about the rafale is because we were looking at this in a one on one type of scenario. Therefore offboard assets were not relevent and a datalink is not very usefull if theres no one to link it to. But if we are looking at this in in a more comprehensive type of scenario with offboard assets then everyone would no were everyone was because both sides would have E3's up and electronic warfare capabilities would become critical. Then things get a whole lot messier and isn't platform v platform its package v package with all the other bits envolved. So in this type of scenario i'm not too shure why a rafale would want to launch off offboard data, the opposing side would more than likely have detected it as soon as it entered the battlespace. And the F15 can do it too... so how does NCW dicicively change things in the rafales favor???

Detecting the enemy first has a distinctive advantage, you can better prepare your attack and manoeuvre your aircraft into a tactical advantages position. This is what the first look is all about, preparation of the first shot.
BTW the F-22 has no LINK 16 transmit capability, only receive. But the F-22 can use its IFDL to do so. BTW Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon are all capable of sharing their data in a similar way. Their NCW capabilities are currently even more advanced.

First look first shoot isn't as clear cut as it sounds. What if the enemy can detect your emitions??? What if the battlespace is covered by the servailance footprint of an AEW&C platform???? What if its a high speed head on engagement and you have to enter into the oppising platforms detection radius in order to employ your weapons? Its a nice concept but in a comprehensive scenario reduced frontal RCS (on non LO or VLO platforms) and Radar capabilities alone do not dictate who sees who first and who can use it to who's advantage.

And the whole reason i brought up NCW in a context of 5th gen platforms is it can be used to preserve their stealth. As i said before NCW by itself does not a 5th gen make. The reason the F22 is not being networked to the same degree as older assets is because the LPI capabilities of the APG 77 are adequate given the current level of of threat ESM. As soon as more advanced ESM are available to threat nations the F22's will be more heavily networked.

Oh does it make the Raptor now 4.5 generation and the others 5thnfloorl:

No comprehensive LO without compromising airodynamics is what makes a 5th gen fighter. NCW is just a technice to preserve that LO, as is LPI radars. And mate i'm terribly sorry to have to have to inform you about this but your beloved eurocanards do not have comprehensive LO and are therefore not 5th gen platforms. They are therefore seriosly less capable than 5th gen platforms.

I say lets wait for that. AESA isn't that new for the europeans at all. And they could also learn from the lessons the US made with earlier AESA designs. I say lets wait and see.

I say thats BS. The US are at least 10 years ahead of the europeans in AESA tech but maybe those frenchies are so smart they can they can just pull those 10 years out of their bum's heh? Maybe the russians too? AFAIK the Typhoon only just got a test bed system in the air, that a whole lot different from having operational radars in fighters for 7+ years.

The MICA exists in 2 versions ARH and IIR and why shouldn't the MICA stack up in the terminal phase of flight?

The seeker... I'm wondering how well the MICA's IR seeker stacks up to the AMRAAM in terms of ECCM and accuracy in the terminal phase. That active seeker is awfully dangerous.

112 kg against ~90 kg, a difference but no worlds. And do you have exact speed figures to support your claim of the MICA being slower? BTW turning with 50 g at mach 3 or with 9 g at mach 0.8 makes a difference.

Its a difference. And airodynamically it has more drag, you can see that just by looking at the missiles envolved. And no i dont have exact speed figures, i'm making an educated guess. the AIM 9X is specifically designed to be much faster than its allready fast predesessors and this is evedent in its smaller controll surfaces on the missile. The MICA is a biger and heavier missile that is compromised for BVR performance. It is heavier and has more drag therefore i would assume it was slower. And what was your G load comparison meant to illustrate?? The difference between missile turning capability and a fighters? If you mean that turning at a slower speed reduces the turn radius then i would agree, but you wont see WVR missiles flying arround in circles would you??? Kinematics are VERY important for all A2A missile systems including WVR.

Since your trying to pick holes in my statement that the AIM 9X was a more capable WVR missile system than the MICA i must assume you disagree with that statement, unless you have some sort of personal interest in discrediting anything I say especially if it is even slightly negative towards a Eurocanard. So is MICA capable of off broadsight used in conjuction with a HMCS? Does it have TVC? It does have more range but then again its a BVR missile too.

Missiles having a HMCS? Wow you never learn out :lol

You pulled this crap last time we had a similar conversation. You know damn well what i meant, most members who are farmiliar with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System would know exactly what i meant. Yet you dance arround the argument and attack semantics, which has nothing to do with what i was saying and everything to do with making me look foolish. This tells me 3 things. 1) You have an emotional attachment to the subject matter, in this case the Eurocanards, or an emotional problem with me personally. 2) your immature. 3) you have a weak argument, because in my experiance the only time people start attacking the man or the words is because they cant attack the facts. Grow up and start discussing this like an adult, not a teenager who makes fun of typo's even though they know what was said was factually correct.

 

[Aussie Digger]

In order to adequately answer this we need to delve into the effects of advanced RWR, frontal RCS reduction and radars on BVR combat and thats not something i really have the time to do comprehensively. Currently the F15 is for the most part equiped or being upgraded with the APG 63 (v) 2 which is an AESA radar, although it is less capable than the (v) 3 as it uses many (v) 1 components. this would mean that it is not able to utilise the advanced capabilities of newer AESA radars like electronic attack but is generaly more capable than MSA's and PSA's in terms of multiple target engagements, LPI and ECCM. The RBE2 may be found wanting in these area's in comparison as it is a PSA. And as far as the frontal RCS reduction of the rafale, it may indeed be much less than an F15. But in general terms if the Rafale uses its radar it will most likely be revealing its position, and even if it's frontal RCS is really small, small enough to allow it to get into a missile launch envelope without being detected, it still utilises exterior weapons and fuel so i doubt its fronat RCS will allow it to achieve this. Anyway if it tracks the F15 it will most likely be detected by it, so i'm wondering a why limited frontal RCS reduction is a desiscive factor in this type of scenario. It is very usefull i agree but i dont see it being the single factor (in non LO or VLO platforms) that somehow wins the day for them, even in LPI radar equiped fighters. And AFAIK all the USAF's F15's are to be upgraded to the APG 63 (v) 3 which is as capable as the APG 79. The frenchies (or europeans) have only got AESA in the test phase AFAIK, therefore you could assume that their first models will be less capable than mature US designs. The MICA does have some advantages over the AMRAAM, the IR seeker does not give any warning when it aquires the target so the F15 would be relying solely on its radar for warning of the incoming missile. However i'm not sure how well it stacks up against the AMRAAM in the terminal phase.

Being able to detect a radar emission is a LOT different to being able to cue a weapon towards the source of that emission.

The ALR-67(v3) (Super Hornet 's "digital" RWR system) I have read, can be used to cue the radar onto the source of a detected threat, so presumably can other modern RWR's , however the reverse will then become true and it will come down to an issue of tactics, RoE's, comparative weapons ranges the aircrafts flight profile, who has the better better firing solution, which radar system can target AND discriminate better, a whole heap of factors in these scenario's.

Attempting to argue "which is better" is futile because the "real world" is never perfect.

For example on "kills" alone the F-105 Thunderchief was the second best air to air fighter operated by the USA in the Vietnam war, achieving 25% of all US A2A kills. (Source: Air warfare in the missile age 2002).

One would hardly expect the "Thud" to be spectacular fighter given it's strike optimised design, but in "real world" encounters it achieved excellent results.

As for the MICA, it's IR seeker might not give out any emissions, but it's rocket motor will have a significant IR signature, the same as any other missile and it will be detected by modern MAWS type systems just like any other missile. MICA is a compromise and an effective missile no doubt, but outright performance is usually effected when compromises are made...

If you think that WVR combat can be dominated by an aircraft simply because it has a slightly better roll rate or wing loading your missing the point by a fair bit. The most important factor is your missile system and its cueing components. Focal plane array seekers are virtually impossible to defeat geometrically, this coupled with TVC means that you can't out turn it or defeat it by maneuever alone within the NEZ. So unless you have very capable counter measures or burn the seeker out with a laser your maneuverability wont matter all that much one the missile has been lauched. The only time when a platforms raw airodynamic performance is important is allowing platform A to point the nose at platform B faster and therefore employ its weapons systems first. But this is only with comperable missile systems. And an advantage in kinemetic performance is also significant in WVR, it allows you to move in an out of missile envilope faster and increases your survivability within the NEZ. But most importantly it decreases the NEZ of their missile systems and increases yours. Given the fact that MICA is an all in one missile and is significantly heavier and slower than the X i would have a hard time believing that it is in fact as capable allthough it may be in the ball park. So again i dont know where the rafales better maneuverability means it wins "consistently" especially given the effect current gen WVR missiles have on WVR combat.

Precisely. The "Thud" is a perfect example of this. The MiG-17,19 and 21 opponents it faced in Vietnam were all significantly more maneuverable than it. Yet it won aerial battles time and time again thanks to it's superior Sidewinder missiles (not better by all that much, but enough) and internal 20mm cannon.

Correct me if i'm wrong, but they're both focal plane array seekers are they not, they are both equiped with TVC and have a HMCS. So how exactly is the Python 5 desisvely more capable than the X, the range is inferior, it has an EO component, MAYBE its counter counter-mesures????? And how are Isreali pilots so much better than french pilots? the Isrealies haven't gone up against a real air threat in 30 years. They both have the funds to be extensively trained and have decent time in the air.

It's a matter of horses for courses in my opinion. The RAAF trialled ASRAAM against AIM-9X AND the current Python variants in the 2000 - 2002 timeframe and obviouslychose ASRAAM.

Quotes I have read from RAAF however, indicate that the ASRAAM's speed (both "off the rail" and in-flight) and it's range advantage over these weapons are what gave it the advantage over these other weapons. (RAAF considering the ASRAAM to have a "BVR" capability when compared against earlier generation BVR weapons).

However it's advantage over the -9X cannot be so massive, given the -9X has been chosen for RAAF Super Hornets...

I doubt there is much between the capabilities of the best A2A certainly nothing that is going to give a clear advantage ALL the time...

 

[eaf-f16]

Yes, your wrong (you asked).
Obviously they do feel that TVC is important or they wouldn't have incorporated it into the F/A 22 and F-35 derivative for the M.C. (Yes, I know what it is) The radars they use have given it an unsurpassed record so far and the combination of AN/APG-63 and AN/APG-70 & more recently upgrading the F-15C with the APG-63(V)2 to some. The APG-63(V)3 radar which Singapore is getting along with upgrading our other F-15C/E fighters will be more then enough to handle them when completed though it's very new having only been delivered in June/06. I obviously don't need to point out that while AESA is great in that it reduces the issues of breakdowns and is a better system that isn't to say that the systems we use to do much of the same work is obsolete. I get the feeling that because there's an improvement on an existing method then people immediately assume it's the best thing in the world and it renders everything else obsolete. It's simply not so. It's just more reliable and efficient but we've been tracking enemy aircraft, ships and ground targets before AESA came around and have done so very effectively. It's not as if we had no method of tracking/engaging/destroying targets before it came around. It isn't the silver bullet after all. The radars and ECM's I've not even mentioned so don't think that what I've mentioned is the end all, it's just the beginning! They intend to upgrade the radar on the Rafale. The radar they use is the The RBE2 which uses a passive electronically scanned array (PESA). Understood not to be a very good system because of poor range. There is an active array upgrade but it isn't supposed to be ready until 2012. It's a good thing they use our Airborne E.W.'s! Hope this helps. Hutch

Here's the link to the V3 in case you logically question this:
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/m...story/08-07-2006/0004411412&EDATE=Aug+7,+2006

Alright, thanks for the info.

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

Being able to detect a radar emission is a LOT different to being able to cue a weapon towards the source of that emission.

The ALR-67(v3) (Super Hornet 's "digital" RWR system) I have read, can be used to cue the radar onto the source of a detected threat, so presumably can other modern RWR's , however the reverse will then become true and it will come down to an issue of tactics, RoE's, comparative weapons ranges the aircrafts flight profile, who has the better better firing solution, which radar system can target AND discriminate better, a whole heap of factors in these scenario's.

Attempting to argue "which is better" is futile because the "real world" is never perfect.

Thats a good point. All i meant to illustrate is "first look" isnt as clear cut as it sounds. Unless you have an LPI radar and the enemy's ESM/RWR isn't capable of detecting it. This is of cource when dealing with 4th gen and 4.5th gen platofrms, you know the ones without the comprehensive LO. It seems there are a few out there who dont like the lable 5th gen, mostly eurocanard types, so i'm not sure if i need to exlain what a mean by 5th gen every time i mention it. ( )

For example on "kills" alone the F-105 Thunderchief was the second best air to air fighter operated by the USA in the Vietnam war, achieving 25% of all US A2A kills. (Source: Air warfare in the missile age 2002).

One would hardly expect the "Thud" to be spectacular fighter given it's strike optimised design, but in "real world" encounters it achieved excellent results.

As for the MICA, it's IR seeker might not give out any emissions, but it's rocket motor will have a significant IR signature, the same as any other missile and it will be detected by modern MAWS type systems just like any other missile. MICA is a compromise and an effective missile no doubt, but outright performance is usually effected when compromises are made...

The IR signature shouldnt be too large in the terminal phase, but it would be detected by the enemy radar anyway. You could use AMRAAM as a WVR missile, i'm not too shure how well it would stack up against an 9X. Compromised missiles will allways mean compromises in capability to some extent.

Precisely. The "Thud" is a perfect example of this. The MiG-17,19 and 21 opponents it faced in Vietnam were all significantly more maneuverable than it. Yet it won aerial battles time and time again thanks to it's superior Sidewinder missiles (not better by all that much, but enough) and internal 20mm cannon.

The F105 did suprisingly well in A2A combat, achieving a positive kill to loss ration when going up against dedicated air superiority types such as the MiG 21. As you stated previously this was due to superior missile systems and superior pilots. However it was something like 18 losses to 22 kills (thats a very hazy memeory, it could have been a fair bit different from that) which isn't spectacular, but still better than the air superiority fighters they were facing.

Now i know a certain website posted a certain article regarding the comparison of a certain platform and the F105. And in order to avoid any distinctive accusations of conspiracy let me just say this. air to air combat has changed plenty in the last 40 years and any superficial similarities between said platform and the F105 do not somehow indicate the capabilities of our certain fighter. Any comparison is invalid because the circumstances of the two platforms are very different.

It's a matter of horses for courses in my opinion. The RAAF trialled ASRAAM against AIM-9X AND the current Python variants in the 2000 - 2002 timeframe and obviously chose ASRAAM.

Quotes I have read from RAAF however, indicate that the ASRAAM's speed (both "off the rail" and in-flight) and it's range advantage over these weapons are what gave it the advantage over these other weapons. (RAAF considering the ASRAAM to have a "BVR" capability when compared against earlier generation BVR weapons).

However it's advantage over the -9X cannot be so massive, given the -9X has been chosen for RAAF Super Hornets...

I doubt there is much between the capabilities of the best A2A certainly nothing that is going to give a clear advantage ALL the time...

This generation of WVR missiles are comperable in most respects, which includes ASRAAM, R73, AIM 9X, IRIS-T and Python. IIRC the x was geared around end game maneuverability, were the ASRAAM is more capable "off the rail" being able to target threats directly behind the aircraft and had more speed. This will be very usefull when working in conjunction with the DAS on the F35 as the sphere of IR covrage it provides will be able to be fully utilised by the sphere of engagement envilope the ASRAAM provides. I hope the RAAF goes ahead with intergrating the system on the F35A.

 

[swerve]

... The point i was making was that if the enemy can detect your emitions and therefore this compromises your stealth you can launch of someone elses radar, as you said the sweeds have been doing it for years. All you need is link 16 some software upgrades and AMRAAM/MICA/R77.

And by link 16 i just meant reasonably capable datalink, not "only possible with this specific datalink"

You characterised this capability as specific to "5th generation platforms", which is what I was poking fun at. It's independent of the platform, & the real requirement is what you now describe.

 

[Scorpion82]

Aren't you a bit touchie? Still saw cus i outlined the difference in performance capabilities between the Typhoon and 5th gen platforms eh? Mate if you get upset every time someone points out that the typhoon is not a 5th gen platform and the F22, F35 and if it ever happens the PAK FA are your going to be getting upset quite a bit.:cry

As mentioned many times before I don't mind if you label the Typhoon as 5th generation or not. I don't bother with that generation think thank at all. As Swerve said it, you pointed to NCW capabilities as "5th generation capability only" and this is nonsense.

The most important thing for controlling your beam in an AESA is software, and its also the bit thats the easiest to upgrade once the softwware is developed. And if you read the quote you were reffering to i did state that the APG 63 (2) would probably be superior in multiple target engagements, ECCM and LPI. AESA's (even immature models) are superior in these aspects, but not nessisarily in track and detection ranges v RCS.

It's right that it is easy to update software, but developing the new software is not that easy. AESA has the potential of being more LPI, having better ECCM etc., but that's not a must or true for every AESA system fielded. Not every US AESA has the same LPI capabilities etc as the AN/APG-77.

For one thing he was asking that question in a different context to the conversation reguarding the rafale and F15. What i should have said was that NCW can be used to preserve the F22's stealth.

But it can be used to reduce a non LO platforms detectability as well. Sure it's not the same sort, but abandone it as not useful for non LO platforms isn't right either.

The reason i didn't bring this into the discussion about the rafale is because we were looking at this in a one on one type of scenario. Therefore offboard assets were not relevent and a datalink is not very usefull if theres no one to link it to. But if we are looking at this in in a more comprehensive type of scenario with offboard assets then everyone would no were everyone was because both sides would have E3's up and electronic warfare capabilities would become critical. Then things get a whole lot messier and isn't platform v platform its package v package with all the other bits envolved. So in this type of scenario i'm not too shure why a rafale would want to launch off offboard data, the opposing side would more than likely have detected it as soon as it entered the battlespace. And the F15 can do it too... so how does NCW dicicively change things in the rafales favor???

If you want to compare something set the same conditions. Datalink is as useless for the F-22 in a 1vs 1 scenario as for any other aircraft. I see it in a more complex context. I think we confused us each other when relating to a 3rd persons post. Nothing bad about it, this might happen.

First look first shoot isn't as clear cut as it sounds. What if the enemy can detect your emitions??? What if the battlespace is covered by the servailance footprint of an AEW&C platform???? What if its a high speed head on engagement and you have to enter into the oppising platforms detection radius in order to employ your weapons? Its a nice concept but in a comprehensive scenario reduced frontal RCS (on non LO or VLO platforms) and Radar capabilities alone do not dictate who sees who first and who can use it to who's advantage.

A lot of "what if" but if you look at the scenarios of the past 15 years or so you would see that no one of the enemies had AWACS or capable datalink equiped aircraft. How many potential threat nations currently have such capabilities or are likely to receive them in the near future?

The reason the F22 is not being networked to the same degree as older assets is because the LPI capabilities of the APG 77 are adequate given the current level of of threat ESM. As soon as more advanced ESM are available to threat nations the F22's will be more heavily networked.

Interestingly you vary with your scenarios to make your point. Above you described a full scaqle scenario with an equally good equiped force, now you refer to the limited ESM capabilities of most forces fighters.
I don't think the F-22 has no NCW capabilities because it is so capable, but that it was still not part of the earlier requirements and that it hasn't been funded by now. The USAF would be happy to have such capabilities on the Raptor.

No comprehensive LO without compromising airodynamics is what makes a 5th gen fighter. NCW is just a technice to preserve that LO, as is LPI radars. And mate i'm terribly sorry to have to have to inform you about this but your beloved eurocanards do not have comprehensive LO and are therefore not 5th gen platforms. They are therefore seriosly less capable than 5th gen platforms.

Without compromising aerodynamics is perhaps a little bit overrated. I never ever said that an of the eurocanards have comprehensive LO. So what do you want to tel me with that?

I say thats BS. The US are at least 10 years ahead of the europeans in AESA tech but maybe those frenchies are so smart they can they can just pull those 10 years out of their bum's heh? Maybe the russians too? AFAIK the Typhoon only just got a test bed system in the air, that a whole lot different from having operational radars in fighters for 7+ years.

AESA is used by europeans on maritime/ground based platforms since the early 90s. It is developed for fighters since the early 90s and they had the ability to learn from the US as well. I don't say european AESA will definitely be equal or better, I just say you can't fully exclude these possibilities. The US often think that they have the best and that they are the best etc., reality have proven them wrong often enough and I wait to see the results rather than throwing around with predejuices, though they a partitially reasonable.

The seeker... I'm wondering how well the MICA's IR seeker stacks up to the AMRAAM in terms of ECCM and accuracy in the terminal phase. That active seeker is awfully dangerous.

You can't fool IIR with ECM and flares are ineffective for this kind of seeker, so the IIR seeker is for sure much more CM resistant than that of the AMRAAM or any other radar seeker. IR systems typically provide better accuracy in terms of angular resolution.

Its a difference. And airodynamically it has more drag, you can see that just by looking at the missiles envolved. And no i dont have exact speed figures, i'm making an educated guess. the AIM 9X is specifically designed to be much faster than its allready fast predesessors and this is evedent in its smaller controll surfaces on the missile. The MICA is a biger and heavier missile that is compromised for BVR performance. It is heavier and has more drag therefore i would assume it was slower. And what was your G load comparison meant to illustrate?? The difference between missile turning capability and a fighters? If you mean that turning at a slower speed reduces the turn radius then i would agree, but you wont see WVR missiles flying arround in circles would you??? Kinematics are VERY important for all A2A missile systems including WVR.

Drag doesn't depend on the size alone and the speed performance is affected by the rocket motor as well. Honestly why should a missile designed to perform BVR as well be slower than a dedicated WVR missile? This makes no sense.
What I meant with the manoeuvre performance is that the sheer speed of a missile might cause it to miss at very short distances if the threatened aircraft flys the right manoeuvre. The "window" is however very small.

Since your trying to pick holes in my statement that the AIM 9X was a more capable WVR missile system than the MICA i must assume you disagree with that statement, unless you have some sort of personal interest in discrediting anything I say especially if it is even slightly negative towards a Eurocanard.

I just try to fill up your gaps of knowledge and try to find out what you mean with this or that. I haven't the intention to discredit you at all, but this is a forum and I want to express my opinion as well and if I see something different than you, then I will say it. Often disagreements are caused by the lack of information, misunderstanding etc.

So is MICA capable of off broadsight used in conjuction with a HMCS? Does it have TVC? It does have more range but then again its a BVR missile too.

Both questions can be answered with yes.

You pulled this crap last time we had a similar conversation. You know damn well what i meant, most members who are farmiliar with a Helmet Mounted Cueing System would know exactly what i meant.

This was really meant as a joke, maybe I should have chosen another smiley. I apologize if you felt offended.

Yet you dance arround the argument and attack semantics, which has nothing to do with what i was saying and everything to do with making me look foolish. This tells me 3 things. 1) You have an emotional attachment to the subject matter, in this case the Eurocanards, or an emotional problem with me personally. 2) your immature. 3) you have a weak argument, because in my experiance the only time people start attacking the man or the words is because they cant attack the facts. Grow up and start discussing this like an adult, not a teenager who makes fun of typo's even though they know what was said was factually correct.

Just to make it short. I'm not interested in any personal debates or bashing at all so I won't comment further on that.

 

[10ringr]

Alright, thanks for the info.

Sure, I learn a lot from you when I read your posts. Hutch

 

[Ozzy Blizzard]

As mentioned many times before I don't mind if you label the Typhoon as 5th generation or not. I don't bother with that generation think thank at all. As Swerve said it, you pointed to NCW capabilities as "5th generation capability only" and this is nonsense.

I know you don't mate. It seems none of the euro's out there do. But the Yanks and the Russians do. Maybe thats why euro fighter design is allways half a generation behind? Tornado ADV wouldn't do to well against teen series fighers or teenski's for that matter. And i dont think the euro canards will fair too well against the F22/F35/PAK FA (if it ever happens). Not that i'm saying euro tech is bad, not by a long shot. The ADF regularly acquires Euro stuff over US designs, just look at the AWD and ANZAC. Its just an observation. Maybe you guys should start thinking in terms of generations.

And I didn't mean to state it was only a 5th gen capability, that was a misunderstanding, i simply left out 4 words when typing.

It's right that it is easy to update software, but developing the new software is not that easy. AESA has the potential of being more LPI, having better ECCM etc., but that's not a must or true for every AESA system fielded. Not every US AESA has the same LPI capabilities etc as the AN/APG-77.

The Americans allready have developed the software which is my point. They have working AESA radars that have been OPERATIONAL for years and they are about to come out with the most advanced system ever put into a fighter, the APG 79 and some of its major advances are in software. Now do you think the USAF is just going to keep any of the software they have developed for one radar and not put it in other systems? that makes heaps of sence. And allthough mechanically the APG 63 (v) 2 may be less mature than the '79, the fact is that it is an electronicaly scanned array, and they have the software to take advantage of its more basic capabilities such as LPI and ECCM.

But it can be used to reduce a non LO platforms detectability as well. Sure it's not the same sort, but abandone it as not useful for non LO platforms isn't right either.

I didnt say it was useless, just less usefull, especially when you are detectable to long range ISR assets anyway.

If you want to compare something set the same conditions. Datalink is as useless for the F-22 in a 1vs 1 scenario as for any other aircraft. I see it in a more complex context. I think we confused us each other when relating to a 3rd persons post. Nothing bad about it, this might happen.

In a one on one the F22 has an LPI radar. So there you go. It can also use an EA to degrade the enemy's radar performance.

And the 3rd persons post, i assumed he was asking what would happen in a real world scenario. I assume you would agree that a rafale vs a USAF F15 is not real world.

A lot of "what if" but if you look at the scenarios of the past 15 years or so you would see that no one of the enemies had AWACS or capable datalink equiped aircraft. How many potential threat nations currently have such capabilities or are likely to receive them in the near future?

The last 15 years are a bad example. All of these conflicts were asymetric. And anyway who's threat??? There will be quite a few in my neck of the woods in the next 15 years. East Asia is the biggest growing market for hitech kit for all those emerging air forces. And the russians may be a very different beast in 15 years, they allready have the ISR assets.

Interestingly you vary with your scenarios to make your point. Above you described a full scaqle scenario with an equally good equiped force, now you refer to the limited ESM capabilities of most forces fighters.
I don't think the F-22 has no NCW capabilities because it is so capable, but that it was still not part of the earlier requirements and that it hasn't been funded by now. The USAF would be happy to have such capabilities on the Raptor.

2 seperate questions with 2 seperate contexts in 2 seperate scenarios. The first part was refering to a hypothetical discussion about the USAF taking on the French, were you and others were making a point about first look first shoot. in that scenario the two sides would be similarly equiped. The other was a real world question about how and why the raptor is equiped. You could hardly call F15 v Rafale real world could you? Hence two seperate scenario's.

Without compromising aerodynamics is perhaps a little bit overrated. I never ever said that an of the eurocanards have comprehensive LO. So what do you want to tel me with that?

Sorry without compromising airodynamics to a large extent. You would have to agree that in comparison to the F117 or B2 the F22 has not compromised its airodynamics.

AESA is used by europeans on maritime/ground based platforms since the early 90s. It is developed for fighters since the early 90s and they had the ability to learn from the US as well. I don't say european AESA will definitely be equal or better, I just say you can't fully exclude these possibilities. The US often think that they have the best and that they are the best etc., reality have proven them wrong often enough and I wait to see the results rather than throwing around with predejuices, though they a partitially reasonable.

Mate haveing a system on a ship is a LONG way from having a working system in a fighter. The russians have had ground based Active arrays in their S300 family of SAM's for years, but they are only just getting a prototype fighter radar together. They are totaly different beasts. Now this isn't a "US is the best" point. The fact is that they are well ahead in this form of technology, and it would be reasonable to assume that the first european systems will be as capable as mature US systems. In order for the euro stuff to all of a sudden be equal or better they would have to leap frog several steps in the systems evoloution, and unless they have an Isac Newton moment i dont see that happening. Now their systems may evolve faster or slower than the US systems, but it would be more that reasonable IMO to assume that they wont make up 10 years of programe time.

You can't fool IIR with ECM and flares are ineffective for this kind of seeker, so the IIR seeker is for sure much more CM resistant than that of the AMRAAM or any other radar seeker. IR systems typically provide better accuracy in terms of angular resolution.

The datalink is vulnerable, but I did say terminal phase. What i meant was CCM.

Somehow I'm having a hard time believing that IR systems are superior to active systems in BVR missiles. The french are the only ones to persue this in a comprehensive way. I know the russians have some IR and EM seekers on the R27 long burn series and the yanks were looking at multiple sensors for FMRAAM (i think thats what it was called) but eveyone is investing in active seeker tech. maybe the all whether capability.

Drag doesn't depend on the size alone and the speed performance is affected by the rocket motor as well. Honestly why should a missile designed to perform BVR as well be slower than a dedicated WVR missile? This makes no sense.

Shure it does. R27 slow burn doubled its range over the original R27 by using a slower speed, longer burn time and a balistic tragectory. Speed doesn't=range. In the 9X is supposed to be M3+ allmost off the rail. i have a hard time believing that a BVR missile, even one with TVC can match that.

I just try to fill up your gaps of knowledge and try to find out what you mean with this or that. I haven't the intention to discredit you at all, but this is a forum and I want to express my opinion as well and if I see something different than you, then I will say it. Often disagreements are caused by the lack of information, misunderstanding etc.

Sorry, its just that you dont respond to the whole statement or the point of the statement i was making, just respond to small factual points. It seems like your just trying to pick holes in what i'm saying rather than dealing with the point.

This was really meant as a joke, maybe I should have chosen another smiley. I apologize if you felt offended.

Sorry, i'm a bit touchie lately. Have Kopped a bit of crap arround here lately if you know what i mean. I thought you were having a crack at me and i got defenceive, i apologise for having a go.