The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft

2000

New Member
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
RBE2 is currently in its PESA version so it does not have as much range as the latest mechanical antennas and AESA radar. This solution has some drawbacks but it also offers some interesting advantages upon a mechanical antenna.

According to French pilots, they have good detection ranges against legacy planes such as F-16 & F-15. Nevertheless, the favorite sensor of fighter pilots remains the AWACS.

The reason why the RBE2 was not designed as an AESA from the beginning was because it was considered as an uncertain solution back in the 90's : expensive, time consuming, probability of success too low, probability of troubles too high. So it was decided to venture into the ESA world one step at a time.

Concerning the MICA missile it is a BVR and WVR weapon, it has TVC and can be used in conjunction with a HMCS. Also, recently, the MICA performed successfully an over the shoulder firing test in conjunction with the link16.

I can't post URLs yet, so I will post the summary in French.
from Armées.com said:
Le Centre d’Expériences Aériennes Militaires (CEAM) de Mont de Marsan a réalisé le 11 juin dernier une première technique sur le champ de tir de la DGA au large de Biscarosse, en abattant depuis un Rafale F2, avec un MICA équipé d’un autodirecteur électromagnétique, une cible située en arrière et poursuivant l’avion tireur.

I found more informations on the net :
google :
'Over-the-shoulder' Mica pushes limits
 
Last edited:
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
T


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.

Actually I had forgotten all about that "website" and it's "oft" comparison of the F-105 to the F-35.

I might even send a submission to the Senate suggesting that if the F-35 is as successful as the F-105 in air combat than we should count ourselves lucky! Wouldn't THAT upset some people? :eek:nfloorl:

The only reason I even brought it up was I had just finished reading about the US's experience of air combat over Vietnam. It didn't even occur to me the current "controversies"...

FYI the F-105 achieved 25.5 "kills" between 1965 and 1971 in Vietnam. (The 0.5 kill being credited towards an F-105 pilot which forced an enemy MiG to fly into the ground)...

The main point being that the "specifications" of an aircraft don't have an awful lot to do with air combat victories. The F-105 on paper was outclassed by all 3 types of Vietnamese aircraft in the A2A role as well as the top 2 US fighters, specifically the F-4 Phantom and the F-8 Crusader, yet it achieved better results in the A2A role than any of these aircraft apart from the F-4...
 

jaffo4011

New Member
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. (;) )




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.



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.





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.
oh,good, another hilarious blizzard '5th generation/eurocanard (subtitled ''i hate the typhoon/rafale cos people keep saying that they're better than my f22'' ) debate......joy.
 
Last edited:

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
oh,good, another hilarious blizzard '5th generation/eurocanard (subtitled ''i hate the typhoon/rafale cos people keep saying that they're better than my f22'' ) debate......joy.
lol, thats exactly what this is, just an attempt to discredit those eurocanards. Ofcource 5th gen is all hype and the eurocanards will be more that able to defeat an F22 or even an F35 is A2A combat, its all a conspiracy to secure the USAF's "psycological edge" over all of us patsies. If we actually realised how outclassed 5th gen platforms were by those eurocanards we might all be asking were all those billions of dollars of R&D went????:rolleyes:

If you think the eurocanards are in fact superior to 5th generation platforms then why dont you put together an argument and participate in the discussion? Because if you are just going to acuse others of backing their platform against your pet platform, especcialy when they have given clear reasons why they they belive your pet platform is inferior, then your not actually adding anything to the debate. What you are doing is venting your frustration that someone has made an argument stating the eurocanards are inferior to 5th generation platforms. Now if you disagree with that argument why dont you adress it in factuall terms, i.e. on a point by point basis. If not then dont bother.
 

TMor

New Member
Hi,

Sorry, i can't send URLs yet, but according to Fred George, former US Navy pilot who have flown the Rafale (report in AW&S), the Rafale has a 45,61% MAC instability when empty, and with external stores, "the center of gravity moves even farther aft".

What do you think of this ?
 

Dave H

New Member
I think there might be some reaction to your posts Ozzy because your position in relation to the F35 seems to have changed?

In the thread of JSF aeorodynamics a few months back you were I recall suggesting that the F35 was at some "kinematic" disadvantage against evolved Sukhois and the F35s LO would only be advantageous in some ambush situation. In fact the F35 back then was the wrong choice for the Aussies. In the thread about the F18/E/F being selected for australia you were also, I recall dismisive of some of the F18E/F advanced technology against the Super-dooper Sukhois. Back then a 5th Gen F35 didnt give a sufficient advantage against an earlier generation non stealth sukhoi.

If "generations" are what counts then arent the Eurocanard Rafale and Typhoon of the same class as the Sukhoi? IE designed in the same era to take on each other, devoid of stealth etc. In April the F35 was lacking against the Sukhoi but in August the F35 is far better that the eurocanards? Hmmm

I recall that in both the mentioned threads you didnt get much change from AussieDigger and others with your points about the F35 and the F18E/F.

Im just interested why an aircraft with non comprehensive LO and non compromised aeodynamics (the F35) would struggle against a sukhoi but not a rafale or typhoon? Not that they will ever likely go head to head.

I think the F35 brings an impressive bag of tricks to the table and Im glad the UK is getting them,particularly as with the typhoon it is good for UK industry. I would like the F22, but so would everyone else but I suspect the US will be the only user, so for the rest of us the Rafale/ typhoon/F18E will still provide the edge over likely adversaries for the next 20 years.
 

Scorpion82

New Member
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.
Interestingly the Tornado ADV performed very well against USAFE F-15C in BVR. And the F-15 was seen as the US best BVR platform! Its often not that easy and what sounds reasonable in theory might be different in reality.

Here in Europe the generation definitions are different. The ECDs are seen as 4th generation, because teen/teenski series are seen as 3rd generation. The russians like to use the +/- additions and some have adopted the 0.5 steps. Honestly there are to many different views and discussions often leave the road quickly and end up in a useless debate about generations. This helps no one at all.




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.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but to my knowledge the V2 uses the same software as the V1. I think that the newer V3 is likely to make use of new capabilities due new software. Interestingly its development to years (seen from the V2s point of introduction). You have to take into account many hardware variables as well, so I don't think it is that easy to simply adapt the software written for another radar.

I didnt say it was useless, just less usefull, especially when you are detectable to long range ISR assets anyway.
I agree on that, but in the end it all depends on the available technologies and the scenario itself.

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.
If it works and if it is ready. The current AN/APG-77 isn't able to do so and it's still a long road to go until EA is part of this radar. Not even the AN/APG-79 have this capability in its current form (that one which is operationally fielded with SHs). BTW I'm probably not up tp date here, are the significant problems which caused delays of operational use of the AN/APG-79 already solved?

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.
The future is unpredictable. I expect there will be no large conflict with the russians or chinese in the near future. Desert Storm was an interesting example in the past, but its of course 16 years ago.


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.
Agreed.

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.
As mentioned we will see. I agree that it is of course reasonable that the US will maintain an edge here for the next years to come, but I also learned that things which were assumed to be superior from the US weren't in reality. But I think there is no reason to further discuss about this. I know and respect your view and I have my which is not that different than yours, but includes an additional variable. Lets say I'm a little bit more optimistic here for the Europeans.

The datalink is vulnerable, but I did say terminal phase. What i meant was CCM.
Yes the datalink is vulnerable. The current advantage of IIR missiles is that there are no adequate counter measures to defeat them. DIRCM based on a laser is of course a promising technology, but it's not widely used, if used at all for the moment.

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.
Both technologies have their pros and cons. All weather capability as you mentioned is a very strong point which speaks against IR. Another advantage of the radar is that it gathers more target data than IR, this is not unimportant in the terminal phase of flight. With intelligent processing the missile could have advantages using the aditional data.

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.
Most BVR missiles haven't such a high off rail speed, but their max speed is as high or even higher. Speed is even more important at distances and I know no BVR AAM which is slower than mach 3.

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.
I will spent more attention on that. But in some cases it is just a single point where I disagree so sometimes I will pick this particular point.

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.
So we have cleared it up and can have a friendly debate.
 
A

Aussie Digger

Guest
If it works and if it is ready. The current AN/APG-77 isn't able to do so and it's still a long road to go until EA is part of this radar. Not even the AN/APG-79 have this capability in its current form (that one which is operationally fielded with SHs). BTW I'm probably not up tp date here, are the significant problems which caused delays of operational use of the AN/APG-79 already solved?
This article is over 6 months old now, but it shows the level of EA capability that the USN is getting or soon will be from it's APG-79 radars...

Navy breaks silence on Super Hornet’s radar, sensors

Silence about the key capabilities of the second-generation
Super Hornet’s advanced radar and integrated sensor package
is being broken by U.S. Navy and aerospace industry officials
just as President Bush’s budget faces scrutiny by Congress.
The design will give the Block II Boeing-built Navy aircraft a
fifth generation capability similar to that of the F-22 Raptor and
F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, says Capt. Donald Gaddis, F/A-18E/F
Super Hornet program manager.
The Navy’s “Advanced Super Hornet” will tie together an
electronic attack system with a powerful new radar that would
allow the aircraft to find, deceive and, perhaps, disable sophisticated,
radar-guided air-to-air, surface-to-air and cruise missiles.
Moreover, it could do so at ranges greater than that of U.S. nextgeneration
air-to-air and air-to-ground weapons.
Many Navy and industry planners hope that the merits of the
F/A-18E/Fs advanced systems, which can detect, identify and
attack new classes of very small targets, will help it survive any
congressional urge to trim upgrades that are crucial to the program.
Moreover, the Super Hornet, equipped with a fifth-generation
radar and integrated sensor suite, is expected to be a tough
competitor for international fighter sales. The advanced package
has already resulted in a likely sale of 24 aircraft to Australia and is
being pitched for large fighter buys planned by Japan and India.
The newest version of the Super Hornet, equipped with an
advanced, Raytheon-built APG-79 Active Electronically
Scanned Array (AESA) radar, can spot small targets – even
stealthy cruise missiles – at ranges great enough to allow an
effective defense. Navy officials are loath to talk with any detail
about the metrics of electronic attacks and admit only to
“extremely significant tactical ranges” for EA effects against airto-
air and surface-to-air radars, Gaddis says. However, other
Pentagon and aerospace industry officials say that while air-toair
missiles are struggling to reach the 60-100-mile range mark,
some sophisticated electronic attack effects can reach well
beyond that.
“That’s at least 100 miles,” says a long-time Pentagon radar
specialist. “There are different forms of electronic attack and
they include putting false targets or altered ranges, speeds and
positions of real targets into the enemy’s radars. Those are
effects that require less power than jamming and therefore are
effective at longer ranges.”
The U.S. Navy’s first AESA-equipped squadron has been
developing combat procedures as the unit works up to its first
deployment. VFA-213, flying all two-seat F/A-18F models, already
has been through training cycles at NAS Fallon, Calif.’s “Strike U.”
The Navy’s concept of operations is to use combinations
of EA-18 Growler electronic attack and the advanced Block 2
F/A-18E/F strike aircraft to offer self-protection, almost instantaneous
location and identification of targets and a variety of
forms of electronic and conventional missile attack. That combination
will be part of the advanced air wing in the Carrier
Strike Group of 2024.
Similar approach
The U.S. Air Force is considering a similar approach - subtle
effects vs. brute power - in its next attempt at fielding a longrange,
standoff jammer to protect its stealth aircraft fleet. It’s
expected that advanced electronic warfare operations including
communications and network invasion and exploitation
may eventually be part of the Air Force’s and Navy’s capability.
However, that is some years off and subject to budget realities.
Critical for development of the “next generation” or Block II
Super Hornet and the ability to keep it militarily relevant as a
“first day of the war” warplane beyond 2024 are a number of
items in the President’s Budget now before the U.S. Congress,
Gaddis says.
Three years of warfighting analysis by the Navy has produced
a system of upgrades called “The Flight Plan,” he says.
Segments include upgrading the aircraft with a distributed targeting
processor, sensor integration and improving communications
links for network-centric operations.
“For example, our ALR-67(v)3 radar warning receiver is going
to be delivered with a digitally cued receiver,” Gaddis says. “We’ll
be able to pick up some different waveforms that we’ve not
been able to capture before.” Industry specialists say that means
finding combinations of frequencies and pulse structures that
allow identification of specific radar and aircraft threats.
“More importantly, we’re going to marry the digitally cued
receiver to single ship geolocation algorithms [for precision location]
and specific emitter ID algorithms with the AESA radar,”
says Gaddis. Also the radar warning receiver and ALQ-214 jammers
will be integrated to produce “high-gain electronic attack
and high-gain electronic surveillance measures,” he says. “We
would use them as a survivability upgrade against advanced airto-
air and a certain spectrum of the surface-to-air threat.”
“We’re going to create a high-speed data bus so that [electronic
attack] techniques generated by the ALQ-214 will be
sent through the AESA radar with much more power and
effect,” Gaddis says. “Rather than wait for a threat to develop
some electronic countermeasure, we plan to attack him [at
long range] through the radar.”
- David A. Fulghum ([email protected])

Cheers

AD
 

Scorpion82

New Member
@AussieDigger,
niceread, though there isn't much news in it (6 month old as you said). Nontheless the AN/APG-79 seems not to be FOC by now and I read that the EA capability will not be part of the initial package. It will be added later, but I don't know when. That's the point I want made.
 

Ozzy Blizzard

New Member
I think there might be some reaction to your posts Ozzy because your position in relation to the F35 seems to have changed?

In the thread of JSF aeorodynamics a few months back you were I recall suggesting that the F35 was at some "kinematic" disadvantage against evolved Sukhois and the F35s LO would only be advantageous in some ambush situation. In fact the F35 back then was the wrong choice for the Aussies. In the thread about the F18/E/F being selected for australia you were also, I recall dismisive of some of the F18E/F advanced technology against the Super-dooper Sukhois. Back then a 5th Gen F35 didnt give a sufficient advantage against an earlier generation non stealth sukhoi.
Have you missed some of the conversation on the F35 in the last 6 months. Seems so as you comment on what i said then, and now and nothing in between. Of cource someone cant learn or change an opinion can they? And then in future have to deal with sniping comments from people like you who have nothing interesting or new to bring to the discussion and only make statements like "na na you said this before". To be honnest i cant be bothered outlining it again so why dont you have a look for yourself before commenting on my opinions.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6089&page=4

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6541

If "generations" are what counts then arent the Eurocanard Rafale and Typhoon of the same class as the Sukhoi? IE designed in the same era to take on each other, devoid of stealth etc. In April the F35 was lacking against the Sukhoi but in August the F35 is far better that the eurocanards? Hmmm
Sigh....:rolleyes:

I recall that in both the mentioned threads you didnt get much change from AussieDigger and others with your points about the F35 and the F18E/F.
You'll notice AD isnt bringing up this crap because he was part of the discussion and him and I came to an understanding. Also you'll notice that his input (unlike yours) is consturctive and well informed. He will actually bring something new to the conversation in all of his posts and not just sit there and say "but but bit you said this!!!".

Im just interested why an aircraft with non comprehensive LO and non compromised aeodynamics (the F35) would struggle against a sukhoi but not a rafale or typhoon? Not that they will ever likely go head to head.
It wont against either of them.


I think the F35 brings an impressive bag of tricks to the table and Im glad the UK is getting them,particularly as with the typhoon it is good for UK industry. I would like the F22, but so would everyone else but I suspect the US will be the only user, so for the rest of us the Rafale/ typhoon/F18E will still provide the edge over likely adversaries for the next 20 years.
Rafale or F18E would be forund wanting in a 1 on 1 contest with an SU30MKI. Typhoon may have the edge for the moment. But then again 1 on 1 doesnt shed much light on actuall combat.

If the russians 5th gen programe ever gets off the ground and the PAK FA eventuates the F18E/Rafale/Typhoon will be outclassed even with superior support assets. And the name "5th gen" wont matter but the capabilities that such a platform will bring to the fight will.

Thankyou dave for an interesting post that added so much to the discussion wasnt a total waste of my time :rolleyes:. Why dont you actually add something next time apart from a one line entry on "what you would like" for the RAF and some childish points about what i said previosly which compleatly avoids what i am saying. If you disagree with my argument than adress it on a factual basis, if you disagree with it but cant adress it on a factual basis (and therefore your opinion is of an emotional nature) then, for the rest of our sake dont bother.
 

Dave H

New Member
Bit touchie there Ozzy, but nice to see you managed to say it in a shortish post. Incidently Im not digging at your posts, like all on here they make interesting reading on a day off, but you are quite scathing of other posters, referring to pet projects or challenging others to add to the debate in lets say a prickly manner. My point is merely that I am genuinly trying to understand what you mean when you refer to a platform such as the F35.

In your scenarios ref the F35 and Sukhoi you mention the wedgetail. From what I understand you are saying that 1)the F35's radar can be detected by the Sukhoi, therefore the LPI doesnt work as advertised?, 2) if the Sukhoi does detect the F35 with its RWR it has superior speed/agility combined with decent missiles to have a fair crack at the F35? 3) To give real superiority the F35 needs to work with an AEW aircraft to datalink target info and kill BVR without being seen?

I genuinly would like facts on the detection capabilities of wedgetail vs fighter, secret incites into the LPI features etc etc, I have to rely on brochure type info form Company sites, If you have far superior sources to these capabilities then I am both envious and concede that non of your points are made on emotional opinion!

Thats why I am not sure why you are so scathing of the Rafale and or the Typhoon. I am no expert in techy matters, I wouldnt know an X Band from a rubber band but from what I have read on the Dassault and BAE pages both the Euro designs have advanced RWR and defensive aide suites so whats good for the Sukhoi must surely be good for the euro designs, or have the Russians the march on us? Will an F35 be able to detect without being detected? I suspect it will else a lot of money has been spent for nothing.

No one really knows just how good the F35 will be, its early days in terms of testing. Is the SU30MKI now superior to the Super Hornet and Rafale so that the latter would be found wanting? Can I reply to that on a factual basis, umm no, it would be just emotional opinion on both our part, if the types do tangle in exercises it will be under strictly controlled and agreed conditions. Its just a leap for me to believe the USN for instance would invest heavily in a plane that is wanting against the SU30MK1. Above posts refer to the advanced electronic capabilities of the F18E and its has a road mapped plan of extra goodies to be added over time.

Typhoon and Rafale both have growth potential, 20%plus engine performance scope, new radar etc and we know the US is supreme at packing more and more technology into aircraft.I just hope the euro designs follow suit. Again you mention the PAK FA, if/when it gets built, is there a definative in service date? I cant find a link if anyone can oblige.

If you want me to add my ten pence worth I will. I personally dont buy the Sukhoi scare stories or even put much urgent panic over the next russian 5th Gen. I will use a bit of negative evidence or rather reading between the lines and its just my own observation.

Take Cope India, now if the US really was panicked by the India supremacy in the Sukhoi, would the most powerful and money rich country in the world limit its F22 buy to just 183? Isnt the production line going to close sooner than the PAK FA is scheduled to pour from the russian factories? and wouldnt that be lunacy from the US. Other posts on here state the F15 will soldier on alongside the F35 and 6 squadrons of F22 (?). I think that is because the US military is confident that it can still dominate and in my humble opinion that is because it knows exactly how capable russian (and chinese) designs will be. It also knows that its missiles will get longer legs and its sensors have the edge.

I think agility will become less important, missile range and detection range will be all important, hence Meteor, amraam D so I dont think the F35 will need to be super manoeuverable. Therefore I dont think the Rafale is at such a great disadvantage against the SU if the missile and radar improves as required. Both will be shooting at each other from BVR range and if sensible running away. If you read between the Lines about the recent Waddington meet, The RAF statement praised the agility of the SU30, it came as no suprise, and would appear to signal that the RAF would not intend getting into that game as tactics and doctrine are different. So one plaform being "superior" doesnt really say much in my opinion. I cant find the page now but I found an interesting article about an early 90's tussle between the Tornado F2 with skyflash and German Phantoms where the German Amraam proved decisive so an old dog got a new trick. The euro canards and meteor really go hand in hand for that reason, you wont see the true potential without it.
 

Scorpion82

New Member
In your scenarios ref the F35 and Sukhoi you mention the wedgetail. From what I understand you are saying that 1)the F35's radar can be detected by the Sukhoi, therefore the LPI doesnt work as advertised?, 2) if the Sukhoi does detect the F35 with its RWR it has superior speed/agility combined with decent missiles to have a fair crack at the F35? 3) To give real superiority the F35 needs to work with an AEW aircraft to datalink target info and kill BVR without being seen?
No radar is completly "invincible". Not even the Raptors AN/APG-77 which is known for its tremdous LPI features. But it's more difficult to detect the emissions. This might meen that 1) some RWR won't be able to detect it or 2) some might not detect it a sufficient range and/or need longer to process the signals in a useful manner. RWR doesn't give you a proper firing solution due the lack of data, so even if an aircraft is able to detect the F-35s or what ever emissions the stealth aircraft will still enjoy a noticeable edge in terms of information superiority. It is also necessary to take into account that the F-35s ESM will be able to detect the enemies emissions too and that IR sensors are available as well. Add to that data linking and sensor fusion and you slowly get the entire picture. Another factor which would be decisive is, is the missiles seeker able to acquire the stealth platform in the terminal phase of flight?


but from what I have read on the Dassault and BAE pages both the Euro designs have advanced RWR and defensive aide suites so whats good for the Sukhoi must surely be good for the euro designs, or have the Russians the march on us? Will an F35 be able to detect without being detected? I suspect it will else a lot of money has been spent for nothing.
I doubt that the russians will have a march "on us" in terms of RWR/ESM capabilities. Interestingly the Indians for example are not using russian RWRs on their Su-30MKI and it is known that in the past russian RWRs weren't very well compareable to western systems. For sure the russians have made advances in that field as well, the question is are they on par now?
The F-35 can theoretically detect the enemy without being detected it is likely to do so even more well than other fighters given its new technologies. More interesting is the question who is really able to detect whom first and how many data can each site gain? Information superiority is highly important and I expect the F-35 to have an edge here due the combination of advanced sensors and stealth.

No one really knows just how good the F35 will be, its early days in terms of testing. Is the SU30MKI now superior to the Super Hornet and Rafale so that the latter would be found wanting? Can I reply to that on a factual basis, umm no, it would be just emotional opinion on both our part, if the types do tangle in exercises it will be under strictly controlled and agreed conditions. Its just a leap for me to believe the USN for instance would invest heavily in a plane that is wanting against the SU30MK1. Above posts refer to the advanced electronic capabilities of the F18E and its has a road mapped plan of extra goodies to be added over time.
Its difficult to compare the aircraft at all as there're a lot of unknown variables which are highly important. Is the Su-30MKI superior to the F/A-18E/F or Rafale? Honestly depends on a lot of factors and where you want to compare them. Every aircraft has its strenght and weaknesses. One might perform better here and the other might perform better there.

the PAK FA, if/when it gets built, is there a definative in service date? I cant find a link if anyone can oblige.
According current plans the prototype will fly in 2009 earliest. Previous reports suggest series production beginning around 2012 with the aircraft entering service about 2015. I say lets wait and see.

Take Cope India, now if the US really was panicked by the India supremacy in the Sukhoi, would the most powerful and money rich country in the world limit its F22 buy to just 183? Isnt the production line going to close sooner than the PAK FA is scheduled to pour from the russian factories? and wouldnt that be lunacy from the US. Other posts on here state the F15 will soldier on alongside the F35 and 6 squadrons of F22 (?). I think that is because the US military is confident that it can still dominate and in my humble opinion that is because it knows exactly how capable russian (and chinese) designs will be. It also knows that its missiles will get longer legs and its sensors have the edge.
Cope India might have been used by the US military to spread some panic and to better the chance to get more funds for there beloved Raptor. Today we know more and Cope India can't be seen as a real prove for parity or superiority of any of the platforms involved. I don't think the US exaclty knows what others are able to do, but given their military strenght and budget they don't need to worry that much that they will soon be overwhelmed. Let alone the good old american trust in their own capabilities.

I think agility will become less important, missile range and detection range will be all important, hence Meteor, amraam D so I dont think the F35 will need to be super manoeuverable. Therefore I dont think the Rafale is at such a great disadvantage against the SU if the missile and radar improves as required. Both will be shooting at each other from BVR range and if sensible running away. If you read between the Lines about the recent Waddington meet, The RAF statement praised the agility of the SU30, it came as no suprise, and would appear to signal that the RAF would not intend getting into that game as tactics and doctrine are different. So one plaform being "superior" doesnt really say much in my opinion.
Air combat is complex and you have to see the entire platform as a weapons system not just single factors. The best combination of performance and capabilities in the relevant key areas will determine which aircraft is really superior. Some factors might weight less other more, but sometimes the less weighting factors might be decisive if parity is achieved in the others.
 

luca28

New Member
First Rafale F3 Handed Over to French Navy

Source. defence.professionals | defpro.com

12:41 GMT, July 7, 2009 defpro.com | At 4:30 p.m. on July 2 a naval Rafale Marine combat aircraft carrying the number 27 on its airframe landed at Mont-de-Marsan air base, in south-western France, at the conclusion of a ferry flight from Mérignac, where it was built.

Although identical in appearance to the previous version, the Rafale M12, the new aircraft is the first to have been built to the F3 production standard, the most advanced on contract for the French armed forces.

It is fitted with the latest digital systems which replace older, analogue equipment such as the video recorder. But the main difference is that the F3 version will be able to carry advanced sensors now being developed, such as the Advanced Electronically-Scanned Antenna radar which will allow improved target detection at longer ranges. It also will be fitted with the nose-mounted electro-optical thermal imaging camera which will allow passive target identification at long ranges.

With the F3 standard, the Rafale will attain its full maturity. The new version has the same basic operational capabilities as the aircraft numbered M11 to M26, which were delivered to the navy between 2006 and 2008, and which are now undergoing an upgraded at Istres air base (for the first six) and at Landivisiau naval air base for the others.

The latest aircraft, M27, is the first of 12 aircraft which will be delivered to the navy between 2009 and 2014. It has now been handed over to the détachement centre d’expérimentations pratiques et de réception de l’aéronautique navale (naval aviation reception and trials center, CEPA) at Mont de Marsan for military trials being conducted jointly with the air force.

Beginning in September, when the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle is expected to be back at sea, it will undergo a series of full-load catapult tests, at full engine reheat.

Source: defence.professionals | defpro.com
 

TMor

New Member
This is good news. In addition, soon, we're going to get rid of the F2 (retrofit).

It will have taken a lot of time before Rafale reach its FOC standard.
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
A test pilot from Flight International has tested the Rafale F3:

FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale - Rampant Rafale

He seems to be extremely enthusiastic about it, which makes me wonder about his objectivity.

I have always believed that the Rafale has been underestimated by many people, but on the other hand, we know it's not perfect either, so I find it strange that this test pilot seem to find nothing to criticize...

Comments from the experts?
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
A test pilot from Flight International has tested the Rafale F3:

FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale - Rampant Rafale

He seems to be extremely enthusiastic about it, which makes me wonder about his objectivity.

I have always believed that the Rafale has been underestimated by many people, but on the other hand, we know it's not perfect either, so I find it strange that this test pilot seem to find nothing to criticize...

Comments from the experts?
I read through the article linked. Given the language used, I have to question either the author's experience or objectivity.

Sentences like these...

Air force and navy examples have made three fully operational deployments to Afghanistan since 2005, giving the French forces unparalleled combat and logistical experience.
seem to completely ignore the combat and operational experience of other air forces like the RAF or the USAF, both of which have extensive experience in combat and expeditionary operations in recent times as well as historically.

A sentence like this does not help the author's case either...

If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.
As has been mentioned repeatedly, missions need to be approached from a systemic, instead of a platform point of view. If one does however insist on approaching a mission solely from a platform perspective, the author's assertation becomes IMO farcial. No one aircraft can perform every combat mission better than all other combat aircraft, which is what the author appears to be asserting.

A Rafale cannot carry the ordnance load that a B-52, B-1 or B-2 can, which means it cannot perform high volume strike missions as well. It does not have the LO characteristics of a B-2 or F-22, which means it cannot penetrate an IADS as effectively either. I do believe it is a good and effective multi-role fighter, I just do not believe it is as good as the author seems to make out.

-Cheers
 

Vivendi

Well-Known Member
IA Rafale cannot carry the ordnance load that a B-52, B-1 or B-2 can, which means it cannot perform high volume strike missions as well. It does not have the LO characteristics of a B-2 or F-22, which means it cannot penetrate an IADS as effectively either. I do believe it is a good and effective multi-role fighter, I just do not believe it is as good as the author seems to make out.

-Cheers
Good points although I think you are a bit too critical here -- When he says he would pick Rafale for "any mission" it is my clear understanding that this is within the constraints of missions that can be accomplished by a jet fighter.... This is not a scientific publication but a story in a flight magazine...

Starting to talk about B-52 and B2 is a bit over the top...

However I agree that most likely this pilot is either biased (too much French wine? ;) ) or has not flown many modern fighter jets.
 

swerve

Super Moderator
I read through the article linked. Given the language used, I have to question either the author's experience or objectivity.
He's an extremely experienced fast jet pilot, former leader of the Red Arrows display team, & test pilot since leaving the RAF. Graduated from the ETPS in 1989. He's definitely flown Harrier, Sea Harrier (Falklands - but missed the war), Hawk & Mirage 2000. It seems likely that he's also flown Tornado (& there's a suggestion of that in the article), & at least some of Hunter, Canberra, Phantom, F-15, F-16 & F-18.

However, there's no evidence that he's flown Typhoon, Gripen or F-18E. He left the RAF in 1993. Since then, it's known that he's flown, as a test pilot, various twin-engine subsonic jets. He was Raytheons test pilot for the RAF ASTOR, for example.

For someone with his record to use dramatic language, he must have been extremely impressed. It would be very interesting to see a flight test report by him about Typhoon or Gripen, now that he has Rafale experience to compare it with.
 

pigion

New Member
a worthy dream

dreamers are always welcome....(during) peace time.... lull(tension/stress/unknown/fluid/dynamic)....war period

yes, you are right (even you may not aware of it,accidentally you found the right chord) - globe is becoming an
integrated wholesome, furious pace.
 

Todjaeger

Potstirrer
Good points although I think you are a bit too critical here -- When he says he would pick Rafale for "any mission" it is my clear understanding that this is within the constraints of missions that can be accomplished by a jet fighter.... This is not a scientific publication but a story in a flight magazine...

Starting to talk about B-52 and B2 is a bit over the top...

However I agree that most likely this pilot is either biased (too much French wine? ;) ) or has not flown many modern fighter jets.
Had the author not originally mentioned picking the Rafale for "any mission" I would not have referenced the B-52 and B-1 bombers. The B-2 (and F-22) would still have been mentioned though due to LO characteristics. I do find it interesting that, assuming the operational context is just 'fighter' aircraft, the author would still pick the Rafale over the F-22 or Typhoon...

He's an extremely experienced fast jet pilot, former leader of the Red Arrows display team, & test pilot since leaving the RAF. Graduated from the ETPS in 1989. He's definitely flown Harrier, Sea Harrier (Falklands - but missed the war), Hawk & Mirage 2000. It seems likely that he's also flown Tornado (& there's a suggestion of that in the article), & at least some of Hunter, Canberra, Phantom, F-15, F-16 & F-18.

However, there's no evidence that he's flown Typhoon, Gripen or F-18E. He left the RAF in 1993. Since then, it's known that he's flown, as a test pilot, various twin-engine subsonic jets. He was Raytheons test pilot for the RAF ASTOR, for example.

For someone with his record to use dramatic language, he must have been extremely impressed. It would be very interesting to see a flight test report by him about Typhoon or Gripen, now that he has Rafale experience to compare it with.
When I questioned the author's experience, it largely revolved around exposure to peer aircraft of the Rafale, like late model Gripens, the Typhoon, F/A-18E/F SHornets or even the F-22. If the author left the RAF in 1993, there has since been (from my perspective at least) at shift in doctrine and equipment towards dominating situational awareness. With that, the way a current advanced fighter cockpit would function and present information to the pilot would likely be completely different from what the author would have experienced in the past. It would not be at all surprising that he would be very impressed. As mentioned, it would be quite interesting to hear get the author's thoughts after he has also been one of the latest Typhoons and F/A-18E...

-Cheers
 
Top