Rafale Thread

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NEXT

ArtyEngineer IR Jamming - BW 4/13/2009 7:56:01 PM

I also wanted to speak about something rather untalked here because it is a sensitive topic : Infra-Red Jamming .

I am not talking about deceptive flares but about active IR jamming .

Actively jamming an IR seeker is a hard task . To start with , you have no way to detect the end tracking as it is perfectly passive . The missile can perfectly close on you undetected for the last 10km , your defensive systems might have spotted the missile leaving its rail (IR long range warning) but the rest is up to the missile and the up-link Fighter/missile . Do WE have anything to actively jam the incoming IR missile ? Well ?..

...

Yes we do . When I say "we" , I mean pretty much anyone who has been fielding an excellent LRF (Laser Range Finder) onboard a fighter (a lot of people has) . But an excellent LRF is not good enough , you need a second capability and here we are going into sensitive ground .

What are you talking about!!!!!! There is nothing secretive or amazing about Active IR Jamming!!!! Hell BAE offeres a Commercial version of their military IR Jammer for use in civilian Airlines. Its called JetEye. See below for an open source timeline with regards to BAE Systems development of IR countermeasures.

1980s ? Threats to VIP aircraft intensified as terrorists acquired man-portable IR missiles. U.S. agencies and several allied nations turned to BAE Systems, which developed tailored VIP aircraft protection programs, underscoring the company?s preeminence in IR protection technology.

1981 ? A quick turnaround contract to put IRCM on AWACS in 90 days led to the development of protection systems for large and corporate aircraft.

1983 ? In Operation Wild Turkey, BAE Systems' IRCM protected the space shuttle Enterprise against terrorist attack as it was flown to the Paris Air Show on the back of a 747.

1991 ? BAE Systems won the Army?s Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) contract for a next-generation IR countermeasure, ATIRCM — the Advanced Threat IR Countermeasures System. ATIRCM contains a missile warning system and incorporates a laser for directable jamming of multiple IR threats.

1994 ? First defeat of a MANPADS (ground launched) missile with the laser DIRCM developed by BAE Systems.

1998 ? First defeat of an antiaircraft missile (air launched) with laser DIRCM developed by BAE Systems.

1999 ? In world's first-ever demonstration of a laser-based directable countermeasure defeating IR-guided missiles, BAE Systems' Tactical Aircraft Directional Infrared Countermeasures (TADIRCM) defeats both surface-to-air and air-to-air IR-guided missiles at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

2000 ? BAE Systems' Advanced Threat Infrared Countermeasures/Common Missile Warning System (ATIRCM/CMWS) successfully detects, tracks, and jams live missiles in sled testing at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M.

2001 ? The ATIRCM/CMWS successfully defeats all ten IR-guided missiles fired at it ? singly and in multiples ? during cable car testing at White Sands Missile Range, N.M.

March 2002 ? BAE Systems' Common Missile Warning System (CMWS) ? installed in a drone aircraft ? performs successfully against eight MANPAD missiles fired at it.

Sept. 2002 ? BAE Systems delivers the first of the CMWS ordered by the U.S. Army for its helicopters taking part in Operation Enduring Freedom.

Nov. 2003 ? BAE Systems and U.S. Army test CMWS flare dispensers aboard a CH-47 Chinook helicopter.

NOTE. The first directable laser has been around since 1991!!!!

Quote Reply

ArtyEngineer BAE Systems - Jam Lab 4/13/2009 8:05:28 PM

Hopefully I have pulled the correct html code to embed this vid. If it dont work just go to the link posted a look at BEA Systems capabilities in this field.

Here is link to page:

BAE Systems Jam Lab

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 4/13/2009 8:08:25 PM

Arty , I hear you loud and clear but which Fighter-Striker jet as the capability ?

(without any defensive or active Pods)

Cheers .

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 4/13/2009 8:17:04 PM

hopefully I have pulled the correct html code to embed this vid. If it dont work just go to the link posted a look at BEA Systems capabilities in this field.

that footage must be close to 10 years old...... :)

IIRC the US has had their version on AF1 and AF2 close to 15 years ago. Now you find it on every man and hos dog. I think we're fielding it in the Ghan with some of our Hercs (those that do the weekly bagdgad milk run) - and IIRC the Israelis also kit ourt all their airliners with it and have done so ever since the SA-7's became a threat.

another good example of military technology going mainstream into a commercial capability.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust oops 4/13/2009 8:19:48 PM

apols for the prev typos, phat phingerz and too lazy to type, check, cut, copy and paste on this crappy forum software.

Quote Reply

benellim4 4/13/2009 9:43:42 PM

I guess a week's worth of googling doesn't get you what it used to. All that time and the best he can come up with is IR jamming? Wow, that's weak.

As a Middie, I remember seeing IR jammers on old-a$$ USMC helos.

Quote Reply

warpig 4/13/2009 10:49:05 PM

What has SPECTRA got to do with accurately determining the three-dimensional bearing to an incoming IR missile in order to aim your laser range finder at it?

By the way, in addition to working on IR jamming of IR missile seekers, I do believe we're also working on RF burnout of IR missile seekers. Hopefully when Rafale gets an AESA they'll gain that capability, too.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 4/14/2009 5:13:15 AM

*squeal squeal squeal squal* = we think the Rafale is a good fighter and will turn confirmation bias into an artform.

Listening to this discussion reminds me of the 9-11 and lunar conspiracies.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 4/14/2009 5:24:36 AM

I have been away working , much have been said since my last post ...

Since the discussion is very much 'intellectual' orientated , allow me to switch to a more visual experience . I always said that the Rafale was one of the best flyer around and it was an enormous quality in itself . The jet can move in a fast turning 3Dworld faster than most other aircrafts and is probably the best dogfighter around , put aside its supersonic capabilities .

I 've chosen a recent video never posted here so you 'll see how the new Demo looks like . If you speak a bit of French , the gentle voice is from another Rafale pilot explaining the 6.30 minutes demo . It is an eye ~and ears~ opening :

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ctMM4zqO9a4&hl=fr

- at 30s , the first 9g climb

- at 55s , check the roll rate during the vertical dive followed by an 11g 'left eye"

from there to 1:23 , it is a constant 7g acceleration (the RAF Typhoon tried and missed , its altitude after the turn was too low)

- then it is a constant 9g turn to 1:45

- then you have a double barrel in a 6g left climb (that alone would put any Su-XX out)

- then , the usual "low speed" demo show , in this case 100 knots

- then afterburner and direct climb with vertical acceleration (from 2:45)

- followed by a gentle 360deg at 7g to show off

- we have now a full AB burst (from 3:25 to 3:38) with a full "left barrique" immediatly followed by a 8g turn (a SH will do a "straigh on" and cannot turn and a Viper will only turn 6g and loose 200 knots : the reason being that the SH doesn 't have the power and the Falcon is just outclassed)

-then , we have the "Square Dance" (starting at 3:59) This is a really fast roll followed by an 90deg 11g turn , 4 times in the row (to make a square) . As the Rafale pilot says , no other aircraft is able to do such violent and vicious stuff because the Rafale's airframe and FBW system is the best around . The Typhoon tried it and kept loosing altitude , not because of its engines ~wich are more powerfull than the Rafale 's M88~ but because of a lesser airframe and a lesser FBW . As it is now , no US aircraft is able to come close to fly the Square Dance (I would like to see the Raptor trying) .

- Then , the Rafale is doing a 9g climb/turn (right after the Square Dance) up to 4:45 then another 9g slow climb turn up to 5:10

- at 5:15 , Rafale is making a 30deg nose dive at high speed (that 's 11g)

- from 5:38 to the end , it is simply well done .

I liked very much the video because the AdA wanted to show and to prove that the Rafale can fly very fast when doing high G turns without loosing much speed as some people tend to believe . The Delta/canard shape is still running the show in more than one flight envelope , as long as you know how to build it . Keep in mind that the Gripen cannot do the Rafale 's Demo and the Typhoon also comes short . All delta wing designs are not equals ...

Being a excellent flyer is a quality on its own and a very important one .

There are many very good videos of SH , F15 , F16 , F-22 and various SU-xxs Demos around , but none show such speedy display . As one of my friend said :"doing a Cobra or a controled Stall against a M2000 or a Rafale in dogfight is suicidal" , my friend is a M2000-5 pilot here in Dijon .

The Rafale being an excellent flyer , it also have some tricks up it sleeves . The F3 standard might have the whole armory available , the F2 is probably even deadlier at long range because of the OSF and the SPECTRA F3 Blk . I will come back on it later in this post with some goods .

There is a very known video about the Rafale F3 called "Global punch" :

h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/video/xzrje_rafale-global-punch_extreme

The only "mistake" is that the Helmet Mounted Sight (HMS) is not available , the rest is spot on (RBE2 , MICA , SPECTRA , AASM , APACHE , etc ) .

I also wanted to speak about something rather untalked here because it is a sensitive topic : Infra-Red Jamming .

I am not talking about deceptive flares but about active IR jamming .

...

I made some research and some friends helped me , we found some very good papers and studies from different Countries and after having a good look , I decided to use a US study . This way , I hope that you will take my point as seriously as you can (I could have have used EU studies) .

""IR jammers generate IR signals which attack the guidance signals passed to the sensors in IR-guided weapons. Optimum use of an IR jammer requires information about the spin-andchop frequencies of the missile seeker that is being jammed. This can be measured by scanning the missile tracker with a laser."

Keep this in mind as it is of the utmost importance . Next :

""The IR detector surface is reflective, and the lens gives the laser a double advantage (amplifying both on the way in and on the way back out). As the reticule moves over the sensor , the level of reflected signal will change. This allows a processor to

reconstruct the waveform and phase of the energy pattern reaching the weapon?s IR sensor.""

We are still talking about a low power level LRF , a good processor and :

""Once the missile tracking signal is determined, the IR jammer can create an erroneous pulse pattern that will cause the missile tracking signals to produce incorrect steering commands in a manner similar to the effect of a deceptive RF jammer.""

I am not inventing it , it is from USA scientists (we even have better in Europe but I keep it for later) .

Then , the US paper goes :

""The IR jamming signal comprises pulses of IR energy which can be generated in several ways. One way is to flash a Xenon lamp or an arc lamp. Another way, is the time-controlled exposure of a mass of hot material (called a ?hot brick?). Mechanical shutters expose the hot brick to generate the required jamming signal. Both of these techniques produce jamming

signals over a wide angular area for wide aspect protection.""

This is clear but there is another way , a third way . I should add a fourth way to be honest . As Karlos said :

""To tell the truth, US is far behind EU in optics area.""

The third way is to have an active LRF precise enough to blind the seeker 's cone view as it comes on you . To archive this trick , you need a powerfull and very precise passive targeting system like SPECTRA + OSF + TV working together with a powerfull computer . The F3 SPECTRA has most probably divided by two the accuracy of tracking (which was already one degree with the F1 standard) and the Rafale can direct its active LRF to the adverse IR missile seeker to blind it at range up to 8-12km , if my friends and I are right . Obviously , that goes for the front sector . If the missile is coming from the rear , the jamming is not possible .

The fourth way is only a supposition , it has something to do with high powered IR "flashlight" .

About the third way , the US paper is on my side when saying :

""A third way to generate the jamming signal is by use of an IR laser. The laser is easy to modulate and can produce very high level jamming signals, but is intrinsically narrow in beamwidth.""

So , the less than one degree accuracy I talked about . Solution :

""Therefore, it must be accurately pointed at the tracker it is jamming. This requires beam steering controlled by an IR sensor

with high angular resolution.""

which is exactly what SPECTRA+OSF+TV are doing .

Do you know any other Fighter than the Rafale who has such onboard capability (without any Pods) ?

Cheers .

It's kind of cute the fact that you ignore that you're completely wrong about science and basic facts, ignore it then later make a short post to try to make up for it.

You have no clue. You're simply mining for superficial information in a cmples subject then applying it to even more complex subject judgments.

Sure Bluewings... you have no sales, your own country is cutting production, your accessories are late out, the ones you say it is superior to has all these things... at least you admit the F-22 is superior. I remember SP said it was nearly equal to the F-35 and one of u Rafale lovers said 'this page is the ultimate judge of debates to be had here' and then I linked to the aircraft combat index on SP. LOL

So sure... go on, believe your plane is better than what every person responsible for defense purchases around the world knows, including your near abroad of Algeria, Africa, ME and your own nation liking it less than before.

You're only spending a hobby in delusion.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 4/14/2009 5:27:18 AM

Unlike Herald the author of this site and the book 'How to Make War' thinks the Rafale is as good as the 16 in air to air... I don't remember it's ground capabilities.

I happen to partially agree with him. It's worse in air to air but it has more potential.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 4/14/2009 5:29:30 AM

The fact that this guy is a pilot doesn't mean you're understanding what he is saying properly.
How about you try to get in touch with this pilot and ask him his honest opinion on what you could compare the Rafale too?

Quote Reply

cwDeici 4/14/2009 5:34:15 AM

Why do you insist on deep arguments? All we can do as uneducated ones in such a subject as this is not to understand the subject ourselves but to properly gauge the depth of arguments of others. Quantity of opinion matters often, but if you disregard Occam's razor you have to go with science... and those are the people you're fighting.

If you even took one uncomfortable minute to assume the Rafale was a bad plane you'd find a lot of reasons to back it up. Reasons you've erected castles in the sky to fob off. This is all well and good except that they are sky castles.

Quote Reply

cwDeici 4/14/2009 5:38:12 AM

What's most easy to tell is that Herald and others accuse you of being unscientific and biased in favor of the Rafale. You accuse them of being biased in favor of other planes, hating France and being horrible debaters.

...

The bolded text is a monumental clue to the weakness of the logic you apply to understand your debate opponents, the cursive text is also important.

But you're never, ever, ever going to listen (that may be too much to ask), but it isn't too much to CONSIDER the other point of view. You should try it, because I KNOW you're wrong and you're just going to spend a few decades watching the Rafale slide into obscurity. Perhaps by then you'll still deny it and hold that it was unjustly denied it's proper glory.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 4/15/2009 11:27:42 AM

It is obvious that some of you are shooting at the messenger and not at the message itself , which is usual here on SP .

The problem is simple : some can 't argue against the facts I post so they decide to go personal : "BW is a clown , he 's ignorant , he 's biaised , he doesn 't have a clue " , etc ... Well , you have the right to say whatever you want as long as you stay polite and you are .

I am not surprised at all to read some absolute non-sense like :

""As a Middie, I remember seeing IR jammers on old-a$$ USMC helos.""

if that old technology was suitable for present day Fighters , it would be in use which is not the case . You do not understand that the main problem is threefold : #1 you need to know that you 've been shot at and where from , #2 you need to precisely follow the incoming missile , #3 you must have the hardware to jam the IR seeker .

Since some IR missiles have a range in excess of 60-80km , detecting the launch is a task in itself then you need to know in which sector of the sky the launch occured . The Rafale IR detection for missile warning is very good , covering four 90degree cones , each separatly . The infos coming from a detected launch in any sector will be passed on the mainframe computer who will : #1 warn the Pilot , #2 infom SPECTRA , #3 steer the OSF , the MICAs IR seekers and the TV cam onto the missile if it is coming from the front sectors , #4 propose to the pilot a "line" for possible evasives mesures .

This whole capability in itself is far to be available to most Fighters . What I described can be verified by reading the FoxThree 1 publication , I am not inventing stuff like some of you seem to believe .

In fact , everything I said might not be very much technical but can be verified , which is not always the case with what some other posters say .

Also , there is one thing you should all keep in mind : the possible customers trust and praise the Rafale but they don 't trust France .

It is two different topics , Gentlemen .

You often make the amalgam because the Rafale didn 't get a single sale abroad , so in your mind it must only be an average aircraft . Well , wrong .

Just look at the last 40 years or so ... Dassault and the French Forces fielded the Mirage serie (III , C, B) , the M-IV (capable to vaporize Moscow) , the Etendard , the Super Etendard , then all the M2000 series (more than 8 different aircrafts) , the Super Etendard Modernized (SEM) . All have been excellent designs and capable to do the job . More than 25 Nations used them .

Now , how can some people just think that the Rafale is not the best thing Dassault ever made ???

The Rafale has been tailored to perfectly fit the FAF and is the best aircraft France ever had . When used within a decent to very good C4s , the Jet is capable to perform many tasks with panache and cannot be threaten easily .

Give France the latest SHs instead of Rafale and we will loose much . I mean what I say .

(more later)

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Yawn. 4/15/2009 11:29:52 AM

S^2D^2.

Herald

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 NEXT

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us