The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - March 19, 2010




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: What is wrong with the Rafale?
Rufus    5/9/2009 10:16:10 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 
Quote    Reply

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   NEXT
Herald12345    falsehoods. (GAGH: TYPOS!)   5/18/2009 9:45:04 AM




I don 't have time to answer everybody , sorry in advance .



French posters on SP spend 95% of their time correcting the various and numerous mistake made by posters who do not know the Rafale and its armory .



Incompetent posters. (Not restricted to nationality, we have plenty of American BSers on the board just like this poster)  spend  most of their tome posting this type  of CRAP. 92% huh?




Sometimes the mistakes are so basic that it forces us to repeat 1000 times the same thing . Example : I read that some posters are making a difference in between the EM Mica and the IR Mica . Beside the seeker , there is none . In fact , you unscrew the EM head and you screw an IR head , it is as simple as that : it is the same missile with the same max range of about 80km . As you know , ASRAAM , AIM-9s , Python , Archer , etc , can 't kill a target at more than 30km and in the best case scenario .




The GCU sodftware and hardware is different in each missile because there are different intercept and  pursuit logics depending on the seeker configuration, poster. That mistake, alone, shows that you don't know what you discuss. 

 



So why a long range IR missile should be more dangerous than an EM missile ? I shouln 't have to answer that as the reasons are obvious !



Poster does have to answer because he needs to prove competence.




To start with , some posters should now that when you 're equipped with active BVR missiles (fire and forget) you do not need to "paint" the adverse fighter with your radar , a quick 'pass' is more than enough to get a missile off the rail . If the opposition is equipped with decent RWR , the thing will go "bleep" for a split second , then nothing after just silence . As a pilot , this is worrying but not too much . Sure , somebody has probably seen you but did not lock you . Unfortunatly for you , a missile is already coming .

 

That is so stupid a statement that it is riduculous. Missiles at BVR are corrected to reduce bearing offset error as the missile flys out. The reason is simple.The quickest way to evade a missile launched at you is to change vector immediately at as 90 degree an angle to its approach bearing as  you can so that it has to turn to meet to you. Especially with a crap missile like MICA this bleeds speed through drag (barndoor effect), so that the potential energy advantage that the missile needs (3x jerk) to correct for aircraft final dodge falls rapidly to 1.5x; and this a guaranteed miss. This comes back to corrected point toward target, and what the missile sees when the seeker finally snaps on as well. With its botched RH seeker, the MICA needs to keep the target within its forward  70 degree arc FoV. If the target evades on a radian of the search cone base outside that FoV: the result is that the missile sees nothing when it arrives. This is true in the MICA case because the RAFALE to MICA update fail,s and there is no corrective telemetry action to keep the missile nose POINTED at the changing updated drop window in its rather shallow and narrow drop basket where the enemy is excpected to arrive.   The RH seeker on a MICA cannot see beyond 7000 meters. So how will the missile know where to go for the first 20,000 meters of fly-out in the lob if the RAFALE doesn't TRACK and target position update, as the Sukhoi evades?

Obviously , Pilots nowadays know that a simple "radar pass" is enough to fire an active BVR missile in anger , so the best they have to do is to break straight away just in case . Some other Pilots will wait and see if they get seen again (RWR going "bleep" again) or even wait for the RWR to go berserk because it did spot a fast closing EM missile going "live" . Here time is short , the Pilot should have moved earlier to try not to be in the missile seeker cone when it goes live .

Pilots actually hang on to their ordnance till the other fellow commits too early before they launch.. Since there os no static tau zero solution in an air battle or ANY battle the need to update position in real time is continuous. That is just physics.


Now , imagine that the BVR missile is an IR missile . You did get a "bleep" from your RWR then nothing . 1.54 minute later , you and your aircraft simply disapear from the radars , you 're gone . You did not even see the thing who killed you .

Bull. Even the Rafale carries an IR detector missile warning set that looks for a rocket plume. Doesn't work; but it carries one.  

Then , there is the problem to hide from such missiles , having a RCS of 0.0000000000000001 square meter will not help at all . 

At twenty kilometers you can be a 747 and hide from a MICA IR  seeker.

The Russians have long range IR missiles and the Chineses , well ..

Well no they don't.  They may sell them to third world buffoons, but they don't use them.

 The Russians used to do that; but now like the Americans and every other COMPETENT air-force they use IR short range missiles and radar homing long range missiles in combos. .Adder and Archer are their missiles of choice used in pairs.

IR Mica is not alone in the field ...

Actually as a crap missile it is. The Anab is being withdrawn from service, as those aircraft are retired.

(More later)

Don't bother.

 



Cheers . 







Herald

 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 9:46:36 AM
Your analysis of french MICA is pure fantasy Herald.
You have no access to its performance data.
What is funny is that MICA derivated to a common US french design more advanced than AMRAAM.
USA withdrawn and France continued alone to develop it.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       5/18/2009 10:05:51 AM

Your analysis of french MICA is pure fantasy Herald.

You have no access to its performance data.

What is funny is that MICA derivated to a common US french design more advanced than AMRAAM.

USA withdrawn and France continued alone to develop it.

That last statement is a lie. You were never part of the NATO joint missile development agreement.
 
As to the rest, you take that crap missile and use the well known French limitations in, servo motors, and electronics and you  apply aerodynamic principles plus the best pyro chemistry possible to predict missile performance.
 
The only unknown to me is fuel fraction. 
 
At 75% fuel fraction the missile has an MER same altitude against dumb target head on (straight and level) at 7000 meters of about 35000-50,000  meters using a lob profile.
 
Want to really push it? The maximum slant fired from a surface launcher is 18000 meters. In the air at 7000 meters altitude with MACH 1 shove first step you can go about 4x that distance; or 72,000 meters with ANY missile so restricted in surface launch admitted data, based on that missile cylinder L/W ratio, lift strake configuration and tail fins seen.
 
Now do you really want to pursue this discussion?
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    MICA IR is not a DEW   5/18/2009 10:48:28 AM

"A lot is going on in the time it takes any missile to fly several tens of km. How is the IR missile being kept aware of that AFTER it leaves the firing platform and BEFORE it has acquired the target? Simply detecting something does not complete the kill chain BW. If IR missiles had that much of an advantage then they would be in much more wide spread use. A long range IR missile is still going to need the aircraft to cue it until the terminal phase with FC quality data otherwise it/s not going to know where to look when it gets there."

 
Exactly!  This isn't something that someone with any actual experience would even suggest as the flaws are too obvious.

Being aware an enemy is out there is only the first step!


 It's almost as if some here think the MICA IR is a DEW, point-shoot-bang! It doesn't work that way. If they look at the MICA IR performance parameters, especially the seeker, then they know it has to get the same mid course updates in order to maximize it's kinematic advantage for the actual intercept. Otherwise its a very short ranged BVR weapon in the AIM-9 category in direct pursuit. I've actually designed an IR sensor before from scratch. A consistent problem was the determination of range and discrimination at range. I'm sure the French Military establishment is far in advance of a civil project however there are some fundamental PHYSICS involved and just a look at the MICA IR aeroshell, seeker and performance parameters I can tell it cannot be blindly fired at BVR ranges and hope to hit a fast moving target. It's going to need updates in the mid course and external cuing to know where to look. That's going to involve RF. Now that doesn't mean that they can't use clever tactics to maintain subtlety through the engagement. Certainly. Just speculating, maybe the firing platform is only feeding updates to the missile using RF data from a third party who is tracking the threat at range. SOmething like that. Otherwise, the firing platform is going to have to provide precise enough location data on the target so that MICA IR arrives at the right place and time. It's possible at that point that an opponent may be surprised because there will not be RWR data on an active missile seeker to warn of terminal approach. In this stage seconds are precious and this is a good capability. However, it's important to be objective and consider the weapons limits. Remember, if it were the end all be all and worked as some seem to think, why would the French waste money on an RF version?


-DA 

 

 

 

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 11:22:56 AM
Rufus , please would you stop your non-senses and do your homework before to come to me with silly comments , thank you .
You might not like me or what I post but what I say can always be verified . So , let me enlight you .
You said :
""The Rafale is at no better than parity with the various other Western 4th generation designs and is particularly handicapped by its poor radar and short ranged BVR missile""
 
The French Pilots demonstrated that the Rafale has the upper hand against various types of 4th generation aircrafts .
The PESA RBE2 is certainly not a "poor" radar as you call it . It plays in the same league than latest Vipers , SH , Typhoon , F-15,  etc ... Its 150km range has never be a problem for any Pilot , at the contrary they all praise it .
Stop your fanboy attitude and read a bit more about French Rafales deployements and Operations .
Mica is not short ranged , the official MBDA Mica webpage give a range of <500m to >80km for both version (EM and IR)
 
""The Rafale has nothing like the advanced sensor fusion and networking capabilities of 5th generation types""
 
??? Rafale sensor fusion is on the par with F-22, then its networking capabilities are doing an excellent job , thank you . I think the F-35 's highly sophisticated EW system is no more advanced than the Rafale 's , in fact I tend to rate them equally . Both aircrafts have an excellent awareness and boost excellent ECM and ECCM systems .
 
""Its self protection jammer is at the better end of the group, but is not up to the level of those available on the F-16, Super Hornet, or Eurofighter.""
 
Wrong on all accounts . Latest Blk-52s , SHs and Typhoons have nothing remotly comparable to Spectra F3 . Can you show me where the extremely precise active ECM AESA antennas are on the F-teens and Typhoon ? 
 
""The Super Hornet is already well beyond the Rafale both in its stealthiness and its self protection jammer. ""
 
lol ! Are you sure that you 're not confusing the Mirage IIIE with the Rafale F3 ?
 
""The obsolete antennas and computers that make up the bulk of Spectra are simply not up to the standards of those in the Super Hornet""
 
lol ! (again)
 
""the Rafale still lacks a towed decoy""
 
We don 't want any , there is no need for and towed decoys are a burden and can take up to two pylons . Dassault and Thalès went a different way .
 
""You clearly need to do some reading before trying to participate in these discussions.  It is good that you have an interest in aircraft, but when you try to speak above your knowledge level you get yourself into trouble.""
 
Coming from someone like you , it is laughable . The fact is that you know Rafale program very little so you try to compare it in a totally wrong manner with other aircrafts . As I already told you , do your homework before posting non sense .
 
DA :
""A lot is going on in the time it takes any missile to fly several tens of km. How is the IR missile being kept aware of that AFTER it leaves the firing platform and BEFORE it has acquired the target?""
 
A decent BVR missile will cover the first 60km in about 90 seconds , it is a relatively short time . I also explained that unless the adverse fighter is aware of being shot at , it will not change course because flight plans have to be respected , aircrafts do not fly in zig-zag when there is no detected threat around . That means that the BVR missile will find its target because the target will be exactly where is supposed to be .
Using the up-link to update the missile during its flight means doing another "radar pass" on the adverse aircraft , which can be detected and can give the final clue to the adverse pilot that he has been shot at .
Of course , the PK increases if you maintain the radar lock but you or the missile can be jammed and don 't forget that the adverse fighter will take evasives mesures .
A true fire and forget missile is not something to be taken lightly .
 
""Simply detecting something does not complete the kill chain BW""
 
True .
 
""A long range IR missile is still going to need the aircraft to cue it until the terminal phase with FC quality data otherwise it/s not going to know where to look when it gets there.""
 
Wrong . I ' ve just explained why .
 
""Also, look at modern stealth aircraft. All of them have comprehensive IR signature management.""
 
There is no IR signature management Worldwide capable to hide an aircraft from an IR seeker . An IR missile could miss a Glider (no engines , cold airframe) but will kill a F-22 .
 
I agree with FS , Herald doesn 't know much about Mica . If he does , he is actually bashing .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 11:43:10 AM
BW,

This is why no one takes you seriously on this. You say things that suggest you do not understand the basic concepts. Fix in your mind the a MICA IR MOVING at 1300 mps + and a threat aircraft that if unaware may be moving +/- 280 mps. Now, with those speeds and for up to 90 seconds imagine the amount of area that would have to be checked for a target. There is no way you are going to have a good PK relying on those methods. YOU WOULD BE WASTING A MISSILE. And considering that the MICA IR range is well within the distance a fighter can detect a Rafale, what makes you think that it's going to be flying nice straight and level? Does that even make since to you? Let me ask you this. How did radar-less Migs find F-105's over Vietnam? You seriously think too much on the platform level. I explained to you how MICA IR works. I gave it proper credit and discussed the operational limits as the actually exist. Why are you trying to spin this into something that clearly does not exist? Do you not understand that BVR weapons are lobbed in an arching trajectory toward targets and are not underpower except for a few seconds? They need constant course corrections because being out of position a little will waste energy they cannot replenish for lack of power.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 12:07:31 PM
DA , an aircraft unaware to be shot at is nothing more than a drone , it will be where its supposed to be when the missile will arrive and the IR seeker will lock on it without problem . 
This is what "fire and forget" missiles are about .
Of course , using the up-link to refresh the missile 's course increases the Pk but this is not something you have to do .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 12:44:49 PM
To add a bit more to the discussion , I would like to say that the first time the M2000-5s with the combo RDY/Mica took part in an excercise , they archived a kill ratio of 40-1 on other NATO fighters .
pdf in French relating the meeting :
 
h*tp://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=495980
 
Of course this is relatively old stuff but it shows much .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    BW   5/18/2009 12:48:01 PM
You've lost your mind....An unaware a/c is certainly NOT a drone.  An a/c unaware of the Rafale or the Mica is simply unaware of a SPECIFIC threat.  In a combat situation the A/c will constantly be making movements in 3 dimensions  to complicate the life of any threat it is unaware of!  I can not help but believe that this will complicate the life of a Mica closing the target, as is the design of the "jinking."
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 12:51:54 PM
That last statement is a lie. You were never part of the NATO joint missile development agreement.
 
It is FALSE (as everything you says when you dare to contradict me).France was at the beginning of NATO AMRAAM and ASRAAM program and withdraw when USA proposed to produce AMRAAM and European ASRAAM.
We wanted to have both production line in Europe (and two in USA as well) to be sure that we would never be potentially subjected to US restriction.
 
The main thing to understand is that Northop/Motorola/Matra proposal was supposed to fit the same performance requirements of AMRAAM and also was the most advanced and risky proposed design
 
Here the France then US proofs:
First official french dicuments
Notice the adress
Page 211
En 1980, un MoU fut signé par les quatre pays, la France ayant le statut

d?observateur ; il y eut un échange d?informations sur les développements des

missiles, y compris sur le Mica, jusqu?en 1990. L?AMRAAM fut adopté par

l?Allemagne et la Marine britannique, mais il ne fut pas fabriqué en Europe. En

revanche, le Royaume-Uni et l?Allemagne ne purent se mettre d?accord sur la

définition d?un ASRAAM et ils développèrent chacun un missile ; les États-Unis

développèrent aussi leur missile ASRAAM (cf. chapitre 14).

Page 234

L?histoire du Mica mérite d?être contée. À l?origine, c?est un essai de coopération

franco-américaine ; mais il a permis de lancer, dès 1977, les études préparatoires

au Mica. C?est Northrop, avionneur renommé, qui proposa à Matra, en 1975, de

s?associer pour réaliser un prototype expérimental du premier missile air-air « tire

et oublie » à autodirecteur électromagnétique actif. Northrop serait le maître

d?oeuvre du missile et le responsable de la centrale inertielle à éléments liés ;

Motorola avait autofinancé la réalisation, dans le diamètre du Sidewinder (et du

Magic), d?un autodirecteur avec un émetteur à état solide, et Matra devait dériver

du Magic10 un véhicule adapté. Le gouvernement américain fut très intéressé par

ce projet révolutionnaire et l?utilisa pour lancer, en 1978, une consultation sur le

successeur du Sparrow, qui rencontrait des problèmes de fiabilité (cf. chapitre 9) :

ce fut le programme AMRAAM : les sociétés Hughes et Raytheon ont été choisies

pour la première phase du développement ; Northrop, Motorola et Matra ont été

« out ».

10 Northrop ne voulait pas contacter un missilier américain ; il jugeait que Matra, avec son

Magic, était le meilleur missilier

Page 242
 

L?histoire de la solution américaine semble intéressante à connaître :

Dans l?exposé consacré, ci-dessus à Matra, nous avons indiqué que Motorola

avait réalisé, en 1975, un tel AD avec un émetteur à état solide ; cette société

indiquait que la puissance moyenne envisageable était de l?ordre de 100 W. Lors

de la compétition qui eut lieu en 1978, Hughes annonça 300 W et Raytheon

s?aligna ; ces deux sociétés furent choisies. Deux ans après, Raytheon annonça

243

que son émetteur à état solide ne pourrait respecter la spécification de 300 W et

fut éliminée. C?est plus tard que Hughes annonça qu?il avait prévu un TOP (tube à

ondes progressives) qui émettait 300 W : si ce choix présentait des inconvénients

(encombrement, alimentation haute tension, coût), ses avantages techniques pour

les performances de l?AD étaient appréciables.

En 1986, il fallut admettre que l?objectif fixé pour l?AD Mica, compte tenu des

performances prévues pour les diodes françaises, ne serait pas tenu. ESD

découvrit chez Marconi un tube miniature (un magnétron) qui avait des

performantes supérieures aux spécifications du Mica, mais inférieures à celles

d?un TOP : c?est la solution de 1995 (émetteur de 1,7 litre). Avec les progrès

technologiques durant 15 années, les inconvénients du TOP se sont réduits et le

Mica pourrait en être équipé prochainement.

Then US documents

FLIGHT International, 26 March 1983

Amraam/Asraam—a family of weapons

Under an agreement signed by Britain,

France, Germany, and the USA the

Hughes AIM-120 Amraam will become

the Nato-standard beyond-visualrange

air-to-air missile. The European

partners will develop the Advanced

Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile

(Asraam) to replace Sidewinder.
 
At this time France had already withdraw the AMRAAM team to go alone.
 
 FLIGHT International, IS January 1977

Northrop studies new

air-to-air missile

FEASIBILITY studies for an advanced

medium - range air - to - air missile

(AMRAAM) are being conducted by

a US team headed by Northrop. Combat

experience in Vietnam, the Middle

East and the Indian subcontinent

demonstrated the need for a new missile

to arm the next generation of US

Air Force and Navy fighters, so allowing

them to engage other fighters

of comparable performance. The

AMRAAM programme aims to produce

an all weather weapon, smaller,

lighter and cheaper than radar-guided

types at present in service.

Early last year Northrop was

awarded an $869,000 contract to

demonstrate the feasibility of an

advanced radar-guided missile by

theoretical studies, simulation and

testing of key hardware components.

The airframe, based partly on a Matra

design proposed during the development

of the R.550 Magic, will house

both mid-course and terminal guidance.

Before launch, the aircraft firecontrol

radar will feed target coordinates

to an inertial reference unit

and microcomputer in the missile.

range with a high degree of confidence.

The Pentagon has asked European companies to provide technical details of Tornado and the Mirage 2000 so that

the new missile can be made compatible with both. If adopted as a Nato-standard, weapon. Amraam could be built by

production lines on both sides of the Atlantic.

 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/18/2009 12:55:01 PM
Drag is proportional to frontal surface and if you compare two BVR missiles you have to take in account that
AMRAAM is 152 kg and diminishing its diameter accordingly from 178 mm to 160 would lead to a 124 kg missile on first order on drag considerations.
Moreover Mica 12 kg warhead is lighter than AMRAAM (18 kg for AMRAAM C, 23 for B/A) so lead to further weight economy.
Moreover for the autodirector it is lighter than AMRAAM for RF version and also IR
Indeed it is more miniaturized than AMRAAM.
MICA was introduced in 1996 instead of 1991 and benefit of a better technology than initial AMRAAM.
 
Wow, let me just start by saying that I am honestly not sure why I am even bothering to respond to someone who obviously lives in some kind of alternate universe.
 
The Mica, as I have already explained to you, is what you get when you compromise between two different sets of requirements that call for different design philosophies. 
 
Short range missiles need a small mass, large control surfaces, short burn times, and thrust vectoring to achieve their maneuverability and acceleration requirements.
 
Longer range missiles need a larger mass, proportionally smaller control surfaces, longer burn times, and no thrust vectoring. (which allows greater efficiency)  These requirements allow the missile to carry a greater amount of energy a much longer way.
 
The Mica is a slightly over-sized short range missile.(The point I was making with my earlier size comparison)  It is quick and it is maneuverable, but this comes at the cost of efficiency and its small size prevents it from being a serious contender at longer ranges.
 
With 40Kg more mass to work with, a longer burn motor, and with a far more efficient design that avoids draggy control surfaces and thrust vectoring there is simply no comparison between the two. 
 
Not only that, but your assertions about the Mica somehow being more advanced are utterly and completely wrong.  Virtually every single component in the AMRAAM has been replaced at least once, and in some cases several times over the life of the missile.  Bubbleheaded internet experts like you look at the missile, and think that because it LOOKS similar it is the same missile. The AMRAAM has already gone through several complete seeker redesigns, several new motors, new control surfaces, a new warhead, etc.  The amount of money put into the AMRAAM absolutely dwarfs the funding available for the Mica, and it has been put to good use. Mica's seeker in particular is outclassed by the later versions of the AMRAAM.
 
 
As I said but you refuse ot read as you are very narrow minded, MICA was initially the Northrop/Motorola/Matra competitor of AMRAAM but said too risky because relying on too advanced technologies at this time
French went alone and even improved technology thank to a British technological breakthrought on electronic tube BTW.
Hyperfrequency electronic of MICA is much lighter than the AMRAAM TWT and its highvoltage supply.
This is well and publicly documented.
 
Let me make something clear to you.  Hughes received the full scale development contract for the AMRAAM in 1981 in a contest against Raytheon.(Raytheon later bought Hughes) If some pre-historic ancestor of the Mica ever competed to fulfill the requirement who cares? It lost the contest decades ago and wasn't even in the top two.  Hyperfrequency electronics?  WTF?
 
 
Now for the MICA IR it has roughly the same range than the RF version so about 80 km and can auto lock after the inertial guidance phase
 
 Keep repeating it, maybe it will come true.


It seems that I'm the only one who know what he is speaking about on SP considering french capabilities relatively to USA.
I provided links and official ones unless amateur like you.
As I says 1000 apes would not write the Encyclopedia, but few smarts men can.

Amateur like me?  I might be the only professional on this board.  I can't speak for everyone here, but I can tell you without a doubt that you aren't a professional in anything related to miliatary technology.  See my next post!
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 12:55:27 PM
JFKY :
""In a combat situation the A/c will constantly be making movements in 3 dimensions  to complicate the life of any threat it is unaware of!""
 
In combat situation , yes . But during the flight plan (imagine a strike force 500km from their targets) the aircrafts will fly straight and level and I know that they will not change altitude and bearing every 2 minutes or so .
 
Cheers . 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/18/2009 12:57:44 PM
Darth
I can tell it cannot be blindly fired at BVR ranges and hope to hit a fast moving target. It's going to need updates in the mid course and external cuing to know where to look.
Of course
 
 That's going to involve RF.
Or IR

Now that doesn't mean that they can't use clever tactics to maintain subtlety through the engagement. Certainly. Just speculating, maybe the firing platform is only feeding updates to the missile using RF data from a third party who is tracking the threat at range. SOmething like that. Otherwise, the firing platform is going to have to provide precise enough location data on the target so that MICA IR arrives at the right place and time.
Yes
 
It's possible at that point that an opponent may be surprised because there will not be RWR data on an active missile seeker to warn of terminal approach. In this stage seconds are precious and this is a good capability. However, it's important to be objective and consider the weapons limits. Remember, if it were the end all be all and worked as some seem to think, why would the French waste money on an RF version?
A: MICA IR was ready 5 years later than RF
B: MICA RF is still better in all weather
C: having both solution is better agaisnt ECCM especially when you fire two missiles
D: MICA IR is not for export to everybody since too sensitive and too dangerous against western air forces.
It is a french silver bullet.

 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/18/2009 1:04:44 PM

DA , an aircraft unaware to be shot at is nothing more than a drone , it will be where its supposed to be when the missile will arrive and the IR seeker will lock on it without problem . 

This is what "fire and forget" missiles are about .

Of course , using the up-link to refresh the missile 's course increases the Pk but this is not something you have to do .


Cheers .

BW,

What makes you think the aircraft wont be aware? Almost all modern air to air fighters have a detection range advantage against the Rafale because of it's smaller radar. Even if not, that's why there is GCI and AWACS which all modern airforces have. That's why I referred you to the Vietnam era Migs. The Rafale is not a stealth aircraft and it will show up on radar quite well. What's hard about that for you to get? We posted articles where F/A-18 hornets using legacy radars had a detection range ADVANTAGE. Why are you ignoring the truth? A Mig-29 has a similar radar. A Flanker even bigger. And a Foxhound puts out enough power to cook chicken at range. The F-Teens all have AESA as an option. The F-15C, F-16E, F/A-18E, F-35 and F-22 radars are in a complete separate category and have far superior radar performance compared to the RBE2. There is a reason customers ask France for an AESA. Even CAPTOR MSA is more powerful and longer ranged. BW, there really are tradeoffs when you fly a "omnirole" fighter. With regard to Rafale, its radar is always going to be limited by the size of the dish and the Rafale has one of the smallest. 

Look, I acknowledge the advantage of having an IRST and IR guided long range missile. I think it's freaking awesome. But I also know the limits as well. You need to remain objective otherwise you are going to have people attacking your credibility on obvious stuff. A fighter flying straight and level is not enough to reliably fire a BVR weapon where the missile is in the dark about what the target is doing the majority of the time. Even minor things like INS position errors or wind drift can affect this over these distances.

Fire and forget does not mean that you can simply lob missiles into the ether and hope they track and hit the right or any target. 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/18/2009 1:06:45 PM
Rufus , stop posting BS . Learn a bit more about the Mica then come back . To help you :
MBDA Mica :

h*tp://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/docs_wsw/fichiers_communs/docs/pdf07_mica.pdf
 
Mica ' IR seeker :
 
h*tp://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=495985
 
Cheers .
 
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   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2010StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy