The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




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
Bluewings12       5/19/2009 8:41:07 PM
Joe :
""Hey dude you need to tone it down a bit. Your name calling and bashing is not convincing nobody""
 
Joe , I did not insult anyone in the last 2 years here on SP . Calling Rufus a clown is not an insult , it is like calling a cat a cat . Then , what do you mean by "bashing" ? Us French have been bashed for as long as we 've been on SP (just look at the French forum name : The French "Union" (what is this ???))
 
Herald , the AN-ALQ-165 is nowhere close to the capabilities of Spectra . You should know that by now , so stop trying to make up things . 
""If SPECTRA was so good, why isn't it being used and backfitted in OTHER French aircraft?""
 
For God sake Herald , Spectra has been built for Rafale and Rafale only because Thalès and Dassault tailored the EW system from the datas they got after more than 2 years of work in anechoic chamber .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       5/19/2009 8:57:08 PM
IIRC, the Mirage 2000-9's electronic warfare system (ICMS) shares technology with Spectra. And from what I've read the ICMS is pretty good. 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:08:43 PM
A little while ago , we were talking about the Mica . A lot of errors and mistakes have been posted by numerous posters who do not really know the Mica program .
 
It has been said (?) that the Mica is not using some kind of "loft" trajectories . For any knowledgeable poster , this affirmation is BS . The Mica has only enough propellant and energy for a pure and straight chase flight of about 35km when fired in a LOBL mode .
So , how do you think Mica was flying when it destroyed a target 67km away ???
""On May 8, 1998, a two-seat Di fired one MICA missile and successfully hit a target drone 67 km away.""
Link :
h*tp://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html
 
Then , there are other things you might not know about Mica , I keep it for later just in case ;-)
 
Cheers .
 
 

 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:18:11 PM
Das Kardinal :
""IIRC, the Mirage 2000-9's electronic warfare system (ICMS) shares technology with Spectra. And from what I've read the ICMS is pretty good.""
 
The EW suite on the -9 is the ICMS Mk III (better interferometry algorythms than Spectra F1) . Since ,  Thalès has fielded the ICMS Mk IV (for export sales) and incorporated it in the Spectra F3 standard .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 9:28:05 PM

Joe :


""Hey dude you need to tone it down a bit. Your name calling and bashing is not convincing nobody""

 

Joe , I did not insult anyone in the last 2 years here on SP . Calling Rufus a clown is not an insult , it is like calling a cat a cat . Then , what do you mean by "bashing" ? Us French have been bashed for as long as we 've been on SP (just look at the French forum name : The French "Union" (what is this ???))


 

Herald , the AN-ALQ-165 is nowhere close to the capabilities of Spectra . You should know that by now , so stop trying to make up things . 


""If SPECTRA was so good, why isn't it being used and backfitted in OTHER French aircraft?""

 

For God sake Herald , Spectra has been built for Rafale and Rafale only because Thalès and Dassault tailored the EW system from the datas they got after more than 2 years of work in anechoic chamber .


 

Cheers .





Its long been established just who the actual REAL technologist is here.
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:36:01 PM
lol Herald !
Everytime you can 't attack the post itself , you go for the poster as you do now .
It is pathetic ... Why don 't you just acknowledge the truth when you see it ?
Well , maybe you don 't .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       5/19/2009 9:37:17 PM

 
usajoe1,




I'm speaking strictly from a technology point of view, not in terms of overall war making potential. That's why I added it that technology isn't everything. I've done a bit of work with French based tech companies and they are top notch.




-DA 
 

Ok forget about war making potential. I want to know in what area does french tech surpass its Russian counterpart, because I don't think there are many. I think this notion of Russians being bakwards in defense tech compared to western nations is not all true. This may be true when you look at comercial tech. but when we are talking about defense, Russia is clearly number two. The Soviet Union may be gone but Russia still has very capable and very educated work force in defense industries. The only thing keeping Russia from compiting with the US like the old days is economy. If Russia didn't have the decade plus economy troubles of the 90's they would still be right there with the US, some thing France has never even been close to doing. I'm not bashing the French, they have very smart people, and have contributed alot in the last half a century, but to me they are in a class with Britain, not America or Russia.

I don't want to go too far off onto a tangent. But just take a look and the electronics and build quality. You are probably using CE built or designed in France somewhere in life but probably not from Russia. France has a very strong and capable aviation and technology sector that more often than not produces 1st class war machines. If you want to see some combat proof of that just look into the the results of many dozens of encounters between Mirages and Migs in the ME. There are lots of splashed pilots who took their last flights in Russian built jets vs Jets designed in France. I'm not knocking the Russians either, they do make good stuff too. But their approach is usually a lot less focused on technological superiority but rather FUNCTIONAL SUPERIORITY
 
That's why I'm inclined to say that the Russian and French 4th Gen jets are at rough parity much as the Mig-21 and Mirage III were. Where the comparison breaks down today is quantity and cost. The French cannot afford the Attrition a competently fought and piloted air force of modern Flankers and Mig-29/31s would inflict since neither has a distinct advantage. But it's not for lack of technological capability.
 
-DA


 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/19/2009 9:50:50 PM
DA , your last post is good and I am glad that you acknowledge the French technology in aviation . But there is something I just can 't let go :
""The French cannot afford the Attrition a competently fought and piloted air force of modern Flankers and Mig-29/31s would inflict since neither has a distinct advantage.""
 
It depends where the fight is taking place DA , as usual . Also , who 's the airforce you 're talking about ? The Russian AF ?
Because to be honest , the possible kill ratio in between M2000-5Fs and Rafales against Fulcrums and 31s is well in our favor , in fact it would be a bloodbath for the russian made jets ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 10:47:16 PM
Your citation like your claim to knowledge is no good. Why not read the actual Taiwanese experience with the MICA you prevaricator?
 
 
pg. 90.
 The implications of the air-to-air missile imbalance should not be understated.
A computer simulation?aided study by California?s RAND Corporation
found that an unanswered AA-12 capability would give China an overwhelming
advantage over the ROC air force. The U.S.-China Security Review Commission
confirms that an Adder-armed Sukhoi fighter has an advantage over Taiwan?s
Mirage 2000-5 equipped with inferior MICA missiles.
75 The AIM-120Cs are doing
little to protect the ROC or deter China warehoused in the United States

 

F-16 pilots test-fire arms in Guam

By Brian Hsu
STAFF REPORTER
Friday, Nov 03, 2000, Page 3

The air force recently sent a number of F-16 pilots to Guam to test-fire AIM-120 air-to-air missiles, which the US government has agreed to sell to Taiwan, defense sources told the Taipei Times yesterday.

The tests were arranged for the purpose of training Taiwan combat pilots in the use of the state-of-the-art missiles prior to deployment, defense sources said.

It was not known how many missiles Taiwan's F-16 pilots had test-fired in Guam, but the cost of each test is roughly US$60,000. Taiwan is footing the bill.

The tests follow a September announcement that the US is planning to sell Taiwan 200 AIM-120s, including launchers.

Defense sources said that more test-firings were planned.

The deployment of the missiles in Taiwan will not take place for a couple of years because the arms sale has yet to receive the full endorsement of all relevant US government agencies.

In addition, under the sales agreement, Taiwan cannot take delivery of the missiles until China acquires a similar class of weapon.

According to some media reports, China will acquire R-77 air-to-air missiles, the Russian equivalent of the AIM-120, from Russia by year's end.

Taiwan's air force bought the AIM-120, also known as AMRAAM (advanced medium-range air-to-air missile), to maintain air superiority in the Taiwan Strait.

The only air-to-air missile which Taiwan has to deter China's air force is the domestically built TC-II missile, also known as "Sky Sword II," is deployed only on the locally developed Indigenous Defense Fighter (&&2147;&>2283;&&4399;).

"The AIM-120 is superior to both the TC-II and French-made Mica, which is used on the Mirage 2000-5. It's a good buy," said Erich Shih (&>6045;&>3389;&>9771;), a senior editor with Defense International magazine.

"It has a shorter range than the TC-II, but its lighter, more powerful rocket thruster and more accurate homing electronics make it more desirable," Shih said. "It also has greater accuracy than the Mica."

Shih added that although the AIM-120 has yet to be proven in combat and has also been rejected by customers for unreliability during its initial stages of development, the missile is now fully developed and trustworthy.

The type of AIM-120 missile the US plans to sell to Taiwan is the AIM-120C.

The AIM-120C is a streamlined version of the missile, lighter and with smaller control surfaces than the original. It also has more advanced software capabilities

Although each missile costs about US$60,000 (NT$1,920,000), the actual price Taiwan pays could be higher, possibly due to a desire by the US that Taiwan share in the development cost of the weapon.

The MICA failed in the 2003 Huaduang weapon proof tests. 
 
 
For one thing, the R-77 is hardly a surprise. Peng Chin-ming, director of the operations bureau of Taiwan's Air Force General Headquarters, said test-firing was "long expected by the air force, which has since kept a close watch on the situation".

Taiwan also has its own capabilities in this area. For example, Taiwan's locally developed IDFs (indigenous defense fighters) are equipped with TC-2 missiles that are guided by active radar and have a maximum range of 60km and a maximum speed of Mach 4.

Taiwan's French-made Mirage 2000-5 jet fighters are equipped with MICA missiles that are also guided by active radar. The speed and range of MICA missiles can reach up to 50km and Mach 3.5, respectively.

In addition, in the future Taiwan will take delivery of US-made AMRAAMs, which will be carried by the F-16 jet fighter. Taiwan bought 120 of the missiles, made by the Raytheon Co, in September 2000. This marks a change from the previous US administration policy that stated that Taiwan could take delivery only in the future, for fear of triggering a regional arms race. Until now the missiles had been stored in Guam. 

 
 Date Posted: 22-May-2003

JANE'S DEFENCE WEEKLY - MAY 28, 2003

AIR-TO-AIR MISSILES: Command of the air

Robert Hewson Editor of Jane's Air-Launched Weapons - London

Robert Hewson looks at the current status and future trends of air-to-air missile sales

Today air-to-air missile (AAM) technology is not only leaking into those places deemed 'undesirable', it is being actively bought and paid for at a time when most 'legitimate' budgets worldwide are shrinking. This is especially true around the margins, where some national industries have not recovered from the end of the Cold War and the redrawing of the world's political lines.

The international market for AAMs is largely platform-driven, with weapons sales going hand-in-hand with new aircraft deals. At the same time there is still a vital market for combat enhancements to legacy aircraft. This area is not only important to the major players in the missile business but also it is often where the niche manufacturers shine. International missiles sales are also driven not just by a manufacturer's familiarity with individual platforms, but also by its access to individual national markets. When these are 'sensitive' markets, technology-transfer concerns inevitably follow, because what is on offer is a key warfighting - even a key war-winning - capability.

Four key players account for the bulk of the world's AAM sales and technology base: MBDA Missile Systems in Europe (France, Germany, Italy and the UK); Raytheon Missile Systems in the US; Rafael in Israel; and Vympel in Russia.

China's missile industry is headed by the China National Aero Technology Import & Export Corporation (CATIC). Other important companies, all of which retain a smaller but significant design and production capability, include: South Africa's Kentron, a division of Denel; Germany's BGT; Sweden's Saab Bofors Dynamics; and Taiwan's Chung Shan Institute of Science and Technology (CSIST).

AMRAAM politics

In the minds of many, the weapon of choice for beyond-visual-range (BVR) air combat remains Raytheon Missile Systems' AIM-120 Advanced Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile (AMRAAM). The AMRAAM is a capable and combat-proven weapon that, thanks to its sophisticated active-radar seeker, gives any user an impressive combined short- and medium-range capability.

The US Department of State has approved AMRAAM sales to more than 20 countries.

Such is the sensitivity that surrounds the AMRAAM and its inherent technology, exports are tightly controlled. This has given rise to 'AMRAAM politics' whereby some allies are judged to be more allied than others leading to a two-tier export system. First-tier customers, those judged to be the most 'reliable friends', are sold missiles that are then held under national control by their respective air forces. Second-tier customers acquire (US-built) combat aircraft that are equipped 'for, but not with' the AMRAAM.

Fluctuating political and strategic criteria has dictated AMRAAM exportability. For years the US would not introduce a weapon into any region where a rival capability did not yet exist. This explains why the South American and Pacific Rim markets, for example, were closed to US high-tech systems for many years - to the growing dismay of manufacturers. The relaxation of this policy that coincided with the arrival of the Bush administration in the White House, was driven largely by sheer commercial pressure.

The seeds of change were sown during the long-running saga of Chile's Caza 2000 fighter competition, which was eventually won by the F-16 Block 50+. The supply of an advanced weapons package, to specifically include the AMRAAM, was a key Chilean consideration. It was whispered to Chile that AMRAAM approval would be forthcoming if a US aircraft was selected instead of the rival Gripen and Mirage 2000 bids - but this turned out not to be the case. Chile was left to find an alternative solution to its air-defence needs and has turned to Israel to provide a complete next-generation missile package.

With a big fighter deal next pending in Brazil, one of the few sizeable requirements anywhere in the world for the next five years or so, the US made a dramatic reversal of policy and announced that AMRAAM capability would be released to Brazil. However, the question of whether the missiles themselves would be delivered remains opaque. While the US is trying to overcome its flawed policy in Chile, there has still been no concrete pronouncement on what Brazil, and other customers like it, can expect. This ambiguity remains a thorn in the side of US industry, facing a rising tide of competition.

The most important future programme, and the one which promises to have the greatest impact on warfighting capability, sales and the missile industry in general is the pan-European Meteor ramjet-powered BVR missile. Headed by MBDA Missile Systems in association with Saab Bofors Dynamics and with input from Boeing, the Meteor will be the future BVR armament for the Typhoon, Gripen and Rafale fighters. A debilitating two-year delay in the programme launch ended in December 2002 when Germany approved funding, leading to the signature of the production contract. Meteor production will begin around 2008 and the missile should enter service with the UK Royal Air Force by the end of the decade. The Meteor has no obvious rivals and, should its development prove a success, it will dominate the 'high' end of the air combat spectrum. However, for most customers the Meteor will not be a consideration for another 10 years and between now and then opportunities in the missile market will fall to others.

For a long time there were few options for nations to acquire an effective BVR missile capability independent of the US. Today the list of alternatives is steadily increasing. From the Mirage III era onwards, France was the only Western supplier of 'non-aligned' BVR weapons through the Matra-developed R530 missile family (the UK exported the Sky Flash, but only to Sweden).

The arrival of the advanced MICA missiles in the 1990s - available in both active radar-guided (MICA EM) and passive IR-homing (MICA IR) - gave customers a truly modern weapon. The disadvantage of the MICA, produced by MBDA Missile Systems, is that it is wedded to Dassault platforms - namely the Mirage 2000-5/9 and the Rafale. MICA missiles are currently in service in France, Taiwan and Qatar and are on order for Greece and the United Arab Emirates. India could soon be a new customer if, as is widely expected, a deal is sealed with France for the acquisition and licence-production of 126 Mirage 2000-5s for the Indian Air Force. The MICA is also at the centre of the Mirage 2000-5BR bid by Dassault and Embraer to meet Brazil's FX-BR requirement. Interestingly, senior Pakistan Air Force (PAF) officials have speculated about integrating the MICA on PAF combat aircraft; such an unlikely move would be rendered impossible by any order from India.

The new players

More recently an entirely new missile option has emerged from a combined Israeli-South African programme, undertaken in secret by Rafael and Kentron. Throughout the 1990s rumours abounded of an Israeli active-radar missile most frequently identified by the codename 'Alto'. The fruits of this labour were revealed late in 2000 when Kentron unveiled the R-Darter missile. This announcement was followed in May 2001 by Rafael's declassification of the Derby. What had long been suspected became immediately apparent - the Derby and R-Darter were a common design.

An important factor in the declassification of the R-Darter (and by extension the Derby) was the decision by Gripen International to offer the missile as an export option on the Gripen. The Gripen has been dogged by the perception that the US content in the aircraft, not least its weapons package, would subject it to US export restrictions. To counter this, the Gripen team has built a weapons portfolio for Gripen customers that is free of any 'strategic interference'. The first evidence of this came in Chile where the Derby (and Python 4) was part of the Gripen bid and is again part of the Gripen bid in Brazil - and elsewhere. In South Africa the R-Darter has already been earmarked to equip the South African Air Force's Gripen force when it enters service in 2008.

Kentron and Rafael are reluctant to discuss the close working relationship that clearly existed between them: the Derby and R-Darter missiles are treated as two separate products. Both are marketed independently, although it is clear that the two companies have divided the world into different regions of responsibility. For example, Kentron is leading the current sales push in Brazil. Rafael, on the other hand, has sold the Derby to Chile where it is being integrated on the air force's upgraded F-5Es. India is reported to be very interested in the newly revealed ground-launched version of the Derby. The great advantage of the Derby and R-Darter is that they are not platform- specific and can be integrated on any combat aircraft with a suitable databus infrastructure.

With the dissolution of the Soviet Bloc came the disappearance of traditional Russian markets and the missile industry is now sustained, barely, by a few key contracts. AAM design, development and production is led almost exclusively by Vympel. It was the emergence of Vympel's R-73 (AA-11) agile dogfight missile that so alarmed NATO planners in the late 1980s and 1990s. The R-73 outclassed every single equivalent Western short-range AAM at the time and the appearance of the RVV-AE/R-77 (AA-12) active-radar missile in the 1990s underlined just how accomplished the Russian designers were. The only brake on their work has been the desperate absence of funding, which is why export contracts have become so vital.

India and China are the two most important customers in this respect. Both nations have acquired R-73s and R-77s to arm their late-model Sukhoi Su-27s and Su-30s, while India has also fielded the R-77 on its upgraded MiG-21-UPG- Bisons (MiG-21-93). The acquisition of R-77 missiles by Peru, along with the MiG-29s that it obtained from Belarus, caused a storm and led directly to Chile and Brazil seeking a similar capability. However, Peru's missiles were never really operational as the air force there lacked the means to support them in service. Other potential users of the R-77 include Malaysia and now Indonesia, the latter of which has signed a new deal with Sukhoi for Su-27s and Su-30MKIs. Work on Vympel's next-generation BVR missile, the ramjet-powered R-77M, is progressing slowly but has so far resulted in little real hardware.

Vympel's existing R-27 (AA-10) should not be forgotten. Already available in long-range passive infra-red- and semi-active radar homing variants, Vympel (working with seeker manufacturer AGAT) has developed an active radar variant, the R-27, that some programme insiders believe is superior to the R-77 in some respects.

At the fringes of the market, work on active-radar missile development continues in China India and Taiwan. Of the three, China is perhaps the most significant. Already well-established in the short-range missile field the highest-priority programme for the Chinese industry is the SD-10 (sometimes referred to as PL-12). The SD-10 is an active-radar medium-range missile that, if successful, would provide a huge step forward in both manufacturing and combat capability for China. It is widely believed that the active-radar seeker technology at the heart of the SD-10 programme has been obtained from Russia, but Chinese specialists have also been striving to master the micro-engineering needed to build these systems and have displayed prototype hardware that gives some indication of the state-of-the-art there.

Previous Chinese attempts to develop the PL-10/PL-11 missile, based first on pirated AIM-7 technology and then with the direct involvement of Italy's Alenia, all failed. The SD-10 programme is in a much more advanced stage of development and has reached the point of airborne firing trials. The SD-10 is likely to equip China's next-generation Chengdu J-10 multirole combat aircraft and also the modified/upgraded variants of the J-11 - Su-27SK built by Shenyang. The SD-10 is most closely associated with the FC-1/Super Seven lightweight fighter, being jointly developed by China and Pakistan. The first prototype of this new aircraft is due to fly later this year and the SD-10 is likely to be part of the baseline weapons fit for Pakistan, and any other export customer - such as Iran.

India has started the first trials of its active-radar missile programme, the Astra. Headed by the Defence Research and Development Organisation (DRDO), the Astra has been in staged development for about 20 years. The first ground-launched aerodynamic trials of the Astra began on 9 May. After three or four ballistic firings the next phase of controlled inflight test launches will begin. The Vympel R-77 is operational on India's Su-30MKIs and upgraded MiG-21-UPG Bisons. The possibility of an MBDA MICA acquisition by India has been discussed. Nevertheless, the Indian Air Force has always maintained a policy of multinational supply and indigenous development, so work on the Astra programme seems sure to continue.

In Taiwan the CSIST has produced the Tien Chien II (Sky Sword II) active-radar BVR missile, operational on the Republic of China Air Force's (ROCAF's) ****-1 Ching Kuo fighters since the mid-1990s. The Tien Chien II programme was motivated by US reluctance to release AMRAAM capability to Taiwan in the face of opposition from mainland China. The Tien Chien II missile has benefited from US design input, but that assistance gives the US a virtual embargo on any potential export sales.

The Tien Chien II has a full active-radar capability that many outside observers were unable to accept until recently. Despite, or perhaps because of this, it will remain a weapon exclusive to the ROCAF. Taiwan has now secured AMRAAM export approval (though this does not include missile stocks) and so, as this is likely to be a more affordable option that the Tien Chien II, the indigenous programme does not have a secure future.

Japan has also developed its own AMRAAM-analogue under the highly classified AAM-4 programme, led by Mitsubishi. Very few facts are known about this project which began in the mid-1980s and has now progressed to advanced firing trials and perhaps a limited service capability. The AAM-4 has been seen on JASDF F-15Js and is probably also intended for the F-2 fighter. The approval of AMRAAM exports to Japan makes the future of the programme unclear, but the AAM-4 will only ever be a national asset with exports barred under Japanese law.

The short-range dogfight AAMs market is larger and more open than that for the heavier, more complex and more expensive BVR missiles. That said, advances in missile and seeker technology mean that there is considerable crossover between the two classes of weapon. For example, the AMRAAM has an effective close-in capability through its active-radar seeker that allows the missile to be launched 'live off the rail' at targets within visual range. Equally, some nominally short-range missiles - like the UK-developed ASRAAM in particular - have a significant fly-out capability that can engage targets at true BVR distances.

The technology base for short-range AAMs is distributed between China, Europe (chiefly France, Germany, Sweden and the UK), Israel, South Africa, Russia and the US. Outside these nations there are varying research and development and production capabilities in Brazil, India, Japan and Taiwan.

The next-generation dogfight missile for the US, and approved export customers of US combat aircraft, is the Raytheon AIM-9X Sidewinder. The AIM-9X is the product of several studies undertaken in the US during the 1980s and 1990s. The result was a radical evolution of the basic Sidewinder, but not the revolution that some had called for. Instead the AIM-9X mates the existing basic structure (warhead and rocket motor section) of the late-model AIM-9M with an entirely new seeker, autopilot and flight-control system and a new aerodynamic layout.

The AIM-9X should be operationally available on US Navy F/A-18C Hornets by September 2003, with USAF F-15Cs to follow. To date, the AIM-9X has been ordered by South Korea (F-15K) and selected by Switzerland (replacing AIM-9Ps on upgraded Hornets) and Poland (F-16 Block 50+). Other potential customers include Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal and Turkey. Other future sales may come from the UAE, Pakistan and Oman - all now F-16 customers.

The European missile industry is in the rather uncomfortable position of having two competing advanced dogfight missile programmes: the Advanced Short-Range Air-to-Air Missile (ASRAAM), produced by MBDA Missile Systems, and the IRIS-T, developed by a six-nation consortium led by Germany's BGT. There is still a clear intention to merge BGT with MBDA at some point in the near future, leaving the enlarged company with two rival products.

The ASRAAM is firmly established in RAF service and was first deployed for combat over Iraq during Operation 'Telic'. The ASRAAM has had a long and sometimes controversial history and its initial introduction into UK service in 2002 was plagued by reports of an under-performing IIR seeker. These problems are now acknowledged to have been solved and the combination of ASRAAM and AMRAAM on the RAF's upgraded Tornado F3 CSP aircraft gives them what, on paper, is arguably the most capable weapons set of any combat aircraft in service today. However, the RAF cannot take full advantage of its ASRAAMs. The service opted for an analogue ASRAAM interface instead of a fully digital integration. This means that the ASRAAM can only be used in an expanded Sidewinder acquisition mode that denies RAF crews the full range of missile functions.

The Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) is the first ASRAAM export customer. Australia is completing the (fully digital) integration of its missiles on an upgraded F/A-18A Hornet force and, as a result, will be the first user to have the full power of the ASRAAM. Australia already has the AIM-120 operational on its Hornets.

Europe's export hopes

The ASRAAM is very closely linked with continuing Eurofighter sales efforts in Singapore and the Middle East. Usefully, it is also integrated and qualified on the F-16 and F/A-18 (including the Super Hornet) and is ready for the F-15. The ASRAAM has the distinction of being the only current dogfight AAM that is fully compatible with the JSF's internal carriage requirements, thanks to the missile's unique lock-on-after-launch (LOAL) capability. Raytheon says that it is developing this capability for the AIM-9X and it will be available in about five years; but LOAL ASRAAM capability is already part of the December 2003 initial operating capability status of the Australian missiles.

Europe's second short-range missile, the IRIS-T, has had an even more difficult gestation than the ASRAAM. The programme has been plagued by funding shortfalls, primarily from its main partner Germany. The original six-nation team was reduced to five in October 2001 when Canada withdrew on grounds of cost. This move robbed the remaining nations, Germany, Greece, Italy, Norway and Sweden, of the only Hornet operator in the group, and with it the smooth integration of the IRIS-T and F/A-18.

Since Canada's departure, Spain joined the team and the consortium has been lobbying hard for a commitment to order the IRIS-T for the Spanish Air Force. As a Eurofighter customer, Spain fits into the IRIS-T user set alongside Germany and Italy. If the Greek Eurofighter deal is finalised, an IRIS-T order can be expected and Austria may also opt for the IRIS-T now that its 18 Eurofighters seem to be back on track. In Sweden the missile is due to replace the Sidewinder on Flygvapnet Gripens, as the Rb 99. The IRIS-T programme is now on a much firmer footing after the German parliamentary decision in January to commit series-production funding to the missile, and the consortium is looking at a potential order book of many hundreds.

Israel continues to be a centre of excellence in design, building what for many is still the yardstick for agile, high-off-boresight missiles - Rafael's Python 4. The next-generation Python 4 (referred to variously as the Python 4+ or 4M) is expected to be unveiled at the Paris air show in June. This missile may introduce a long-awaited imaging infra-red seeker to the baseline Python 4 airframe, though advance details are sparse. Sales of the Python 4 are shrouded in secrecy. To date, the only confirmed users are the Israel Defence Force/Air Force (F-15, F-16) and Chile's FACh (upgraded F-5E Tigre III). Chile plans to integrate the Python 4 with its new Block 50+ F-16C/Ds and several other South American air forces, such as Ecuador and Brazil, have been linked with the Python 4. Both countries are already Python 3 operators and both are fielding Israeli-sourced fighter upgrades compatible with the Python 4. The Python 4 may also have been evaluated, if not acquired, by Singapore and India.

India is integrating the DASH helmet-mounted sight on its Mirage 2000Hs and has said that the Indian Air Force will field an upgraded Magic III version of its French-supplied Magic II missiles. However, India also claims to be developing an advanced short-range AAM and, given the close links between the DASH system and the Python 4, the Rafael missile must be an option for the Indian Air Force. Similar speculation continues to surround the Python 4 in China. Israel has already supplied China with Python 3 missiles and technology under the PL-8 programme. There are repeated suggestions that a deal has also been done on the Python 4. Speaking to Jane's in 2002, a CATIC missile engineer confirmed China's work on a "new very agile dogfight missile with a highly complex aerodynamic configuration" - a description that certainly matches the Python 4.

China could become a more significant exporter of AAM technology as its aerospace industry is increasingly able to produce aircraft that can exploit modern weapons systems. To date, the bulk of Chinese AAM programmes have been based on outside technology.

With the latest PL-9 missile, China has demonstrated some meaningful indigenous technology, although this programme owes a debt to the PL-8. Chinese AAMs have only been exported with Chinese aircraft, although this has still been a welcome resource for customers such as Burma, Iran, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Zimbabwe.

Still deadly

In South Africa work on very advanced missile designs by Kentron has been slowed by a lack of R&D funding. Away from the R-Darter, Kentron's primary programme is the A-Darter (Agile Darter), an enhanced development of the SAAF's U-Darter missile. South Africa has had much insight into Israeli missile technology and the SAAF even fielded the Python 3 as an 'interim' missile (codenamed V3S) in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The A-Darter was intended to be the primary short-range armament for the SAAF's Gripens, but now South African officials have called the future of this programme into doubt and it may be shelved.

Along with its AAM-4 BVR programme, Japan has also developed the short-range AAM-5 - a follow-on to its in-service AAM-3 missile. The AAM-5 is another of Japan's closely guarded projects. Like the AAM-4, the AAM-5 has completed ground and (probably) airborne firing trials, but its operational status is unclear. Outwardly, the AAM-5 resembles the IRIS-T and so follows the AAM-3 in adopting some novel aerodynamic design features. The AAM-5 programme is another example of how Japan supports its own high-tech defence industry, although this support comes with an enormous price tag and may prove unsustainable.

Russian missile designers are also struggling to fund future technology. Improvements to the Vympel R-73 (AA-11) series are still the best on offer. While the R-73 remains a highly effective weapon - especially when combined with a helmet-mounted sight - it is carried by very few platforms like the Su-27/30 family and the MiG-29. Studies for a next-generation Russian missile called 'K-30' have been under way for many years, but despite some recent reports to the contrary this missile remains firmly a paper project. Russia's difficulties are compounded by the fact that the premier Soviet-era optical seeker design and manufacturing house, Arsenal, builders of the R-73's Mk 80 seeker and the next-generation MM 2000, is now located in Ukraine.

Most of the major mergers and re-alignments within the international missile business have now been settled, with just a few notable exceptions. The stage is still set for EADS' subsidiary LFK to properly join the MBDA Missile Systems fold. The full integration of this German company has been predicted for several years now and, in the longer term, it is likely that Saab Bofors Dynamics will join up with the MBDA giant, too.

In the US, Raytheon is assured of market share wherever US combat aircraft are sold. It has also done an excellent job of supporting non-US platforms and, with the AMRAAM and Sidewinder, it owns the two AAM market leaders. Lockheed Martin forged links with Rafael, but progress in the air-to-air missile sector has been blocked by industrial difficulties and Israeli security concerns.

Israel's own industry continues to be sustained by strong national backing and a completely opaque international customer base. South Africa shares some common ground with Israel, but lacks a large national market and the R&D funding to really chase international sales. As in Russia and elsewhere, the question is not one of ability and know-how but in finding the funding to turn expertise into marketable systems.
 
Summary:
a. The RoCAF as soon as Adders showed up wanted AMRAAMs to replace their crap MICAS.
b. The RoCAF was noit happy with their Mirages; putting the F-16s into the prime interceptor sectors as soon as they received the proper weapons for THOSE FALCON aircraft
 
The 1998 test you cited was a cooked test aginst a dumb SLOW propeller driven  drone, amateur. MICA has failed the RoCAF in service and is for show and bluff, not use..
 
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 10:58:59 PM

lol Herald !

Everytime you can 't attack the post itself , you go for the poster as you do now .

It is pathetic ... Why don 't you just acknowledge the truth when you see it ?


Well , maybe you don 't .


 

Cheers .


The trouble is that by the rules I cannot simply call you a prevaricator. I have to PROVE that you are a prevaricator and thus you can keep posting a new lie. It gets knocked down (much like another poster I know here) and you continye on your merry way withy your fantasies falsehoods and attempted bluster. Well you are a prevaricator and a person of no technical qualifgication.;.You are the guy who doesn't know what the difference is between pursuut lead and predict lead is.

You don't know how rockets work . You don't know anything about guidance and EW. You don't know the forst thing about air combat. 
 
You called a man a clown and threatened him (Rufus) . He's oibviously not since he knows his stuff backwards and forwards.
 
 
You whine a lot when I point out exactloy how ignorant you are. That is part of the price of lying to me and to others, prevaricator. To be shown as a prevaricator is a comsequence.
 
You don't like it? Stop prevaricating, stop fantasizing. Just stop.
 
Herald
.   

 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Stop the falsehoods   5/19/2009 11:03:39 PM

IIRC, the Mirage 2000-9's electronic warfare system (ICMS) shares technology with Spectra. And from what I've read the ICMS is pretty good. 

It isn't . Flat statement  ICMS Mark 3 FAILED, as so much of French tech has recently failed.
 
 
Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/19/2009 11:15:37 PM
Spectra has been built for Rafale and Rafale only because Thalès and Dassault tailored the EW system from the datas they got after more than 2 years of work in anechoic chamber .

Cheers .


You can only measure so much in a chamber - where does France do its pole tests?


 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/19/2009 11:49:49 PM

A little while ago , we were talking about the Mica . A lot of errors and mistakes have been posted by numerous posters who do not really know the Mica program .

It has been said (?) that the Mica is not using some kind of "loft" trajectories . For any knowledgeable poster , this affirmation is BS . The Mica has only enough propellant and energy for a pure and straight chase flight of about 35km when fired in a LOBL mode .

So , how do you think Mica was flying when it destroyed a target 67km away ???


""On May 8, 1998, a two-seat Di fired one MICA missile and successfully hit a target drone 67 km away.""

Link :

h*tp://www.taiwanairpower.org/af/mirage.html


Then , there are other things you might not know about Mica , I keep it for later just in case ;-)


Cheers . 



Who said it is not using a lofted profile?  I'd like to know, because I'd like to ask him what he's basing that conclusion on.  Of course, so far there has not been any showing that it does, but for the third time I will say that does not mean it doesn't, just that it hasn't been supported by some sort of evidence that I'm aware of.  If someone I trusted as being informed and believable said he knew it does, then I would be inclined to believe him.  So far, there's only your balls-out "of course it does" and while that may be sufficient to convince some people, it is not sufficient to convince me.
 
I for one have never said the radar-homing MICA is limited to a 35km best-case range.  I am quite willing to believe one was used to hit a drone "67km away."  I'm also quite willing to believe that if the details of that engagement became known, that they would be something like the following:  launch aircraft and drone were both at high altitude (M2000 >25,000ft), at high speed (M2000 >M0.9), are flying directly toward each other at the time of launch, the drone maintained constant heading, speed, and altitude throughout the engagement, and the distance separating the launch aircraft and the drone at the time of launch was 67km.  Under those conditions I would not be surprised at all if a radar-homing MICA could hit that target.
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    BW   5/20/2009 12:19:51 AM
Because to be honest , the possible kill ratio in between M2000-5Fs and Rafales against Fulcrums and 31s is well in our favor , in fact it would be a bloodbath for the russian made jets ...
 
There you go again with your wishful and biased thinking. A modern Sukhoi and MIG-31 all have longer range radars, and A2A missiles. Plus if those jets are in the hands of well trained air man with AWACS, there is no way the Mirage or the Rafale survive. You are right there would be a blood bath but not for the Russian jets. I will bet my house on it.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    BW   5/20/2009 12:27:08 AM
As for the Fulcrum I tather be in a Mig 35 with the R-73 and a HMD in a WVR fight  against both of those birds.
 
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 - 2009StrategyWorld.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