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: 2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale
Bluewings12    6/24/2009 5:03:48 PM
Let 's watch them first :-)

The F-22
h*tp://www.air-attack.com/videos/single/cAhL7lJCk4I

The Rafale :
h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/user/ministeredeladefense/video/x9ma8h_demonstration-du-rafale_news

Both aircrafts are pulling nice stuff . Rafale only does it twice faster . Explaination and details to follow .

Cheers .
 
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 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50   NEXT
Rufus       7/16/2009 1:16:41 PM
The basic point of your post is accurate, bluewings is an idiot, but there is virtually zero information available that would support this:
 
"The Rafale advantage is that it's based on a more future-proof design (i.e. AESA transmitters vs classic miniature TWT) so that when GaN modules are mature the Rafale can be upgraded while the F-22 will need a complete overall."
 
Virtually nothing has been made public about he F-22's EW suite as it is among the plane's most closely guarded systems.(The few reports available describe it as a marvel of engineering on par with the F-22s stealth, speed and maneuverability.)  Trying to speculate which system is more easily upgraded is pretty much a waste of time.
 
(Especially when you consider the fact that Spectra is already running up against crippling processing and data-handling limitations.  Its AESAs are one major limitation, but they are hardly the only one.)
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/17/2009 4:54:26 AM
Virtually nothing has been made public about he F-22's EW suite
 
Well, except for Keltec bragging about the F-22 using its tubes in its EW suite...
 
Especially when you consider the fact that Spectra is already running up against crippling processing and data-handling limitations. 
 
The crippling processing computation limitations on the Rafale only exist in your mind. If you'd care to learn a bit about the aircraft you so regularly make fun of, you'd know that the Rafale uses what they call the MDPU (Modular Data Processing Unit), a common processing pool that is shared by all Rafale systems (i.e. radar, ECM...).
 
The F-22 & F-35 uses exactly the same architecture, in this case it's called CIP (Common Integrated Processor). In fact, all these planes now use commercial-derivatives processors of the same family (PowerPC) except for the early blocks F-22 (uses intel i960) and Rafale F1 (no MDPU, I believe the processors used were SPARC based).
 
In the Rafale case, there are up to 18 processing boards in a single MDPU and processing power can be tailored to the aircraft configuration (e.g. the test birds that have been upgraded with the RBE2 AA have two extra MDPU boards).
 
Each board uses a PPC 740 processor running at 200MHz, with a usable processing capacity of ~65 MIPS (MDPU architecture includes a multi-level software stack to hide the hardware caracteristics, making future upgrade easier but eating in the CPU raw power + processes are likely run with a 1+1 redundancy to avoid any interruption in case of a board failure). A Rafale with 18 boards would have a little over 1000 MIPS, or 1.5x the F-22 CPI official processing power. So both systems seem to have similar levels of processing power.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Blue Apple   7/17/2009 5:48:02 AM
The same architecture (and principle) is used in some of the more recent heavyweight torpedoes, and IIRC, its a variation of the well worn and often abused term of being "distributed"- although they are CPU's per se, they're actually and more accurately RISC chips, so the processing power is inherent more so in the code/algorithms/routines programmed into those RISC chips..- and then coupled to the performance of that chip.  The i960 used to be a favourite processor for onboard RAID controllers about 12 years ago.

The problem for the early Block releases of the F-22 (now that you've pulled it into the open) is that milgrade 960's are hard to come by. Unless I'm way off base, the cooling requirements for thise multi processor SPARC daughter boards is huge - probably 70+% bigger in comparitive real estate.  Depending on your philosophy, then there is an efficiency issue.

I was also under the impression that one of the probs for Rafale and her piggy backed processors was that they generated stacks of heat, and the only way to get around that was via cryo cooling as not enough air could circulate against what was generated. 

This is bordering on vague recollection for me, so I could be a tad off base 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/17/2009 7:39:09 AM
milgrade 960's are hard to come by
 
Given Intel discontinued the product family that's hardly surprising.
 
One story I've heard about the i960 used in the F-22 is that Intel got the market by promising to deliver a chip that was much larger than the competition and cost a fortune to manufacture and required a dedicated line (at the time the F-22 program was going strong and the Comanche was supposed to use the same chips too so it must have looked like a very lucrative market).
 
But unfortunately by the time the F-22 went online, the i960 and its specific manufacturing process were long outdated, and  Intel did not want to keep precious fab space occupied by what had become a niche product. 
 
I was also under the impression that one of the probs for Rafale and her piggy backed processors was that they generated stacks of heat
 
I too have heard a few horror story about burned electronics at the Rafale entry in service. I believe the upgrade to the MDPU alleviated most of the problems as it uses apparently 60% less power than the F1 modules did. On the other hand it's also much smaller so power density is more or less the same. Perhaps PowerPC microcontrollers are more heat resistant (they're used extensively in the automotive industry)?
 
the only way to get around that was via cryo cooling as not enough air could circulate against what was generated. 
 
The MDPU itself only uses air cooling (no liquid cooling like in the F-22). There's likely an heat exchanger with the rafale internal cooling system downstream though.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/17/2009 8:39:13 AM

Given Intel discontinued the product family that's hardly surprising.

as a last resort there are always HP Print Servers lying around somewhere - not quite milspec, but still robust... :) 


One story I've heard about the i960 used in the F-22 is that Intel got the market by promising to deliver a chip that was much larger than the competition and cost a fortune to manufacture and required a dedicated line (at the time the F-22 program was going strong and the Comanche was supposed to use the same chips too so it must have looked like a very lucrative market).

 well, it's all come back to bite the F-22 on the arse now.  hence my laborious and ongoing dialogue to explain why an export F-22 is decidedly unattractive....  it appears to be falling on deaf ears with the enthusiasts though...  

But unfortunately by the time the F-22 went online, the i960 and its specific manufacturing process were long outdated, and  Intel did not want to keep precious fab space occupied by what had become a niche product. 

 and hence the problems that will arrive if they try to build an export model.  again, IMO there's a better chance of Castro becoming catholic....

I too have heard a few horror story about burned electronics at the Rafale entry in service. I believe the upgrade to the MDPU alleviated most of the problems as it uses apparently 60% less power than the F1 modules did. On the other hand it's also much smaller so power density is more or less the same. Perhaps PowerPC microcontrollers are more heat resistant (they're used extensively in the automotive industry)?

 true enough, but I guess it all boils down to the efficiency and pre-tasking definitions for the code.  

The MDPU itself only uses air cooling (no liquid cooling like in the F-22). There's likely an heat exchanger with the rafale internal cooling system downstream though.

which does invite the rhetorical question of how many concurrent tasks per second the system can actually do if its not cuasing the processing block to act like Yellowstone.....   eg Rafale doesn't have the same sensor footprint and onboard integration of (eg the JSF) - so that would seem to make it more likely to have to rely on mounted peripherals with their own onbaord processing.  again, my understanding is that Rafale does have process blocks (comparitively).
 all in all, it's a tad fascinating.

 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/17/2009 9:28:40 AM
hence my laborious and ongoing dialogue to explain why an export F-22 is decidedly unattractive....
 
As far as I can tell the latest blocks F-22 don't use i960 processors so it shouldn't be an issue.
 
Rafale doesn't have the same sensor footprint and onboard integration of (eg the JSF) - so that would seem to make it more likely to have to rely on mounted peripherals with their own onbaord processing
 
Can you be more specific?.From my point of view Rafale & F-35 architecture are pretty much identical in this aspect (of course the F-35 has faster processors since the Rafale MDPU currently use 1999 technology).
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/17/2009 9:33:50 PM

As far as I can tell the latest blocks F-22 don't use i960 processors so it shouldn't be an issue.

the baseline (legacy) architectural issues still exist even with a processor change


Can you be more specific?.From my point of view Rafale & F-35 architecture are pretty much identical in this aspect (of course the F-35 has faster processors since the Rafale MDPU currently use 1999 technology).

alluding to the fact that Rafale has a lower tolerance for complex activity (comparitively to F-22 or JSF) due to the nature of its design.  eg processing speed, concurrency issues etc....   good for what the french "saw" a few years back, but an integration nightmare as their battlespace management becomes more complex.  they had a few systems problems earlier this year which seemed to indicate that they haven't quite got the comms integration right with other battlespace managers etc....

 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex    Rafale Failing?   7/18/2009 1:48:53 AM
From your last sentence, does this mean difficulties in sensor fusion especially with external data networks?
 



As far as I can tell the latest blocks F-22 don't use i960 processors so it shouldn't be an issue.



the baseline (legacy) architectural issues still exist even with a processor change






Can you be more specific?.From my point of view Rafale & F-35 architecture are pretty much identical in this aspect (of course the F-35 has faster processors since the Rafale MDPU currently use 1999 technology).




alluding to the fact that Rafale has a lower tolerance for complex activity (comparitively to F-22 or JSF) due to the nature of its design.  eg processing speed, concurrency issues etc....   good for what the french "saw" a few years back, but an integration nightmare as their battlespace management becomes more complex.  they had a few systems problems earlier this year which seemed to indicate that they haven't quite got the comms integration right with other battlespace managers etc....




 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex    @Blue Wings   7/18/2009 1:52:40 AM
Fascinating discussion. 
 
If the MDPU is a shared processor resource does this mean that this is a true multiprocessor where processes/programs are not necessarily tied to a specific CPU? 
 

Each board uses a PPC 740 processor running at 200MHz, with a usable processing capacity of ~65 MIPS (MDPU architecture includes a multi-level software stack to hide the hardware caracteristics, making future upgrade easier but eating in the CPU raw power + processes are likely run with a 1+1 redundancy to avoid any interruption in case of a board failure). A Rafale with 18 boards would have a little over 1000 MIPS, or 1.5x the F-22 CPI official processing power. So both systems seem to have similar levels of processing power.


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/18/2009 4:19:21 AM


If the MDPU is a shared processor resource does this mean that this is a true multiprocessor where processes/programs are not necessarily tied to a specific CPU? 

it's distributed across all processors for load balancing and redundancy purposes
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/18/2009 4:24:14 AM

From your last sentence, does this mean difficulties in sensor fusion especially with external data networks?


unqualified, but basically yes. 


 
Quote    Reply

enomosiki       7/18/2009 4:40:04 AM
It doesn 't have any FLIR or IRST , it doesn 't have any long range TV Cam , it doesn ' have any external IR missile seekers to rely on ...


The addition of HMD in Block 40 will enable the MLD to be expanded to have similar capability in terms of situational awareness that of DAS.
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       7/18/2009 5:29:11 AM
"Well, except for Keltec bragging about the F-22 using its tubes in its EW suite..."
 
...and therefor that is all it uses?  Really now, you are trying to build a cake out of crumbs of information.

Even comparing the ALR-94 to a system like "Spectra" is an insult.  Spectra is a decent system, but is noteworthy far more for its marketing than its performance.   Giving a good but unexceptional EW system the name "Specta" and printing off endless brochures with its exposed components highlighted may well have been the smartest decision during the Rafale's entire design process.  The problem is there are few people in the public who have a good working knowledge of these types of systems. They read a brochure and hear the sexy name, and conclude from that that the system must be a world leading system, it simply isn't. (More on that later)
 
 
NASHUA, NH -- (March 31, 1999) - Sanders, a Lockheed Martin Company, has completed production and delivery of the first of eleven Electronic Warfare suites being produced for the U.S. Air Force's new F-22 Raptor air dominance fighter under the EW Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD) phase of the program.

The AN/ALR-94 EW system, and related test equipment, was shipped from Sanders in Nashua, N.H., to the F-22 Avionics Integration Laboratory (AIL) in Seattle, Wash., on Feb. 15. The shipment included advanced apertures and associated electronics, a Remote Aperture Interface Unit (RAIU) and RF unit, as well as aircraft power supplies, test stands and work stations.

Don Donovan, Sanders' vice-president for F-22 programs, said that the hardware was successfully brought on-line at the AIL within a week after delivery, and "performance of the F-22 EW system has substantially exceeded the AIL team's expectations," Donovan said.

Donovan paid tribute to the combined Sanders and Lockheed Martin Tactical Aircraft Systems (LMTAS) team who produced, tested and integrated more than 50 hardware items to meet the delivery deadline as "a huge accomplishment and impressive mission success."

Tom Burbage, Lockheed Martin Aeronautical Systems' F-22 Program vice president, described the Sanders-built F-22 EW suite as "the most technically complex piece of equipment on the most sophisticated aircraft ever conceived."

This on-time delivery of the Raptor's EW suite culminates more than a decade of research and development by Sanders and its suppliers. While initial setup and checkout of the system was expected to take about three weeks at the AIL facility, on-site engineers actually accomplished that task in less than a week.

The F-22 EW capability is a critical element of the aircraft's advanced sensor suite which will enable Raptor pilots to achieve air dominance over any potential adversary well into the 21st century. In addition to the electronic countermeasures suite, Sanders is providing the fighter's airborne videotape recorders, Communication, Navigation and Identification (CNI) antennas, graphic processor video interface, operational debrief system, common automated test system, and mission support equipment. Value of these Sanders products to the expected Raptor production program could exceed $2 billion through the year 2013.

Sanders is an operating company of the Lockheed Martin Electronics Sector, a leader in the design, development and manufacture of electronic systems for global defense, civil and commercial markets. In addition to aircraft self-protection systems, Sanders is a major producer of tactical surveillance and intelligence systems for all branches of the armed forces. Other major business areas include microwave, mission and space electronics; automated mission planning systems; and commercial telecommunications systems. 
 
 
 
This original system, although incredibly capable, was a product of early 90s technology which imposed certain limitations(many of which are detailed below when I talk about Spectra), but the ALR-94 has since been extensively upgraded.  You are sitting here talking about the relative upgrade potential of the two systems, when in the F-22's case the upgrade has already taken place, at least in the newer airframes.
 
 
 
BAE SYSTEMS Delivers First Production F-22 Digital Electronic Warfare System to Lockheed Martin.
NASHUA, N.H. -- BAE Systems BAE Systems has delivered the first production digital electronic warfare EW system to Lockheed Martin For the former company, for use in the U.S. Air Force's Raptor #4084. The airframe is well into production and slated for delivery to the Air Force in November 2006.

"Raptor pilots will be flying the world's premier fifth-generation fighter equipped with the best digital electronic warfare system available in any fighter in the world," said Bridget Lauderdale, Lockheed Martin vice president for F-22 product development. "BAE Systems' digital EW program is a model product improvement program that provides state-of-the art technology to the F-22."

The digital EW system exploits breakthroughs in commercial analog-to-digital technology and field-programmable gate arrays. It replaces older analog receiver technology with reconfigurable digital receivers, providing cost, power, and weight savings for the F-22.

"This is the first production deployment of a wideband EW digital receiver on a tactical platform. The system has passed all performance and qualification testing to begin operational aircraft installation," said Bill Hill, BAE Systems' Digital EW program manager at Nashua, N.H. "The digital receiver provides in excess of 500 megahertz of instantaneous measurement bandwidth and the same hardware can be reconfigured to perform wideband channelizer, tuned superheterodyne receiver, or compressive receiver functions."

The product improvement program began as a BAE Systems company-funded research and development effort to build a wideband, channelized digital receiver. The program will result in a 20 percent per-unit cost savings, yielding production cost reductions in excess of $80 million for F-22 production lots 5-9.


 
 The crippling processing computation limitations on the Rafale only exist in your mind. If you'd care to learn a bit about the aircraft you so regularly make fun of, you'd know that the Rafale uses what they call the MDPU (Modular Data Processing Unit), a common processing pool that is shared by all Rafale systems (i.e. radar, ECM...).
 
Make fun of?  The only part of my post that was "making fun of" the Rafale was the part about being unable to track more than a couple other aircraft in flight.  That obviously is not the case, but the processing and data handling limitations Spectra has are real issues, and serious ones at that. 
  
 
The F-22 & F-35 uses exactly the same architecture, in this case it's called CIP (Common Integrated Processor). In fact, all these planes now use commercial-derivatives processors of the same family (PowerPC) except for the early blocks F-22 (uses intel i960) and Rafale F1 (no MDPU, I believe the processors used were SPARC based).
 
In the Rafale case, there are up to 18 processing boards in a single MDPU and processing power can be tailored to the aircraft configuration (e.g. the test birds that have been upgraded with the RBE2 AA have two extra MDPU boards).
 
Each board uses a PPC 740 processor running at 200MHz, with a usable processing capacity of ~65 MIPS (MDPU architecture includes a multi-level software stack to hide the hardware caracteristics, making future upgrade easier but eating in the CPU raw power + processes are likely run with a 1+1 redundancy to avoid any interruption in case of a board failure). A Rafale with 18 boards would have a little over 1000 MIPS, or 1.5x the F-22 CPI official processing power. So both systems seem to have similar levels of processing power.
 
You are lost in the woods on this one...  processing is done at multiple levels in multiple systems.  You are talking about the central computers on the aircraft, while the issue is the processing that occurs within the EW system itself.  When a signal is received by an antenna, it is analog.(Radar pulses are "digital" in a sense, but once you get out into the "real" world everything gets distorted.  There is the signal the radar is trying to produce, the signal the radar actually produces, which will inevitably be distorted by its transmit hardware to some extent,  the signal as it arrives on the target, which will have undergone further distortion in the atmosphere, and the signal as it returns to the original aircraft, which will be even more mangled as it will not strike all surfaces of the target simultaneously, the return signal will actually consist of a series of closely spaced spikes of various sizes... etc ) Add to this, background noise, multi-path returns, and other radars... and what you get is a complex and very analog soup. Totally unprocessed, the amount of data we are talking about is simply massive.  All EW suites reduce this to a managable level through various algorithms.  How, and to what extent this information is cut down depends on the system and its available resources.
 
An EW suite needs to be capable of receiving the whole mess, identifying the signals of interest, before digitizing them and performing additional processing. It is only after the EW system has completed the large majority of the required processing that the information(not the signals themselves at this point) is passed on to higher level computers where it can be interpreted, potentially identified, correllated with other available information, track files established etc.  The Rafale's issue is not once the data reaches its central computers, the problem is much earlier in the process as it is trying to identify and digitize signals.  In a nutshell, the system was designed with 1980s radars in mind. (A reasonable assumption at the time.)  These radars, themselves limited by the processors of the day, were minimally reprogramable and did not exhibit the types of extremely complex signals that are now coming into use.  Against these types of radars Spectra is perfectly capable, and a solid performer.  The problem is when you start talking about newer radars that are largely software driven and capable of doing things with their signals that were simply not possible back when Spectra was on the drawing board. Some of these variations are introduced to achieve the much talked about, "low probability of intercept," which is frankly not all that good a term as that isn't really a feature of a radar, but a combination of a radar and a threat receiver. Other types of complex signals are produced for different reasons, and while they may complicate the work for an EW system, aren't really intended to have that effect. (An example would be an AESA that rather than performing a nice methodical, repetitious scan of the sky, instead directs its signal hither and thither at will to update its information on various targets of various priorities.  It may not be intentionally screwed with opposing EW systems by doing this, but it does make an EW system's job a lot harder.)  The bottom line is that dealing with these new signal types requires order of magnitude more processing power and data handling capabilities, not to mention new algorithms.
 
Spectra has hardware imposed limits on its ability to identify and effectively process extremely complex signals.  Information is always lost when an analog signal is digitized, exactly how much and of what type depends on the system digitizing the information.  (An decent analogy would be music or video compression. )  Older video and sound compression algorithms were not all that smart, they were inefficient and they lost a lot of desirable information.  More recent algorithms have improved that dramatically, allowing things like MP3 to produce acceptable quality despite the compression, but they require a lot more processing power to utilitze.  Getting where I am going with this, Spectra has a hard time identifying complex unpredictable signals in the first place, once it has identified them, it reduces them to a sort of a fingerprint, think a very low bit-rate MP3.  This is perfectly acceptable for simpler signals, but if you are dealing with extremely challenging signals Spectra ends up throwing away a lot of necessary information.  
 
These are not problems that can be easily solved.  The processors doing the work are not capable of doing the far more complex work required, and they are not really upgradable. Upgrading them sufficiently to matter would require new data busses, memory, and for that matter pretty much everything else.   Not only that, but even if the hardware were capable, you would still have to develop the new algorithms to actually perform the work, itself no mean feat.  What is required is an entire new system.
 
That, and the Rafale's transmitters have their own problems, similar in many ways to those I have already outlined, but this post is already far too long so I won't go into it.  I will simply say that they are themselves a limitation and proving to be rather less flexible than would be desirable.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/18/2009 5:11:03 PM
Blue Apple :
 
""BW:
With its radar of , it is as blind as a bat ! Of course its poor ECM suite might warn it that it has been detected and tracked by a mecanical radar (F-22 doesn 't have any interferometry whatsoever so AESA radars will not be detected and tracked) .
 How do you know the F-22 EW/ECM suite is poor? That's exactly the kind of stupid statement that makes you lose all credibility.
All public info show it to be avery potent suite, likely much better than the Rafale SPECTRA in raw performance .""
 
Ok , I shouldn 't have used the word "poor" as it is indeed misplaced and incorrect , my bad .
Nevertheless , the ALR-94 EW suite has indeed something "poor" regarding the overall excellent capability of the fighter (the F-22) . For a very LO Fighter , what is the point to have an EW suite only capable of broadcast jamming ??? If you want to jam an adverse radar , you are going to wake up pretty much everybody around !
Why not using AESA antennas capable to target very precisely (1 degree or less) a single target ?
 
You are going to tell me that is the job of the APG-77 , fine . But only in the frontal 120deg. Do the F-22 Pilot wants to fly toward the adverse jamming radar to be able to counter-jam it ? Well , that 's not very ... stealthy . as well as being counter productive regarding the mission flight plan .
On the other hand , a system like Spectra can jam and counter-jam within a 360deg coverage and precisely without using the RBE2 radar . There is a difference don 't you think ?
 
""The Rafale advantage is that it's based on a more future-proof design (i.e. AESA transmitters vs classic miniature TWT) so that when GaN modules are mature the Rafale can be upgraded while the F-22 will need a complete overall.""
 
Exactly .
************
Rufus , your last post is good and shows a good common sense . I am pleasantly surprised :-)
 
"Spectra" is indeed an excellent name :-) Behind the name there is also an excellent piece of kit :-)
You said to Blue Apple :
""You are sitting here talking about the relative upgrade potential of the two systems, when in the F-22's case the upgrade has already taken place, at least in the newer airframes.""
 
That 's right but Spectra is now in its 3rd incarnation . Since 1999 , the EW suite has been upgraded twice by Thalès and Dassault . They 're not not sleeping over the F1 version , far from it .
It is indeed very difficult to get a clear idea of what an EW suite is capable of as it is highly classified . Nevertheless , as I was explaining recently to a friend of mine , one must use his brain and knowledge of the various systems to read in between the lines and extrapolate what the real capabilities could be , but of course without falling into unknown territory or fantaisy land (which I 've done long ago with the "active cancellation" , my bad) .
 
When you look at what we KNOW on the ALR-94 and Spectra from various official sources , things like band coverage , computing power , output power , precision , library databank , weight of the unit , integration , etc , it is still hard to make a impartial judgement . Myself , I go the Spectra way .
I also think that in few years time , the F-35 will have a better EW suite than the F-22 and by a quite good margin .
 
Rufus , you said :
""The Rafale's issue is not once the data reaches its central computers, the problem is much earlier in the process as it is trying to identify and digitize signals.""
 
No !!  ;-) 
""Being of a modulare design, SPECTRA is controlled by the GIC computer (Gestion de l'Interface et Compatibilité) comprising 3 processors.""
Spectra has more than enough power to identify and digitize adverse emissions . It also compare the signals with its databank in real time and decides on the go which frequencies should be :
-1) left alone
-2) jammed
-3) mimicked (this is probably why Chaltiel talked about "active cancellation" btw)

The new thing I 've noted (from the very recent Thalès video I 've posted) is the probable capability to range the signals .
From some old corridor and pilot talks , Spectra was already capable around 2005 to calculate the range of a known radar after a short period of tracking . I am talking about mecanical radars and not AESA radars . The EW suite was apparently analysing the signal using its strengh , amplitude , time intervals and direction to compute range and bearing .
Actual LPI radars are much harder to "follow" and it is probably the reason behind the latest Spectra upgrade .
I am not affirming anything .
 
If such capability exists , the way the Rafales are going to fight BVR is going to change dramaticaly as well as engaging SAM sites or any emitting target on the ground with the AASMs or LGBs.
 
Cheers .
 
 

 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/18/2009 5:35:54 PM
As you start into your latest cycle of Rafalegasm and you spin up regarding some new magical RWR capability, please try to analyze everything you read regarding finding the range to the emitter by attempting to determine whether it is a reference to increased capability against airborne emitters or only against ground-based emitters.
 
 
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 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50   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