2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale

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 8/1/2009 3:56:28 AM

"MK :

""The Gripen has participated in a number of joint exercises, including Red Flag Alaska.""

I did not know . Any link please ? :-)

Cheers ."

You have GOT to be kidding me...

You spend countless hours on message boards as the clueless champion of French aviation but you thought the Gripen hadn't participated in any international exercises?

Here they were at Red Flag in 2008, not their first trip to Red Flag, and with an operational targeting pod at that...

h*tp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/GRIPEN07038.xml

Quote Reply

Herald12345 My mistake. 8/1/2009 4:28:49 AM

I am not a physicist but interferometry is a way (a technique) to analyse (diagnostic) radio (or optical) waves patterns , this allows the origine of the radio (or optical) signal to beknown . Regarding the electronic warfare suites and for the technique to work , extremely sensitive sensors are needed as well as optical and electronical devices and also a good computing power . Better the suite is , better the precision will be .

Basicaly , a good ECM suite will be able to precisely locate the position in 2D of the emitter . The signal is also analysed and memorised for further purposes . Then , the ECM suite can try to precisely jam the emitter if the Fighter is equipped with some kind of active AESA antennas without alarming anyone else around .

As far as I know , the only operation Fighters capable to do so even "clean" are the F-22 and the Rafale .

You know bull when you read it, Steve.

In simple English as applied to LIGHT, (this includes radio waves): interferometry is the means whereby the receiver uses a pair of comparators separated by a known baseline distance. The receiver points at a single emitting light source at an unknown distance away. The receiver takes the common signal from the target and that signal is split and the split signal is routed through the timed interval setup (the known baseline distance separation of the comaprators). The comparators recombine the signal after thus "maze run" and straight run, and a phase interference pattern is analyzed.That will give you a rough idea of how fast the object moves over time as the phase pattern should time change with aspect presentation and distance (if your clocks are accurate enough) as the sugnal moves across the sky. Since we can build two of these rigs with another kinown baseline and use bearing triangulation to get a very rough range we can very roughly estimate that range. Hence two values, speed and range, give us a very rough track. The problem is that IR crest trough wavelength is too imprecise to generate a firing solution over usable time. The phase smear is just too broad for a good crest count in the few seconds that you have and the range; a "blob" almost a sky second of arc across and with a time distance variant of signal that could be up to 1/50th of a light second makes close range gating useless. 1/50th of a light second bu the way is 5994 kilometers. See the problem?

Herald

Twas I not Steve but Thanks

Bw while i thank you for youre reply - your reply wasnt what i was looking for - possibly i should have phrased the question better.

Herald

thanks for youre reply if i understand correctly its using a similar principle to the old doppler nav systems (very broadly) - and rad alt where phase difference is indicataive of a distance.

only interfeen is using the input signal only and no aircraft generated comparator circuit..

im using avery broad analogy so as to keep this very simple i appreciate its probably a great deal more complicated than that.

I recall watching many technical how does it work programs which describe radar as a rubber ball thrown against the wall it bounces off the wall and time taken /speed = distance. a good analogy but wrong radar isnt reflected (and we all use that expression) or bounced its reradiated.

And that is correct. Quantum mechanically speaking a boson (photon) is absorbed and then another re-emitted as a force carrier particle when we describe light as "reflected". It cannot and should not be confused with "kinetics" which is more fermion driven. (two mass particles cannot occupy the same space time simultaneously).

Herald

Quote Reply

Rufus 8/1/2009 4:50:44 AM

"Well I indeed meant foreign aircraft might not be behind in all areas (Rufus statement sounded a bit like that), but I didn't explicitely refer to the Rafale here. I base this statement, which is an opinion on the experience of the not to distant past. There were a lot of new technologies envisaged for aircraft like the F-22 for example which found their way into existing designs around the same time the F-22 finally entered service. I personally expect the F-35 to be the most advanced combat aircraft at the time it enters service, albeit I wouldn't bet it will hold an edge in every single area. The combination of all factors is decisive however and not a single factor only."

Alright, let me clarify.

I do not meant to say that the F-35 will be better than every single other aircraft in the sky in every single respect.

...but its overall level of performance will be unmatched.

Looking at its main avionics...

APG-81- This is the latest all new AESA the US has produced. From an overall technology level it will be the finest in the US, and there is no similar radar entering service overseas any time soon. (The APG-81 will not be the longest ranged radar in US service because it is physically smaller than those on the F-15 and F-22.) The AESA now entering production for the Rafale, likely the only foreign system to IOC before the F-35, is an AESA antenna retrofitted onto an older PESA back-end and will not be capable of the advanced EW and communications functions that the APG-81 will be, nor will it offer the APG-81's range performance due to its small size. There are other AESA projects in the works in several countries, and some or all of them may ultimately produce high quality radars but I am extremely skeptical that anyone will match the APG-81 full range of capabilities in their first attempt.

DAS- An incredible system worthy of its own thread. There is no comparable foreign system.

We have all probably seen this by now but...

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELETsvJZwvI

EOTS- While much of this system is based on the Sniper XR targetting pod, itself a state-of-the-art system, there are some huge differences. The EOTS system is a closely integrated part of the F-35's avionics, the much talked about sensor fusion. It will work seamlessly with the F-35's EW system, radar, and DAS to detect, track and identify both aerial and surface targets using EO, FLIR and IRST modes. Additionally, it is an internal system, and a low observable one at that. There are some targetting pods that can do many of the functions that EOTS will, but none of them do everything it will, nor are they internal or stealthy.

h*tp://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/mfc/Photos/MFC_EOTS_Product_Card.pdf

There isn't a ton of information available on the F-35 EW systems. Based on the information released to date it is clear they include the full range of features one would expect from a next generation aircraft, but making specific comparisons of EW systems is pretty impossible.

Although already beaten into the ground, the F-35's stealth will be a major advantage.

Now, I am not going to pretend that the F-35 will be incomparable to earlier generation aircraft, there will be a lot of overlap in capabilities, but the F-35 is on track to be an amazing aircraft that offers a mix of capabilities unavailable anywhere else. That is why there are so many forces lining up to buy the F-35, and why it attracts as much criticism as it does.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 8/1/2009 5:49:19 AM

thanks,

as youre around can you shed any light on my earlier queery regarding the Tiifys thermal and radar signature.

I am sceptical that it is greatly inferior in either aspect to the rafale or indeed other late 4th gen aircraft, (but that may be blind patriosim)

As im sure certain (possibly easy to apply) some signiture managment was incorporated into the design, however belatedly.

I just feel it unlikely that 2 similar shaped aircraft using similar technoloy will vary so much in terms of signature

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Actually Lynstyne 8/1/2009 6:39:17 AM

thanks,

as youre around can you shed any light on my earlier queery regarding the Tiifys thermal and radar signature.

I am sceptical that it is greatly inferior in either aspect to the rafale or indeed other late 4th gen aircraft, (but that may be blind patriosim)

As im sure certain (possibly easy to apply) some signiture managment was incorporated into the design, however belatedly.

I just feel it unlikely that 2 similar shaped aircraft using similar technoloy will vary so much in terms of signature

There can be a vast difference in reduced signal emission and signal return features between two apparently identical shaped and closely sized aircraft. Shape alone does not determine signal return management. Materials chosen and fit of finish as well as detail design of such things as engine inlets and exhaust can help or hurt an aircraft.

The Typhoon is helped by attention to detail finish and shape choice for its aeroshell. I'm not too happy about her exhaust plume management features, but you have to have the thrust to get the altitude and the TTW she has.

I said elsewhere here today that maybe a tailess or vee tail delta planformn was possible, and that some work needed to be done about the foreplanes. You also need to address the canopy a little bit and do more work on the intake, but as far as I can tell, the major drawback is the belly.

As I mentioned, elsewhere, weapon carriage has to be internal to make a signal management strategy to make sense.

The F-15:

with her high mounted wing can add conformal weapon carrier pods to the sides of her engine tunnels that at least "mimic" concealed or internal weapon stow to a limited extent.

Note also..........

That the engineers at Sukhoi, who are not fools, will look at the Boeing Silent Eagle and see what exploits their own airframe offers them. There are simple things you can do to that bird as is, to nake it less of a huge radar signal return. That is reduce its signature returns, not create a true low observable aircraft. .

Herald

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 8/1/2009 8:49:08 AM

cheers

Im aware that materials matter etc, perhaps should have been more clear, when i said technology i was trying to encompass materials techniques and design etc and thats why expected a similar signal from the 2 (visually similar aircraft unless one really did incorporate more reduction features.

i dont know how good the finish is on the typhoon never been up close.

the pictures poseted way back of the rafale - i found frankly disgusting i would have rejected a ga aircraft with a finish like that. i really hope quality is much improved.

Im not really a fighter buff, nor an expert on stealth, my interst in military aircraft is mainly to see what tech may trickle through to commercial use, particuarly countermeasures.

regards.

Quote Reply

Rufus 8/1/2009 11:00:56 AM

The bottom line is that the Typhoon's signature will be very similar to that of a Rafale or Super Hornet.

All of these aircraft have some signature reduction measures, but none are true stealth aircraft.

Between the Typhoon and the Rafale the Typhoon has the longer ranged radar so it will have the detection range advantage even if the Rafale has a slightly smaller RCS.

Quote Reply

Reactive 8/1/2009 12:43:19 PM

Which it doesnt, most especially from frontal aspect.

The EF could "almost" be considered stealthy from the front, whilst the exact FCS is classified it is my informed understanding (with a very reputable source) that it is considerably lower than people often cite.

Overall it's (as herald said, and especially with a large loadout) not nearly a stealthy, or LO platform, to a SAM system whose radar return hits the belly it will be just as visible as anything else, but in BVR it does have a surprisingly small cross-section, not quite comparable to "true" stealth but an order of magnitude less than any other 4th gen craft. From other aspects the differences are far less.

This is why it achieves a surprisingly high kill rate outnumbered in BVR exercises, and is analogous to the way tank designers have traditionally opted for far thicker frontal armour, the EF, designed as a superiority fighter was optimised to fly head-on at high altitude.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 8/1/2009 1:17:48 PM

I had heard tell the Tyhoon had a smaller RCS than the Rafale - but the Rafale figure was a lot bigger than that quoted hear.

I personnally have no real knowledge about this, but i do think the typhoon looks cleaner, less cluttered - I would hope the Typhoon is superior to most aircraft out there as that was the design brief.

Rafale is a prettier aircraft.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 8/1/2009 8:04:30 PM

""I had heard tell the Tyhoon had a smaller RCS than the Rafale""

It doesn 't seem so from what we know and the Rafale pilots seem to enjoy the first look on the Typhoon in every exercises or evaluations . The Rafales pilots also said that the Typhoon could be tracked way earlier than another Rafale .

The Eurofighter Typhoon has recieved small RCS reductions but it can 't be compared with the Dassault Rafale .

Rafale 's RCS is at least twice smaller .

""(Me) if some rivets are worrying you , just don 't . They are under the RAM coating :"

Rufus : lol ,That is paint bluewings... big difference.""

No it is not . You do not know what you are talking about , it is RAM coating . Then , why Dassault and the DGA would "paint" the aircraft with a nice sawtooth grey design ?

You are bashing freely again ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Herald12345 8/1/2009 8:55:42 PM

""I had heard tell the Tyhoon had a smaller RCS than the Rafale""

Prove this.

The Eurofighter Typhoon has recieved small RCS reductions but it can 't be compared with the Dassault Rafale .

Rafale 's RCS is at least twice smaller .

Prove this.

""(Me) if some rivets are worrying you , just don 't . They are under the RAM coating :"

Rufus : lol ,That is paint bluewings... big difference.""

No it is not . You do not know what you are talking about , it is RAM coating . Then , why Dassault and the DGA would "paint" the aircraft with a nice sawtooth grey design ?

Sawtooth, there, has nothing to do with RAM, and it in fact is USELESS as a dielectric interrupter in that location.

You are bashing freely again ...

You are also lying, freely again, so what else is new?

Herald

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 8/1/2009 11:33:05 PM

No it is not . You do not know what you are talking about , it is RAM coating . Then , why Dassault and the DGA would "paint" the aircraft with a nice sawtooth grey design ?

You are bashing freely again ...

well, when you get the fundamentals wrong, then you leave yourself wide open ...

the discussion is not about the sawtoothing - its about the fit and finish of the material. Have a look at the panel and pattern that both darth and I provided and you see a surface that is irregular and bubbled - its visually there for everyone to see.

You've tried to deny the impact of poor panel fit for over 4 years - and then as well as now I have provided the citations from people involved with signature management, radar development and pilots. These are mainstream journals that are available within credentialed orgs such as the AOC etc.... The last time you even admitted to concurring after you did your own "research" this despite the fact that I used the same citations I provided in Oct 2005 when you tried to shimmy past the science then.

Those pictures that FS (or Couac Attack ?) provided are self evident. Nobody can misinterpret them. Do they need to be reimaged on this thread to make it clear or are you going to spin some other stupid story about how the french have managed to develop corrective signature processes on ill fitting panels and sig managed coating/applique ???

You get the fit and finish done properly in the first place - you don't modify the systems to compensate for an irregularity which can be fixed by refitting the problem panel.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 8/2/2009 4:40:39 AM

If you look at beedals navy matters and on there it states the Rafale was slapped by the Typhoon in every encounter. I dont consider any hearsay valid -I only point the above out to demonstrate favarouble results for every aircraft can be found some where on the web.

I myself doubt the rafale can see the Typhoon before the typhoon sees it, The respective RCS by youre quotes are not to dissimilar and The typhoons radar is a damn sight bigger more power more range and potentialy a bigger scanner can produce a narrower beam (If im wrong its been 15 yrs since i covered Radar fundementals - i may have missremembered the last bit ) so i would expect the typhoon to see rafale 1st.

Rafale Tracking a Typhoon at a greater distsance than Rafale can track a rafale well if youre correct (supposition) and typhoon has a larger rcs then thats not suprising, and im not going to dispute it. but that does not mean it will see typhoon first see above.

To all

many of you have knowledge of each others background and can vouch for each other- so at this point i will give my back ground and hopefully this will explain my damn fool questions and miss informed posts.

I am an aircraft engineer (avionics) - was maintenance now sytems integration,

my knowledge of aerodynamics is basic.

radio radar systems i understand the principles of operation as much as is needed to decide which bits broken. I understand broadly what goes on in the box (eg rf mixed with audio and am fm ) but not down to electronics level.

once the convo gets down to transisters i go tilt.

hope this clears up my ill informed side.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 8/2/2009 6:47:54 AM

personally, I don't see any need for you to validate your position. as I said before to someone else, my only angst is with those who claim expertise and yet regularly and frequently get the basics wrong, get the terminology wrong (while claiming to be subject matter proficient) and those who continue to beat the same drum when they've had it pointed out.

after 6 years on here I've had enough of the trolls, so my desire to continue to play nice and suffer the fools who fit the above is sorely tested if not "gone".

I find it particularly amusing when I see some of the trolls argue with absolute conviction against professionals (who haven't advertised what they do) but who I know of personally, some of whom I've met when overseas for work. I'm quite happy to learn off anyone who demonstrates subject matter expertise...

There's no such thing as a misinformed post when its exploratory (and not malicious in intent)

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 8/2/2009 7:24:10 AM

Rgards GF rereading my post i can only add spelling and grammer arent pre-requisites of the job.

I appreciate youre stand point - i dont post often and when i do particuarly on this and the cdo sf board its normally cos im fed up with an individual spouting drivel.

I have to say as im sure was obvious from nature of a previous post the Rafale Fan club spouting about typhoon and f35 inferiority without any evidence whilst complaining if anyone states the rafale is less than perfect- really grips my sh*t.

xxxx

I did note with interest that allegedly the FAA rejected the Rafale out of hand as a Harrier replacement as it had an inferior strike capability, i can only imagine this is (or was) a weapons integration issue. (beedals article so no real evidence).

The F18 was considered as was a navalised Typhoon - which a friend at Bae informs me is kept on the back burner in case jsf falls through. I have to say i do not believe Bae when it comes to a navalised typhoon - i do not believe it will be as simple as they appear to claim or as cheap.(they do have a rep for being economical with the truth on defence contracts).

Personally if jsf falls through id vote for f18s off the carriers and perhaps new build harrier for the raf.

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

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us