Dassault VP : Rafale's successor will join Eurofighter Consortium-like Euro Consortium.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

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 NEXT

MK 10/26/2009 5:08:19 PM

Why don't you read the underlined again? I think you did not understand what I said at all. Change that to, you did not understand that at all.

I actually red what you wrote. There might have been some collaboration at a given time, but the development went on more independently later on. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so much individual programmes aimed at research, development and risk reduction.

The statement that the French planned for AESA was fallacious. They did exactly what I said they did, picked the wrong radar architecture for what they thought was its proven advantage for .simpler construction and for its phased array beam steering advabvatages over scan track for air to ground. They goofed up the vertical gating so that the side-lobe noise painted a bulls-eye on the Rafale with the Rafale's RBE2 screaming, "here I am, kill me!" .

They planned for AESA in the long term as did Eurofighter. But at the time design decisions had to be made it was expected that the AESA technology wouldn't be available on time in an acceptable form. The each manufacturer selected the technology he believed to be adequate until an AESA solution would be viable for operational application.

Underlined......that is humor, right?

To my understanding the french aimed at lower detectability of the radar emissions and expected PESA to be the better approach for achieving that goal than a MSA.

Not actually so about bolting an AESA onto the front end of a PESA since its the entire ARRAY that has top be switched out . It turns out, that a active phased array can be bolted onto the front of an old conventional radar rather more easily than is erroneously thought. That was AN/APG-63, and AN/AN/APG 63(v) 3 in the F-15 Eagles for example. That shows me something about the misconceptions from which you argue.

True it has shown that MSA radars could be retrofitted with an AESA antenna without to much difficulties. Yet a PESA might require fewer software work as the modes are already in scope with agile beam sweeping inherent to ESA designs.

The Captor can "see" further. And why can't the Typhoon Tranche 1's be back-fitted? Its a physical change out at the power connections. Maybe you are afraid of software integration and coding for the family of delivered weapons that a change in radar would entail? Any change or upgrade in a sensor involves that software and coding risk. Why not fund and fit if the customer demands? I refer you again to the F-15 upgrades the Americans undertook.

It's the manufacturer which states that, though it's probably more leaned towards the incompatibily of Captor-C. Captor-D was designed with a later AESA retrofit in mind and the CAESAR was actually based on the Captor-D. T2 aircraft feature the required provisions, T1 examples lack them. It might still be possible with some more extensive work being conducted as DA5 has shown.

It didn't work. That is why MEADS is in trouble-not the rockets, but the GERMAN radars. (Not French) Swash plate indicates a FoV issue which I expected.

I haven't followed the MEADS programme at all so I can't comment/judge that. The TRMs seem to work however, otherwise CAESAR or RBE2AA wouldn't have worked either.

FoV is an issue for ALL E-scan radars due the small aperatur of the antenna at higher gimbals and power looses of phase shifting necessary to direct the beam. The swash-plate is meant to address these issues inherent to fixed ESA designs and even extend the max FoV.

Why don't you read your own previous paragraph? You just said so and what work share there was!

Did I? Where? There was work on the TRMs besides the germans and french. Any share in these or other areas isn't specified in any source I have seen.

I gave you a source for that data including some energy envelope performance curves as graphed. I don't think you have a case. You certainly have the propaganda pat.

You provided a link to a nice paperwork exercise, which is by no means official or verified in any way. The author him self states that the results are inaccurate due the lack of proper data. Some

Quote Reply

french stratege 10/26/2009 6:21:09 PM

Hamilcar
From a French commentator putting the best face he can on the Squall.

If I were you I would not give a link where commentator write:

The technological superiority of the Rafale vis-a-vis its American rivals is however shadowed by its inferior operational record in recent conflicts, as opposed to the extensive engagements of the Falcons and Eagles in Iraq, Kosovo or Afghanistan.

...

Political factors may explain repeated failures in the export market, but are Dassault and the French government really pushing to sell their technological jewel?

...

If the French genius has once again given birth to a technological marvel, the problem, for the Rafale and for Dassault, lies in the fact that when it comes to commercial skills and influence, the genius lies on the other side of the Atlantic.

LOL

Now on the PESA, it was obvious that when Rafale was designed in the nineties that an X band AESA radar would not be mature and available at a correct price before 2006.

So we have to use PESA technology (like US used on B1B, AN/APQ-181 of B2, Predator or AEGIS naval system when affordable AESA was not available), and invest in parallel on AESA and its key items which are MMIC.

I remember you that:

F15 APG-63(V)2 was more a field test program delivered only on 18 F15 to test on field AESA tech, and its radar is bulky and very costly (price of MMIC were not compatible with mass delivery),

(Raytheon delivered the first prototype APG-63(V)3 system in June 2006)

F16 E AN/APG-80 was delivered only in 2003,

F18 APG-79 radar completed formal operational evaluation (OPEVAL) testing in December 2006. As of January 2007 the radar was installed in 28 aircraft

French RBE2 AESA will be delivered in 2010.Which is not bad considering we are few years on MMIC technology.

So we have to develop the radar using US components for the time our french UMS produced components would be available.

Having ASAP a scan array radar was mandatory for the Rafale concept especially in low level penetration and LPI features.

On threat matrix:

It is clear that we are not planning a war with USA but with an ennemy which would have at best a SU30 MKI like aircraft for now.

Full LO features+Spectra of Rafale are mandatory to have best efficiency but are the most secrets things especially since Rafale F3 is part of our nuclear deterrent.It is not possible to provide the same system abroad and performance will depends on strategic partnership level.

1)For the french Rafale F3 PESA with full LO features+Spectra:

For now it outclass any SU30 or F15 for first detection which have a big RCS, and is even OK vs a F18E for first detection

Mica IR adds a lot for PK and tactical advantage.

BTW against a F22, radar does not matters whatever PESA or AESA since detection and combat would rely on passive means and survivability (ECM+LO).Indeed the PESA RB2 would not have more than a 20 km range considering public data, and 30 km at most with an AESA.This for the improbable case France or its customer would confront an F22.

AESA will keep a confortable edge vs SU35 even with its new radars and its reduced RCS.

2) For dowgraded combo of LO+ECM

Of course if you remove best combo of LO+ECM, competitivity of Rafale changes a lot and needs AESA even now vs a SU30 MKI for exemple.

Quote Reply

sinoflex to GF etal 10/26/2009 6:21:11 PM

No-one is a complete expert on any of these matters in a public forum, but seriously, some of the trite nonsense trotted out in the aviation and special forces forums as empirical fact should make the dead hurt themselves laughing.

While I can certainly understand that people have passions and fanboy adoration of their favorite platforms, it is rather hubric to come to positions of obsessive certainty purely from scouring open source information on the net. Even in my own chosen profession of IT is difficult to claim any degree of expertise given the amount of information one has to absorb on a regular basis and the need to actually apply it to gain the experience necessary to fully exploit that information. At best I can only hope to be competent most of the time.

I for one appreciate when knowledgeable people like yourself and others here take the time to actually explain concepts and paradigms. I think I have learnt a fair bit and come to better appreciate the proper mindsets required so please accept my thanks for making the effort despite the obvious frustrations.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/26/2009 7:42:36 PM

Why don't you read the underlined again? I think you did not understand what I said at all. Change that to, you did not understand that at all.

I actually read what you wrote. There might have been some collaboration at a given time, but the development went on more independently later on. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so much individual programmes aimed at research, development and risk reduction.

No you didn't. The cross sensor work among the Australians, British, Germans, Americans, Italians, Norwegians, and the Dutch (even the Turks) never stopped. Guess whose names you significantly don't see? Israel, Korea, and France, Guess what all the named have in common? (Its the F-35, Some are in, some are OUT. Gee (treachery, selling restricted technologies to none NATO and untrusted adversary states) I wonder why?).

The statement that the French planned for AESA was fallacious. They did exactly what I said they did, picked the wrong radar architecture for what they thought was its proven advantage for .simpler construction and for its phased array beam steering advantages over scan track for air to ground. They goofed up the vertical gating so that the side-lobe noise painted a bulls-eye on the Rafale with the Rafale's RBE2 screaming, "here I am, kill me!" .

Underlined......that is humor, right?

To my understanding the French aimed at lower detectability of the radar emissions and expected PESA to be the better approach for achieving that goal than a MSA.

But they screwed it up. Let me write it again. They screwed the RBE2 up. It radiates side-lobe noise.

Not actually so about bolting an AESA onto the front end of a PESA since its the entire ARRAY that has to be switched out . It turns out, that a active phased array can be bolted onto the front of an old conventional radar rather more easily than is erroneously thought. That was AN/APG-63, and AN/AN/APG 63(v) 3 in the F-15 Eagles for example. That shows me something about the misconceptions from which you argue.

Actually the software claim is also fallacious. especially if the code model for the PESA beam steer is WRONG.

The Captor can "see" further. And why can't the Typhoon Tranche 1's be back-fitted? Its a physical change out at the power connections. Maybe you are afraid of software integration and coding for the family of delivered weapons that a change in radar would entail? Any change or upgrade in a sensor involves that software and coding risk. Why not fund and fit if the customer demands? I refer you again to the F-15 upgrades the Americans undertook.

It's the manufacturer which states that, though it's probably more leaned towards the incompatibility of Captor-C. Captor-D was designed with a later AESA retrofit in mind and the CAESAR was actually based on the Captor-D. T2 aircraft feature the required provisions, T1 examples lack them. It might still be possible with some more extensive work being conducted as DA5 has shown.

I wouldn't trust THALES to tell me how to wire a lightbulb. Nor would I trust them to tell me the first thing about how to pour water out of a boot. As much as they've screwed up in avionics I'm surprised they've not been prosecuted for fraud.

Zum

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers GF 10/26/2009 10:48:58 PM

Gentlemen, let me thank for these very entertaining threads and offer a contrarian view on the whole Rafale issue.

I know nothing about aviatian (which is why i am but a silent observer) but if i had to crack open a book on aviation or on the Rafale, i probably would have dozed off after the first few pages. On the other hand, these threads have been so immensely entertaining that i have been regaling my office mates with bursts of unbridled laughter and fart-guffaws on a daily basis while reading the prose of some of the posts, the hyperbole, the personality wars, the personal jibes, the insults flying fast and furiously like so many Sidewinders hahaha, while never tiring of reading.

I thank you all for this didactic experience and am surprised that Sysops would delete such a mine of technical info and drama from its pages....

GoG

Well, I guess I have to say that after seeing some posters trot out the same nonsense over 5-6 years, when the same rubbish has been comprehensively dismissed, when its apparent that some of the claimed expertise has come from technical luddites and when some of the other contributors do work in this environment or field - then my patience has gone to zero and my tolerance has gone cost negative. :) So when I see posters questioning the competency and technical abilities of people like warpig, then I'm more than happy to be the dragonslayer.

I'm in my 50's, whatever patience and suffering I have is reserved for those produced from my loins or friends and family, I'm becoming less tolerant as I get older. Maybe its the job. :) As such, I'm not wasting bandwidth anymore on trolls. tyhe colour of their money and their competency gets flagged very quickly, so their own capabilities don't need people with actual knowledge trotting out to hilight it everytime they make some silly claim and present it as fact. I have lots of time for people who are prepared to listen and understand, I have ZERO for those who pretend to be connected, or pretend to be subject matter experts and yet clearly don't understand some of the technical or factual interconnects.

OTOH, you have the patience of moses - something which I've always admired but never had the helix count to do it myself. its an admirable trait.

Patience is a classic Indonesian trait. It can be a bad thing as well, as it means that you are more ready to put up with what others wouldn't!

I appreciate the frustration of the tech people in this conversation, my old friend, but as i have no technical background, I can't follow you guys in the intricacies of the Rafale discussion. Remember one thing though, in the military world the difference between a White Elephant and a "World Class" system is a knife's edge away.

I remember very vividly seeing the Harrier for the first time on TV in the UK. I was 13 years old; it was 1979. It was the tmost incredible thing i had ever witnessed. Vertical takeoff. Over the years the military was castigated by the press who said it was a white elephant. But after successful sales and the Falklands War, suddenly the fiasco label came away.

Quote Reply

RedParadize 10/26/2009 11:00:20 PM

Godofgamblers, that was a very wise and advised comment.

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/26/2009 11:10:36 PM

Thanks RP. I have brief moments of lucidity in my old age hehe.

Quote Reply

Nichevo 10/26/2009 11:22:29 PM

Godofgamblers, that was a very wise and advised comment.

Yes, we see this from time to time...if he keeps it up we'll begin to suspect that it is not accidental...

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/26/2009 11:58:25 PM

Naaaa..... just a fluke.... monkeys on the typewriters kinda thing hahaha

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/27/2009 2:08:56 AM

The same can be said for the Collins sub and various other military products over the years; the seesaw come-and-go from fiasco to success can be confusing. The point is, if Rafale were to suddenly secure two or three customers, or acquit themselves in a war (either of which could easily happen), suddenly this whole argument would be in a wholly different light. So we must keep perspective on everything.

ah, but here's the thing. If anything I am tougher on australian procurement processes than I am on foreign ones. the australians on here can attest to that as they've probably seen me unload on various forums about management and engineering issues.

what seems to be forgotten is that my comments on Rafale (or any other platform) are based on technical issues, on engineering issues etc... and my frustration is about some posters who clearly have never been involved in platform assessments, in technical definition work, or in engineering aspects. when some of those individuals come out with absolute rubbish - and I mean absolute rubbish in the clearest possible terms, and then have the temerity to question others in here who do have real life involvement, real life expertise and have clearly demonstrated in the tone and content of their answers - then I will not sit back and let them continue to promote that nonsense as fact. The commentary about signature management and RCS issues is but just one issue that stands out like a hippo wearing lipstick in a yard full of ducks. I'm happy to demonstrate and apply tolerance, but not for serial offenders, not for people who clearly push the envelope and work on the premise that maybe the viewing audience have the memory of a goldfish and won't remember their previous attempts at misrepresenting empirical truths.

you might suffer trolls - I won't. :) the oriental side of my heritage is obviously closer to subodai than it is to buddha.

Quote Reply

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 NEXT