Search found 23 matches: +advanced +sensor +fusion

Return to: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

  • Author
  • Message
element1loop

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

15 Aug 2019, 06:13

garrya wrote:Bay opening might increase RCS for a few seconds, but that doesn't mean F-35 suddenly have the same RCS as Typhoon or 747. Heat from weapons such as SPEAR, JSM, GBU-53 is negligible, much smaller than aircraft itself. Besides, one important drawback of IR system is that their max range is only achieved at minimum FoV. With wide Fov, the range is much shorter, so unless they already looking at F-35, the distance which they can detect the heat signature from the weapon is even smaller. What else? Infrared radiation can't penetrate cloud so F-35 can actually hide the missile launch very easily.


On top of that you have a fusion engine and MDF cues to tell a pilot where the OPFOR EW sensors are and your detectability from each of them with orientation.

Plus F-35 has huge tail feathers and integration of all flight control surfaces which allows the aircraft to sustain a high yaw angle, or else sustain a high AoA in any required vector or orientation, in order to face the open weapons bays away from any active sensor that is within a detection footprint. An advanced auto-pilot sequence could take advantage of the fusion and MDF cueing to automatically orient the aircraft so that it can always launch A2A or A2G weapons without the opening bay being exposed to even a temporary detection potential.
ricnunes

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

11 Aug 2019, 21:35

@euromaster

Jezz, never I thought that someone could spell so many erroneous, just to not say nonsensical BS in a single (huge) post :doh:

I don't have either the time or patience to address all of what you said since again, it's a huge post where everything is just plain wrong that even hurts my eyes and moreover it's clear that you haven't paid a single attention to everything that was told to you.

I'll address only a few of the points that I was able to read:

euromaster wrote:There seems to be some holes in the knowledge on this site and some erroneous comments. A lot of it looks like old information from the mid 90's that is either out of date or was just media fanfare which is fine I guess for casual/fantasy discussion which is not a problem but some of it seems to be taken literally. For example;


You're must be looking at a mirror, right?
In case you haven't noticed it's you and only you who's basing "knowledge" (if we can call this "knowledge") on outdated "90's" info.
For instance you totally and completely fail to grasp the concept of Stealth and sensor fusion and how these alone make the F-35 a whole generation and new and much more advanced fighter aircraft than anything in existence today!


euromaster wrote:I thought I would reply to both of you here because you both, with respect seem to have a rather fantasy view of modern warfare or how an air arm would be used against integrated air defense of this level.


On the other hand I think you'll need to look yourself to at a mirror :roll:


euromaster wrote:Just to be clear it is absolutely not the thinking of any military to send pilots in with short/med range weapons (60-100km range) to suppress IADS that include high end long range weapons such as S-400.


Really?? Oh boy, those Americans, Israelis, British, Norwegians, Italians, Dutch, Danish, Belgians, South Koreans (am I forgetting someone?) must be really, really dumb! They should bow before your highness, the true bearer of military knowledge... :roll:

And you even have the nerve of saying that everyone here is basing their knowledge on outdated info, really :bang:
It's clear that you completely fail to grasp the modern concepts of modern warfare which STEALTH and SENSOR FUSION are an integral and vital part of it!


euromaster wrote:No aircraft will be expected to travel potentially hundreds of kilometers within the radius of such a weapons capability of attack.


Yes, they will. The F-35 has this page available to the pilot which shows how close it can get to a target without being detected by it.
But of course, someone who's access to modern data should be aware of this, no?


euromaster wrote:What's more, the question of cost is also nonsensical,


Really?? And how about the question of sustainability? Is it also "nonsensical"?' Good luck sustaining a conflict based on the success of cruise missiles against highly mobile targets such as modern air defenses and this even for a few weeks :doh:

euromaster wrote:The potential cost of losing an aircraft and its pilot is unfeasible compared to launching cruise missiles. The military has no qualms about firing hundreds of cruise missiles, I do not need to declassify anything, you can read up on Syria, Iraq war etc, cruise missiles were like candy even against limited air defense, let alone S-400 or better class IADS.


As it was already told you and apparently you chose to ignore is that Air Defence systems DO NOT STAY STILL ON THE SAME SPOT, capiche??
You many know where one of such systems is at an instance and shoot a missile 500km or so from it but the next thing that it will likely happen is that the Air Defense System isn't already on that spot when the cruise missile reaches that spot. Seems like you are clueless about another very important and vital concept of modern warfare, which is: MOBILITY

As such, it is likely that even if a cruise missile doesn't get shot down in its away against an air defense system/target that when it gets there it won't find anything - So in the end it's basically the same result as being shot down beforehand!

Moreover, cost again is really important! Not only because of sustainability (like I mentioned above) but also and since these (cruise missiles) are very and really expensive which means that:
- There are few Cruise Missiles available to go around. This is specially true in the event prolonged conflict. And its even more true considering that cruise missiles can be shot down, have a high chance of missing the target and in the event of actually hitting and destroying a component of an Air Defense System (a Radar or a Launcher for example) there's a very high chance that the cost of cruise missile is higher than any of the components that it can destroy.
This is why Cruise Missiles are usually used against Strategical Targets, such a factories, Command&Control nodes, Ammo Dumps, etc...) and never used to suppress air defenses and rarely used to destroy those same air defenses.


euromaster wrote:An F-35 would be even less likely to do this due to its general low performance air-frame, other high end aircraft like an F-22/Typhoon may be able to survive being spotted and be able to leave a hostile zone of control,


You have been informed with updated and most recent data that you're wrong about the F-35 "low performance". Actually what you're quoting is old and outdated and ultimately wrong data.


euromaster wrote:An F-35 could be vulnerable to a large range of popup threats at its low altitude. So as cool as it would be for an F-35 to fly in invisible and bomb S-400's without the whole defense grid not having any idea like a hollywood movie (maybe our friend Maverick will do it :) ) this is not the reality.


WTF are you talking about??


euromaster wrote:This is not necesserily true, where F-35 has stealth in its tool box, Typhoon and other high end performance aircraft have speed and altitude.


Yeah right, that's why the British are developing the Tempest while the French and Germans are developing the FCAS as a response to the F-35 and as a replacement to the Typhoon. The F-35 is so bad compared to the Typhoon that these countries are developing aircraft similar to the F-35 to replace the Typhoon. Go figure...


euromaster wrote:And like I said, you won't get aircraft doing any SAM dodging, there is absolutely no reason for them to get anywhere near high class SAM systems in modern war and unless someone messes up on a colossal scale even a stealth aircraft would not be sent into such a hot zone.


But who said something about dodging SAMs?! The F-35 won't be dodging SAM's. It will detect then first and shot at them without them realizing that they (Air Defense/SAMs) were shot at by a F-35!


euromaster wrote:There is no use an F-35 going into a combat zone with only 4 or so missiles or less,


Really?? How many Air-to-Air missiles does a F-16 brought to an ACTUAL combat zone? Let me give you a hint:
- It's a number between 3 and 5!

As it was told you, the F-35 will soon have the capability of carrying 6 Air-to-Air missiles and besides it can carry 2 more AIM-9X bring to a total of 8 Air-to-Air missiles and this while still have a much lower RCS than a Typhoon.

Moreover a F-35 with 4 Air-to-Air missiles will be far more effective than a Typhoon or any other 4th gen fighter aircraft with 6 or 8 Air-to-Air missiles but to its advantages that were already discussed to the death and should be already well known by now.


euromaster wrote:maybe only 2 AA missiles and 4 bombs, taking out one low end/low altitude system such as a Buk launcher or equivalent and then getting pinged by the 3/4 nearby Buk's, manpads, S-400's etc,


Please stop ignoring what was already told you. The F-35 can carry 2 Air-to-Air missiles and EIGHT (8) (and not 4!) Bombs in the form of SDBII or SPEAR.


euromaster wrote:then getting run down by faster aircraft such as SU-35's, MiG-35's etc. Its just absurd and would not happen in todays information environment. Especially while it has legacy missiles. It may require 2-3 AMRAAM missiles to assure the defeat of a 4.5+ or 4.5++ gen aircraft.


And again, it's you that completely fail to grasp the reality of MODERN aerial warfare:
- You can only pursuit and ultimately shot at what you can actually detect!


For the rest of your huge post (and my post is also getting huge, BTW), I'll let others reply although I'm having the impression that this will be a useless and futile exercise... :roll:
ricnunes

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

26 Feb 2019, 23:12

@loke,

Thanks for your post. That's actually how a good argumentation should happen. Those "two guys above" should IMO take notice of this.

In general I trend to agree with your post, namely on your 4 points above.

However I wouldn't minimize the Radar detection range factor and I definitely believe that this can be a very important and even a "differentiator" because a "good" sensor fusion is dependent on "good" sensors and the main sensor of choice in a fight between 4.5 gen fighters would be the radar because of its longer range (compared to other sensors such as for example IRST) and all of this if there isn't an AWACS present for example.

Even within the context of sensor fusion, longer range radars means that a flight of friendly aircraft could be aware of the position of enemy aircraft this sooner rather then later compared if the 4.5th gen aircraft has a somehow shorter range radar. This IMO gives a big tactical advantage.

Of course one could argue that ESM can track emitting radars at longer ranges than a radar can detect the ESM aircraft/target. But then again, both the SH and Rafale have AESA radars which should have LPI which would limit the effectiveness of ESM.

Resuming, if an aircraft can detect the enemy at longer range this will give it a tactical advantage and when both opposing aircraft have the same/similar RCS (which is basically the case regarding the SH and Rafale) then a longer range radar will be IMO important to give such advantage over the other aircraft.

But like you said the F-35 far surpasses both the SH and the Rafale, this because it has a much lower RCS while having superior sensors (like a superior radar) all of this working alongside the best and most advanced sensor fusion.

And again, I agree that your 4 points that you mentioned above are also very important indeed.
loke

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

28 Jan 2019, 15:54

gta4 wrote:Rafale and Typhoon are advanced version of Gen. 4 and offer no significant improvement over classical Gen. 4. All Gen. 4 fighters with the same upgrades (AESA, targeting pods, JHMCS...) could have similar or better performance.

To lift a classical 4. gen fighter like the Hornet, F-16 block 50/52 or Mirage 2000, or Gripen C/D up to a 4.5 gen standard will be quite expensive, but perhaps not impossible (doubtful about Gripen C -- the Gripen E is basically to the Gripen C what the SH is to the Hornet; such a significant modification of the previous version that most will consider it a "new" aircraft).

One of the hallmarks of a 4.5 gen (IMHO) are the additional integrated sensors (in particular optical and/or IR sensors), and the advanced sensor fusion that is not present in the 4. gen fighter jets. The sensor fusion in Rafale is not as advanced as the one in the F-35, nevertheless it represents a quantum leap over what was present in the older a/c (which often had no sensor fusion at all, AFAIK). Also they have more RCS reduction measures built into the a/c than the 4. gen fighters. Those RCS reductions measures by themselves are not significant, however in combination with modern, integrated EW systems, it actually makes a difference, since the lower RCS allows for more efficient use of some very specific EW methods. There is a reason why the SH, Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen E all have RCS reductions built into their airframes.

The combination of all this makes the 4.5 gen fighters much more survivable than the "half a generation" older a/c -- unless the latter is rebuilt into a "4.5 gen", probably at a high cost.
ricnunes

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

27 Jan 2019, 23:47

f4u7_corsair wrote:
Rafale does fusion too!

Well it does. It's not like there isn't a ton of technical, commercial and reports material that strongly support the statement...


Yes the Rafale does some level of sensor fusion, nobody here said otherwise I guess. However it doesn't come close to the level of sensor fusion on F-35, not even close! There's lot of posts after posts explaining why which are also supported by "a ton of technical, commercial and reports material", so I won't get over there again.

f4u7_corsair wrote:
French FCAF fusion will be the balls not this so yesterday F-35 stuff!

F-35 is today, SCAF is tomorrow. What's wrong with stating that?


Wrong.
The F-35 is tomorrow as well! What exists today regarding the F-35 is only the start of "scratching the surface" in terms of overall F-35 capabilities and this not to mention all the major updates that the F-35 will get from now on and into the future. Now if are able to get outside of your French fanboy narrowminded rhetoric "bubble" then you'll able to read lots of posts also supported by "a ton of technical, commercial and reports material" regarding this.

Now about the SCAF, all that exists are acronyms - first was FCAS, now SCAF and what would be acronym for tomorrow? :roll:
There's not even a single flyable demonstrator and apparently not even a single one is currently being built

Moreover if you care to look at the recent (and post-WWII) history of combat aircraft the Europeans/French have always been one step behind the Americans. The fact is that aircraft like the Typhoon and Rafale were meant to compete with the then latest US aircraft like F-15, F-16 and F/A-18 but after entering the service decades later they (Typhoon and Rafale) aren't necessarily more advanced in overall terms compared to the latest versions of the F-15, F-16 and F/A-18.

The French will be very lucky if SCAF (or whatever name/acronym it will have), will have any competing edge against the F-35.
dorbellwind

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

27 Jan 2019, 10:31

spazsinbad wrote:Advanced sensor fusion goes beyond the ownership of a single cockpit. It is part of a fleet. It connects in order to communicate with the other fusion engines through a high speed network. This affords tremendous synergy as 5th generation fighters operate together in a connected OODA loop sharing sensor information. The pilots all see the same picture on their tactical situation displays. As an individual airplane builds the picture, it is shared with the other fighters on the network.


I'ts just a shame that the network wasn't defined before building the airplanes.
The F-22 can't communicate with the F-35, and its unclear whether what the F-35 can do with L16. Satcom might be the ultimate interconnection backbone but the latencies are too huge for sensor fusion. MADL doesn't seem open to integrate dissimilar platforms either, so its not the way forward. An advantage of this isolation is that no-one expects the sensors of dissimilar platforms to cooperate, I suspect the development teams would die of a heart attack if they thought the F-35 would be expected to seamlessly integrate sensor data (not tracks) from an F-16.

So for the foreseeable future each platform will have its tricks but they won't play with anyone else until the SCAF lays down the standards.
spazsinbad

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

27 Jan 2019, 06:44

'BP' thanks for the SHED (a giant man cave) analogy. Went looking for a reference to the perhaps capability of the pilot to see 'main sensor' for an item on the TSD but in looking (yet to find - my brain hurts) found this excerpt, even if a repeat...

SKAFF with 'where info comes from (sort of): viewtopic.php?f=22&t=52482&p=359619&hilit=Impact+Skaff#p359619
"...Target depictions are graphically coded to indicate where the information came from. For airborne targets, shown as a lollypop, the circle is either hollow, half filled or full. Hollow indicates on-board data alone filled indicates only off-board sensors half filled means both on- and off-board sensors are seeing the target...." https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... er-215810/

Quote below from PDF first other quotes quoted: viewtopic.php?f=22&t=29126&p=318871&hilit=Impact+Skaff#p318871 & viewtopic.php?f=58&t=25647&p=277807&hilit=Impact+Skaff#p277807 & viewtopic.php?f=22&t=25345&p=269147&hilit=Impact+Skaff#p269147 viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24886&p=267824&hilit=Impact+Skaff#p267824 & viewtopic.php?f=22&t=24886&p=264901&hilit=Impact+Skaff#p264901 & viewtopic.php?f=62&t=24745&p=261848&hilit=Impact+Skaff#p261848 [I'm making point that this is a great PDF to read]
The Impact of Advanced Fusion in 5th Generation Fighters on Combat Capability
26 Oct 2013 Michael Skaff, [Lead PVI Designer] Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company

"...Providing for Decision-Making Tools [from dat shed?]
5th generation advanced sensor fusion is more than a fused and correlated picture of battlespace. The fusion engine controls the sensors and tasks them automatically to fill in data and combat identification holes. As each sensor reports kinematic and identification data, the fusion engine notes the data that is missing or data that would be better reported from a different sensor.

For example, a high resolution scanning infrared search and track system may report extremely accurate azimuth and elevation data, but poor or no range data. The radar, on the other hand, may report fair angles and very accurate range. Fusion will task the radar to stare along the IRST line of sight to measure the range.

Fusion then combines these two sensors into a “best features” kinematic solution. Fusion does this for every track and every sensor, as appropriate. Automatic sensor tasking occurs in the background and without pilot involvement.

Advanced sensor fusion goes beyond the ownership of a single cockpit. It is part of a fleet. It connects in order to communicate with the other fusion engines through a high speed network. This affords tremendous synergy as 5th generation fighters operate together in a connected OODA loop sharing sensor information. The pilots all see the same picture on their tactical situation displays. As an individual airplane builds the picture, it is shared with the other fighters on the network.

Don’t misunderstand, we don’t share the graphical picture – we share the fusion contents in such a manner that each participating fusion engine can build its own graphical depiction for the pilot. In similar fashion to how fusion uses the best data from each sensor to build a better kinematic and ID solution it also uses every other fusion engine’s contribution to do the same thing.

Why is this important? Here is a simple example.
Suppose the enemy is able to attack and defeat a sensor on one aircraft. Fusion will exclude data from that sensor and use another sensor or even another aircraft’s fusion results. The chances of the enemy being able to attack and defeat every sensor on every connected 5th gen fighter at the same time are almost impossible.

The synergy of connected fusion engines is one of the hallmarks of the 5th generation…."

Source: http://www.sldinfo.com/wp-content/uploa ... Fusion.pdf (0.5Mb)
bumtish

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

29 Nov 2018, 01:18

More from Giovanni briganti's piece:
In the interest of fairness, it must be noted that the F-35 was designed in the mid-1990s but only completed its development phase earlier this year, so while its data fusion may have appeared very advanced at a quarter century ago, it has become more common.


Which is garbage. F-35 was not designed in the mid-1990s, and the avionics and sensor fusion envisoned at that time was pretty basic, more like F-16++ than the epic stuff going in the F-35.

Going by Giovanni's premise Rafale would be a late 1970s early 1980s design...muh duh :D

Yawn. Briganti writes to those who want to believe...
loke

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

13 Mar 2018, 22:25

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:If that was the case why did both SH and Typhoon score higher than the Danish F-16 (which have been updated continously and AFAIK has this capability)?


For example, because both the SH and Typhoon are probably more survivable than the current Danish F-16. You know, in order to release that GPS bomb/munition you'll likely have to face enemy threats (both from the ground and air).


loke wrote:Furthermore, why did they score much lower than the F-35 if all it took was to release a GPS guided munition!?

This does not seem very logical to me, to be honest.


I can give you not only one but three reasons:
1- A much better ability to perform BDA (Battle Damage Assessment) due to sensor fusion - for example with a pair of touches you can bring up a view of the target much quicker and easier than it's possible with the other 4/4.5th gen platforms.
2- STEALTH plus STEALTH and advanced sensors and sensor fusion. This makes the F-35 much more survivable and this reason alone should grant a quite/much bigger score. It also helps A LOT with point 1-
3- Sensor fusion enables to react much quicker and effectively against targets detected by other sources (and thus better retasking).

Makes sense now??

You are actually making my point!

My point is that contrary what you claimed in your previous post, other factors than just the capability to deliver GPS munitions are at play here.

I would also like to point out that your point about "survivability" may not play a significant role in the Danish effectiveness eval -- the reason why I believe this may be the case, is because they had a separate "survivability" eval in addition to the effectiveness. So it seems they evaluated each separately.

Interesting that you keep mention sensor fusion, by the way. This is one of the strong points of Rafale (according to several experts, including the Swiss professionals who evaluated the Rafale). Unlike us, they knew what they were doing and unlike us they had access to classified information.

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:Regarding Rafale and payload:

Rafale can carry 9,500kg externally on 14 pylons. AFAIK the SH can carry 8,050 kg on 11 pylons...


I've seen those values from Wikipedia but honestly I don't buy them. The Super Hornet is a considerably bigger and heavier plane than the Rafale.
For example according to the same wikipedia the Super Hornet has an empty weight of 14,552 kg while the Rafale as an empty weight of 9,850 Kg for the lighter variant (C) and 10,600 Kg for the heavier variant (M) and the Super Hornet is powered by 2 engines each rated at 13,000 lbf with Dry power while the Rafale is powered by 2 engines each rated at 11,250 lbf so it doesn't make sense that Rafale can carry more weapons in terms of weight compared to the Super Hornet. This is similar to someone saying that the Super Hornet can carry a heavier payload compared to the F-15E, which obviously would be false.

Then you have what is the theoretical "maximum payload weight" and an actual "maximum payload" which is limited to other factors such as actual pylon capability.
For example, the Rafale can carry a maximum load of 3 (three) 2000lb bombs while the Super Hornet can carry a maximum load of 4 (four) of such 2000lb bombs.

Or if you look for example at the GBU-12 500lb LGB, the Super Hornet can carry a maximum of 7 (seven) while the Rafale carries a maximum of 5 (five).

How often does the SH actually carry 4 2000lbs bombs? What else can it carry at the same time? What is the range?

How often does the SH actually carry 7 500 lbs bombs? What else can it carry at the same time? What is the range?

According to this (normally very well informed) blog the Rafale can actually carry at least 6 GBU-12; however it addition it can simultaneously carry 3 EFTs, 1 targeting pod, and 4 Mica a2a missiles.

http://rafalenews.blogspot.no/p/rafale- ... d-out.html (close air support #1)

The Rafale has 5 "wet" hardpoints and can carry up to 5 EFTs or other heavy load. Of course not all possible combinations have been cleared for use, I believe it costs money and time to approve a hardpoint for each combination of munition.

Here is one loadout that the Rafale has demonstrated:

* 6 AASM Hammer missiles
* 4 Mica missiles
* 2 Meteor missiles
* 3 2,000l EFTs

http://defense-update.com/20140127_rafa ... ation.html

Please note the combination a significant a2g load, significant a2a load, and 3 large EFTs, all carried by one Rafale.

ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:The "FSO" of Rafale is quite interesting. AFAIK it will include not just IRST sensor but also a sensor in the optical wavelength, for long-range passive identification; as well as laser range-finding for air, ground and sea target.

Does the SH have anything comparable to the functionality of the Rafale FSO?


Sure but then again the IRST/FSO that you're taking about is mainly for Air-to-Air. It's usefulness in Air-to-Ground missions is at best questionable and so much that one of the main and recent Rafale upgrades was a new and more advanced EO targeting pod. If that IRST/FSO was so good or so usefull in Air-to-Ground missions why would the French invest in a new EO targeting pod in the first place?

First: This thread is not dedicated to a2g only; thus, it is highly relevant to also talk about a2a.

Second: The FSO system can also be used for a2g, if the Rafale does not happen to carry a targeting pod on that particular mission. Sometimes a mission can change unexpectedly.
ricnunes

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

13 Mar 2018, 16:49

hornetfinn wrote:To be fair, all current fighter AESA radars use interleaving (switching modes) to achieve simultaneous operation. When the radar switches between modes tens or hundreds of times a second, it practically achieves simultaneous operation with several modes. AN/APG-79 for example use interleaving of different modes:
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa

With its active electronic beam scanning — which allows the radar beam to be steered at nearly the speed of light — the APG-79 optimizes situational awareness and provides superior air-to-air and air-to-surface capability. The agile beam enables the multimode radar to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously.



Ok, I understand that. Thanks for the heads up.


hornetfinn wrote:It's possible to use diffent modes truly simultaneously when producing several different radar beams simultaneously, but there might not be much of an advantage there as significantly less modules would be used simultaneously for transmitting and receiving.

It's true that we don't know what modes can be run simultaneously with each radar and if there are any real restrictions. I would not be surprised if AN/APG-79 and RBE2 AESA were quite comparable in this area and AN/APG-81 was clearly better than the two (because of having most advanced sensor fusion system).


That's more what I had in mind regarding my previous posts about the AESA/simultaneous modes subject.

I don't know if you agree with me or not, but I would also add that Software also plays a major part in the capability of an AESA radar to perform simultaneous modes since in order for that you'll need to reprogram each or groups of TR modules in order to perform those interleaved/"simultaneous" modes/operations, a task usually done via Software I imagine.
I would also say, add or argue that in order to run "simultaneous" modes in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes that a "better" or more advanced Software is needed compared with a Software that allows an AESA radar to run "simultaneous" modes but all of them exclusively in air-to-air (for example RWS+TWS+IFF) or exclusively in Air-to-Ground (for example SAR+GMT).
Do you concur with this?

And if yes, my point is: How is the Rafale software in this regard?
We know that the SH APG-79 AESA Radar performs both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes "simultaneously" with a 100% or if some prefer with a 99.999% sure/confidence. The same applies to the F-35. Can we say the same regarding the Rafale? (or at least with the same level of certainty/confidence?)

Also and as you said which I fully agree and makes all sense, the number of TR modules or a lower number of TR modules will limit an AESA radar usefulness when using both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes "simultaneously".
From what I've read the RBE2 AA radar has something like 800-odd TR modules while the APG-79 has something like 1300-odd TR modules which IMO seems to be quite a big difference I must say.
michaelemouse

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

13 Mar 2018, 14:46

hornetfinn wrote:To be fair, all current fighter AESA radars use interleaving (switching modes) to achieve simultaneous operation. When the radar switches between modes tens or hundreds of times a second, it practically achieves simultaneous operation with several modes. AN/APG-79 for example use interleaving of different modes:
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa


It's possible to use diffent modes truly simultaneously when producing several different radar beams simultaneously, but there might not be much of an advantage there as significantly less modules would be used simultaneously for transmitting and receiving.

It's true that we don't know what modes can be run simultaneously with each radar and if there are any real restrictions. I would not be surprised if AN/APG-79 and RBE2 AESA were quite comparable in this area and AN/APG-81 was clearly better than the two (because of having most advanced sensor fusion system).



Couldn't a PESA achieve that same kind of practically simultaneous operation by switching as often? I keep hearing simultaneous operation in different modes as an AESA advantage but never as a PESA one.

If a PESA can switch modes as often, then do the AESA's advantages over the PESA all stem from spreading emissions over many frequencies (in a truly simultaneous way this time)?
hornetfinn

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

13 Mar 2018, 12:33

ricnunes wrote:
swiss wrote:
Active electronic scanning makes it possible to switch radar modes quickly, thereby enabling operational functions to run simultaneously



Well, switching radar modes quickly is not the same thing as using modes simultaneously!
And what are those "simultaneous operational functions"?? From what I gather these could even be "basic stuff" (note the quotes) such as using a radar scan mode (such as TWS) together with IFF.

Anyway and please don't get me wrong, but this is hardly an evidence which proves the use of simultaneous use of air-to-air and air-to-ground radar modes.


To be fair, all current fighter AESA radars use interleaving (switching modes) to achieve simultaneous operation. When the radar switches between modes tens or hundreds of times a second, it practically achieves simultaneous operation with several modes. AN/APG-79 for example use interleaving of different modes:
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa

With its active electronic beam scanning — which allows the radar beam to be steered at nearly the speed of light — the APG-79 optimizes situational awareness and provides superior air-to-air and air-to-surface capability. The agile beam enables the multimode radar to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously.


It's possible to use diffent modes truly simultaneously when producing several different radar beams simultaneously, but there might not be much of an advantage there as significantly less modules would be used simultaneously for transmitting and receiving.

It's true that we don't know what modes can be run simultaneously with each radar and if there are any real restrictions. I would not be surprised if AN/APG-79 and RBE2 AESA were quite comparable in this area and AN/APG-81 was clearly better than the two (because of having most advanced sensor fusion system).
ricnunes

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

13 Mar 2018, 00:23

loke wrote:First you say that the SH is superior to Rafale in a2g because it can carry a larger range of weapons. However Typhoon can carry an even smaller variety of a2g munitions than the Rafale, and still the Typhoon scored the same as SH in a2g in the Danish eval?

Then you say that SH and Typhoon scored the same in the Danish eval because they have the same capability to carry GPS munitions?


Look and now re-read the post of yours which I replied to.
My response for you what about your findings that the Danish evaluation found that the Typhoon and Super Hornet were similar (or tied) in terms of Air Interdiction roles.
In order to revive your memory here's what you posted:
loke wrote:If you then look at the Danish eval, for Air Interdiction Typhoon and SH received the same score, which actually was a bit of a surprise to me...


Now you're changing subject and replaced "Air Interdiction" with "Air-to-Ground"??
You know "Air-to-Ground" is much more than "Air Interdiction" - For example if you look at the same Danish evaluation the Super Hornet scored HIGHER than the Typhoon in CAS (Close Air Support) roles, SCAR (Strike, Coordination and Reconnaissance) roles and NTISR (Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance) roles.
So what can we conclude here?? The Super Hornet is superior to the Typhoon in every air-to-ground parameter except AI where both aircraft had the same score.
So yes, the Super Hornet is CLEARLY SUPERIOR to the Typhoon in Air-to-Ground roles/mission.


loke wrote:If that was the case why did both SH and Typhoon score higher than the Danish F-16 (which have been updated continously and AFAIK has this capability)?


For example, because both the SH and Typhoon are probably more survivable than the current Danish F-16. You know, in order to release that GPS bomb/munition you'll likely have to face enemy threats (both from the ground and air).


loke wrote:Furthermore, why did they score much lower than the F-35 if all it took was to release a GPS guided munition!?

This does not seem very logical to me, to be honest.


I can give you not only one but three reasons:
1- A much better ability to perform BDA (Battle Damage Assessment) due to sensor fusion - for example with a pair of touches you can bring up a view of the target much quicker and easier than it's possible with the other 4/4.5th gen platforms.
2- STEALTH plus STEALTH and advanced sensors and sensor fusion. This makes the F-35 much more survivable and this reason alone should grant a quite/much bigger score. It also helps A LOT with point 1-
3- Sensor fusion enables to react much quicker and effectively against targets detected by other sources (and thus better retasking).

Makes sense now??



loke wrote:Regarding Rafale and payload:

Rafale can carry 9,500kg externally on 14 pylons. AFAIK the SH can carry 8,050 kg on 11 pylons...


I've seen those values from Wikipedia but honestly I don't buy them. The Super Hornet is a considerably bigger and heavier plane than the Rafale.
For example according to the same wikipedia the Super Hornet has an empty weight of 14,552 kg while the Rafale as an empty weight of 9,850 Kg for the lighter variant (C) and 10,600 Kg for the heavier variant (M) and the Super Hornet is powered by 2 engines each rated at 13,000 lbf with Dry power while the Rafale is powered by 2 engines each rated at 11,250 lbf so it doesn't make sense that Rafale can carry more weapons in terms of weight compared to the Super Hornet. This is similar to someone saying that the Super Hornet can carry a heavier payload compared to the F-15E, which obviously would be false.

Then you have what is the theoretical "maximum payload weight" and an actual "maximum payload" which is limited to other factors such as actual pylon capability.
For example, the Rafale can carry a maximum load of 3 (three) 2000lb bombs while the Super Hornet can carry a maximum load of 4 (four) of such 2000lb bombs.
Here:
Image

And here:
Image

So as you can see in terms of 2000lb bombs the Super Hornet can carry more than the Rafale.

Or if you look for example at the GBU-12 500lb LGB, the Super Hornet can carry a maximum of 7 (seven) while the Rafale carries a maximum of 5 (five).



Regarding the Rafale Radar capabilities that you posted, again none proves that it can do simultaneous air-to-air and air-to-ground, just like I previously replied to Swiss.


loke wrote:We know that France will invest heavily in Rafale EW capabilities since they have no F-35 and no Growler.

Thus IMHO one should not be surprised if the EW capabilities of the Rafale is superior to the SH EW capabilities today, and also in the future.


Perhaps the Rafale could have a edge over the -E/F variant of the SH in terms of EW but definitely not compared to the Growler. Never said anything contrary to this, did I?

loke wrote:Regarding IR sensors: The SH has a peculiar solution, mounting the IRST in the central drop tank, limiting loadout options.

.......

The "FSO" of Rafale is quite interesting. AFAIK it will include not just IRST sensor but also a sensor in the optical wavelength, for long-range passive identification; as well as laser range-finding for air, ground and sea target.

Does the SH have anything comparable to the functionality of the Rafale FSO?


Sure but then again the IRST/FSO that you're taking about is mainly for Air-to-Air. It's usefulness in Air-to-Ground missions is at best questionable and so much that one of the main and recent Rafale upgrades was a new and more advanced EO targeting pod. If that IRST/FSO was so good or so usefull in Air-to-Ground missions why would the French invest in a new EO targeting pod in the first place?


loke wrote:Does the current SH have laser warning sensors integrated, similar to the Rafale? I tried to find info on this but could not find any?


Probably not but I already addressed this in the EW "section" above.


loke wrote:And again; has the sensor fusion of the SH reached the same level of complexity and maturity as the Rafale sensor fusion? The Rafale sensor fusion was praised by the Swiss already in 2008 -- since then it has been much improved.


The Super Hornet as sensor fusion indeed. Probably on the same/similar (if not better) level as the Rafale.
loke

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

15 Feb 2018, 09:06

I strongly doubt the larger radar of J-20 is going to compensate for all the other shortcomings it will have compared to the latest and most advanced from the US.


Look at F-15 vs. F-16 -- they have in general been at the same technology level, and the F-15 has a much bigger radar; still in exercises it has been demonstrated that all the benefits of having a larger a/c does not mean complete superiority over the F-16; that is having the same technology level. As clearly stated by Hornetfinn, the IAF, and several other experts the Chinese are still far behind the (military) technology level in the West. A larger a/c is not going to compensate fully for that.

Furthermore, modern radars are 20% hardware and 80% SW; The Rafale AESA is becoming very mature now. The Chinese are far behind with their radar technology. Having a large and powerful radar is actually going to hurt not help you if you don't have LPI techniques implemented properly!

Also, as I have stated repeatedly RCS cannot be eyeballed. Even if they have managed to steal drawings from the US to build what looks like a 5. gen, it is not there yet. However it does give a big boost to the Chinese development of course; and if they get the the shape right then they can focus on all the other bits over the next 15-20 years; materials science, engines, sensors, sensor fusion, datalinks, missiles, ECM, ECCM, etc. etc.

Also keep in min that 5. gen means more than RCS and sensor fusion; it also means IR stealth -- they are still far behind also there.
ricnunes

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

13 Feb 2018, 23:44

loke wrote:I agree --- some people here on the one hand seem to alway point out how incredibly large the gap is between the F-35/F-22 and anything else flying out there and at the same time drawing the illogical conclusion that countries just starting to develop this technology magically will be able to catch up in almost no time...


The "incredibly large the gap is between the F-35/F-22 and anything else flying out" is an undeniable reality which didn't start now with the F-22/F-35. This large gap have existed for decades.
You would notice this if you paid attention to what I previously said instead of being busy accusing my arguments of being internally inconsistent.
As such you would notice that the "large gap" is not only between US fighter/combat aircraft and Chinese or Russian ones but the same "large gap" also exists between the US fighter/combat aircraft AND European fighter aircraft.
So who's arguments are being internally inconsistent now?? :roll:


loke wrote:There is a reason why so far only the US has 5. gen fighter a/c flying. The reason is simply that it is very, very hard. It takes a lot of resources, and a lot of very advanced R&D to make it. You cannot just turn around and make a 5. gen fighter.


So according to what you say, in order to develop a 5th gen fighter aircraft there's the need of:
1- Lots of resources - Check for China!
2- Advanced R&D - Also check for China!

(and then you accuse my arguments of being inconsistent, LOL :roll: )

loke wrote:As pointed out many times before you cannot eyeball RCS. And you definitely cannot eyeball things like sensor fusion either...

Ricnunes your arguments are internally inconsistent. Just because an a/c looks like a "5. gen" does not mean it has the same technology level than a Western "5. gen" fighter, and in this particular case not even the same tech level as a Western "4.5 gen".

As stated many times before, China in the future most likely will make fighters that will be superior to Rafale. However they are not there quite yet.


While we cannot "eyeball RCS", anyone who's willing to understand the very basic concepts of modern combat aircraft knows that:
- External stores (Weapons, EFTs and Pylons) increase RCS while Internal stores such as weapon DO NOT increase RCS at all! Rafale and all other 4.5th gen fighter aircraft carries stores externally while the J-20 carries internally - Doesn't need be a RCS expert to reach the conclusion which one will have the highest RCS penalty!
- Lower RCS is also better obtainable if the aircraft is designed from the outset to have a low RCS compared to if having a low RCS is projected/designed as an "afterthought" (which is what happens with all the 4.5th gen fighter aircraft). Guess which one was designed from the outset to have a low RCS and which one wasn't or more precisely in which one had the low RCS requirement seen as an afterthought??
- Resuming the very same source(s) that say "you cannot eyeball RCS" also say that "stealth isn't something that you can add" to an existing aircraft.

So while you cannot "eyeball RCS" in terms of absolute values (square per meters for example) you can "eyeball RCS" in comparative terms specially with the evident and glaring case of the J-20 compared with 4.5th gen fighter aircraft such as the Rafale.

But feel free to continue to call my arguments as "being internally inconsistent" if it helps your rhetoric. :roll: But let me be the bearer to bad news - calling my arguments as being internally inconsistent doesn't change a bit of how things work in the real world...
Next

Return to: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale