Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

[optimist]

1. yes, the rafale has directional RF active phased array. Up front, one on each side. They are not claiming aesa, as they do for their radar antenna. Nor are they claiming either for the jamming pod at the base of the tail. Do we agree on this?

I'm going to need your help to jog my memory, The 2 under the bow are the laser warning. The 2 in the root of the canard are the directional rf receivers and the 2 on the air intakes are the low power directional transmit. I don't think either are receive and transmit? The one at the base of the tail is the high power transmit, non-steered 360 deg. Do I remember this right?

2. "2025, not 2030 or 2050. "

So in 2025+ there will be FSO enhancements. At the moment, it really isn't much.


3. "Cues Talios for targeting, same way eagle cue their sniper-XR"

You are claiming A2A. I think it may be another misunderstanding because neither the sniper or the ATFLIR are search, track and target A2A

[eloise]

Yes, you do assume. You assume very best case scenarios for the Rafale which borderlines with fantasy (well, they actually are fantasy) while at the same time you assume the worse case scenario for the F-35 a worse case which is even lower than the most modest expected capabilities for the F-35.
In the end, what you're trying to devise here with your "fantasy scenarios" (sorry there's no other way to put them) is the same thing as someone devising a scenario where a WWI Sopwith Camel can win against a WWI Spitfire, simple as that.

Yes, some of my assumptions are more in favor of Rafale, but fantasy- No
additionally, things are not always what they seem
for example: most people would think even old jet fighter can easily have helicopter for lunch
yet when they clash the first time in J-CATCH exercise, many fighter pilots had a big surprise

And NO, I'm NOT assuming the above.

An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof. You do not have classified data of spectra and APG-81, so same as me, you were assuming.

What I'm assuming here (heck, what I'm 99.99% sure of) is plain simple:
- Even if the Rafale's Spectra can detect the F-35's APG-81 emissions and jam it the F-35 will still detect the Rafale first (well before the Rafale can detect the F-35) either by using its own APG-81 Radar or by using its EOTS and better still a combination of both (You know: REAL SENSOR FUSION)

If Spectra can detect APG-81 aka bypass LPI, then it will detect APG-81 before APG-81 can detect F-35. Signal have to travel 2 ways for radar and 1 way for ESM.

LOL, really??
You really want to compare the level of IR reduction of the F-35 compared to the one in the Rafale - it if really has any significant level of IR signature reduction (which I doubt)?
These have been discussed to death here at F-16.net but here are a few hints:
- In the F-35 you have the engine (a single one!) buried well inside the fuselage and shielded by the fuselage fuel cells with cooled fuel while the Rafale doesn't have any of this and still with the Rafale you have two (2) engines which aren't concealed regarding the fuselage itself.
- The engine exhaust - one of the biggest sources of heat on an aircraft - is much better shielded on the F-35 which does provide a much better IR reduction level than the engines exhausts you see on the Rafale - there's "tons" of posts here at F-16.net which indicate and prove this. Strange that you didn't read any of this or worse even in case you decided to ignore such sources!
Since you're the "assumption"/scenario person here, tell me which one looks to be better built to have the lowest IR signature?
This:

Or this:

No they don't! They show you that the F-35 has the advantage over the Rafale in terms of:
- All abroad signature, being it RF or IR. Granted that the RF advantage of the F-35 over the Rafale is bigger than the IR advantage of the F-35 over the Rafale but still and nonetheless the IR advantage of the F-35 is still very big (reasons above) compared again to the Rafale

Personally, i think F-35 IR reduction is better than Rafale. On the other hand, FSO is LWIR + MWIR while EOTS and DAS are MWIR, and LWIR could detect an object with lower temperature.

And I pretty much doubt that assumption of a clean Rafale having a RCS of 0.1 m2 (even frontal). I've said that here several times and I don't believe that for a second!
But ok, lets go with that figure/assumption with out scenario/example: By doing a rough calculation, you'll have a clean Rafale with that same 0.1 m2 RCS but with missiles (fuselage and wingtip mounted) plus the Targeting Pod it rises to 0.3 m2. Plus two external fuel tanks it will rise again, this to 0.5 m2. So by dropping the (expensive remember!) external fuel tanks you'll get back from 0.5 m2 RCS to 0.3 m2 RCS - gee, what a gain in terms of RCS...
And which part of the external fuel tanks being expensive and thus being only dropped in EMERGENCY situations didn't you get??
AGAIN: reducing the aircraft's RCS from 0.5 m2 to 0.3 m2 (happier with this scenario/situation/possibility?) is NOT an emergency situation!

The rising of getting shot down sound like an emergency to me. Bombs are more expensive than fuel tanks, and i can recall plenty of time pilot drop their bombs along with the racks when they get bounced

6 MK-82 with pylon has RCS of 4 meters square?

RCS of AIM-9 missiles is 0.03 m2

What if AAM are stored in stack centerline position

- Much superior Sensor Fusion.

There isn't enough data to compare this.

[hornetfinn]

Personally, i think F-35 IR reduction is better than Rafale. On the other hand, FSO is LWIR + MWIR while EOTS and DAS are MWIR, and LWIR could detect an object with lower temperature.

Usually and in most environments and situations scenarios high-end MWIR sensor (like EOTS, DAS) will outperform LWIR sensors. LWIR sensors have pretty significant cost advantage even today and also outperform MWIR systems in some special cases. Like against cool MIRV/MARV re-entry vehicles against very cold background or dusty conditions (which is why ground systems often have LWIR sights). MWIR sensors are nowadays much better in lower temperatures and usually have at least equal performance to LWIR sensors even against cool targets. But MWIR sensors are still quite a bit more expensive which is why LWIR is often preferred.

This is good comparison between MWIR and LWIR sensors.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2dfc/4 ... 5b5c72.pdf

Basically MWIR is equal or better in almost all situations, except when target is very cool (or in dusty/smoky conditions). Even then the difference is not necessarily very big. For long range detection especially in high humidity, MWIR is far superior to LWIR sensors. Also recognition and identification is much better in MWIR. Dual band systems can have good qualities of both, but single band systems do have superior performance in their operating bands. Dual band systems make it easier to have low false alarm rate though.

[eloise]

Usually and in most environments and situations scenarios high-end MWIR sensor (like EOTS, DAS) will outperform LWIR sensors. LWIR sensors have pretty significant cost advantage even today and also outperform MWIR systems in some special cases. Like against cool MIRV/MARV re-entry vehicles against very cold background or dusty conditions (which is why ground systems often have LWIR sights). MWIR sensors are nowadays much better in lower temperatures and usually have at least equal performance to LWIR sensors even against cool targets. But MWIR sensors are still quite a bit more expensive which is why LWIR is often preferred.

This is good comparison between MWIR and LWIR sensors.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/2dfc/4 ... 5b5c72.pdf

Basically MWIR is equal or better in almost all situations, except when target is very cool (or in dusty/smoky conditions). Even then the difference is not necessarily very big. For long range detection especially in high humidity, MWIR is far superior to LWIR sensors. Also recognition and identification is much better in MWIR. Dual band systems can have good qualities of both, but single band systems do have superior performance in their operating bands. Dual band systems make it easier to have low false alarm rate though.

Skin of aircraft at high altitude is very cold unless they are fast cruiser like SR-71, the sky background are very cold too. Secondly, as far as i know, new IRST such as Legion pod, Pirate, FSO, Skyward are all LWIR

[eloise]

1. yes, the rafale has directional RF active phased array. Up front, one on each side. They are not claiming aesa, as they do for their radar antenna. Nor are they claiming either for the jamming pod at the base of the tail. Do we agree on this?

I don't think they claimed the active phased array are only in the front instead of at the tail, they said jamming signal will be transmitted through active phased array antenna which is just a different way to say AESA Active electronic scanned array. They are the same.

2. "2025, not 2030 or 2050. "
So in 2025+ there will be FSO enhancements. At the moment, it really isn't much.

That is roundly the same time F-35 get Sidekick pylon for 6 internal AAM

3. "Cues Talios for targeting, same way eagle cue their sniper-XR"
You are claiming A2A. I think it may be another misunderstanding because neither the sniper or the ATFLIR are search, track and target A2A

I didn't say any of these pod operate in automatic search and track. But they can be cued by a third sensor such as radar or ESM.

This has included efforts to add powerful AN/APG-63(V)3 active electronically scanned array radars, conformal fuel tanks, and new cockpit displays, as well as integrating Lockheed Martin's AN/AAQ-33 Sniper Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) on the jets.

The latter system offers a long-range identification capability, day or night, as well as a secondary intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance functionality. It primarily finds its targets by slaving the optics to the F-15C's radar. The pilot can also manually steer the Sniper ATP's camera or can cue it to their Joint Helmet Mounted Cueing System

[loke]

2. "2025, not 2030 or 2050. "

So in 2025+ there will be FSO enhancements. At the moment, it really isn't much.

FSO was upgraded in 2013 (from "FSO" to "FSO-IT"). So not brand-new anymore, but should still be quite good?

Developed by THALES, the “Front Sector Optronics” (FSO) system is fully integrated into the aircraft. Operating in the optronic wavelengths, it is immune to radar jamming and it provides covert long-range detection and identification, high resolution angular tracking and laser range-finding for air, sea and ground targets.

The FSO’s powerful TV sensor (cued by the RAFALE’s active and passive sensors) is truly valuable to positively identify targets in situations where a visual contact is required by the rules of engagement.

Since 2013, all RAFALE “OMNIROLE” fighters have been delivered with the “Active Electronically Scanned Array” (AESA) RBE2 radar. They are also fitted with a new missile launch detector and the “Front Sector Optronics” updated unit (FSO-IT), offering improved target detection and identification performance.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-co ... ile_UK.pdf

Of course, the Rafale most likely will still be detected by first, and the F-35 pilot will have a huge advantage due to better sensors, and better stealth. Onf of the few big unknowns would be SPECTRA, nobody (on this forum) knows the capabilities. We do know that in the Swiss eval (2009) it scored above 8 on a scale from 0 to 9... so it must be quite good. Whether it has evolved since then into something more even potent, well nobody knows.

[ricnunes]

Yes, some of my assumptions are more in favor of Rafale, but fantasy- No
additionally, things are not always what they seem
for example: most people would think even old jet fighter can easily have helicopter for lunch
yet when they clash the first time in J-CATCH exercise, many fighter pilots had a big surprise

That comparison of yours would be akin for a F-35 pilot deciding to engage an enemy non-stealth fighter aircraft like your Rafale at short range instead of a longer range where it could shot the Rafale without being detected.
So I fail to see the purpose of your analogy above regarding this discussion (which is maximum BVR detection range).

An assumption is something that you assume to be the case, even without proof. You do not have classified data of spectra and APG-81, so same as me, you were assuming.

My "assumptions" are based on facts and above all on the absolute fact that newer technology always obliterate older technology.
You "assumptions" are based on pure fantasy because they fail to acknowledge the very basic fact that newer technology always obliterate older technology!

If Spectra can detect APG-81 aka bypass LPI, then it will detect APG-81 before APG-81 can detect F-35. Signal have to travel 2 ways for radar and 1 way for ESM.

And here you go with the false premisse that the Rafale always fly with its Radar turned OFF while the F-35 always fly with its radar turned ON

Personally, i think F-35 IR reduction is better than Rafale.

Praise the lord for that. There's still hope in manking...

On the other hand, FSO is LWIR + MWIR while EOTS and DAS are MWIR, and LWIR could detect an object with lower temperature.

Like Hornetfinn replied to you, MWIR sensors are better in the type of engagement that we're talking about.
LWIR are only better to detect stuff coming from the space/orbit or in the very upper stratosphere. This is NOT the case here!
So the F-35 IR signature reduction will give the advantage over the Rafale even on the IR spectrum.

You should learn from and with Hornetfinn. He's a very knowledgeable guy here at F-16.net

The rising of getting shot down sound like an emergency to me. Bombs are more expensive than fuel tanks, and i can recall plenty of time pilot drop their bombs along with the racks when they get bounced

The "rising of getting shot down" means that the aircraft (this case the Rafale) will know that there's an incoming enemy aircraft firing at or getting ready to fire at.
And what you completely fail to grasp is that if the opposing aircraft is the F-35 the Rafale will never know that:
1- A F-35 is present.
2- A F-35 just shot at (your Rafale)
3- Or resuming, the Rafale will only know that the F-35 shot at it when the incoming AMRAAM goes active which would be already too late!

You also completely fail to grasp or simply decided to ignore that there won't be any considerable gain in terms RCS (or tactically revelant RCS gains) by dropping External Fuel Tanks.

But, free to believe otherwise. Guess you can also believe in pixie dust and fairies as well...

What if AAM are stored in stack centerline position

You know that image that you posted above is PURE BS, right?
The Rafale doesn't carry AAMs in the centerline pylon, let alone two of them.
For what's worth I made the mistake of posting that same image as being a fact but quickly learned here that it wasn't.

- Much superior Sensor Fusion.

There isn't enough data to compare this.

LOL, above I though/said that there was still hope in "mankind" or more precisely hope regarding yourself. With that latest part of yours there's clearly not.
Well, with that last comment of yours above all I can say that I'm finally done with you here! I'm not willing to discuss with a sort of a Hallowenee/Cavok/etc... part II wannabe...

As such I'll let others continue with the discussion. I just feel that I wasted too much time here already.

[optimist]

2. "2025, not 2030 or 2050. "

So in 2025+ there will be FSO enhancements. At the moment, it really isn't much.

FSO was upgraded in 2013 (from "FSO" to "FSO-IT"). So not brand-new anymore, but should still be quite good?

Developed by THALES, the “Front Sector Optronics” (FSO) system is fully integrated into the aircraft. Operating in the optronic wavelengths, it is immune to radar jamming and it provides covert long-range detection and identification, high resolution angular tracking and laser range-finding for air, sea and ground targets.

The FSO’s powerful TV sensor (cued by the RAFALE’s active and passive sensors) is truly valuable to positively identify targets in situations where a visual contact is required by the rules of engagement.

Since 2013, all RAFALE “OMNIROLE” fighters have been delivered with the “Active Electronically Scanned Array” (AESA) RBE2 radar. They are also fitted with a new missile launch detector and the “Front Sector Optronics” updated unit (FSO-IT), offering improved target detection and identification performance.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-co ... ile_UK.pdf

Of course, the Rafale most likely will still be detected by first, and the F-35 pilot will have a huge advantage due to better sensors, and better stealth. Onf of the few big unknowns would be SPECTRA, nobody (on this forum) knows the capabilities. We do know that in the Swiss eval (2009) it scored above 8 on a scale from 0 to 9... so it must be quite good. Whether it has evolved since then into something more even potent, well nobody knows.

The 2013 was later than my reference, so it was improved from useless to what it is now and further improvement 2025
Okay, so they tell the FSO where to look, then what does it do, besides 'identify? The radar already has the target. You really aren't suggesting an A2A targeting system are you? I thought the mica missile sensors did that. I haven't seen that claimed. I've seen group statements for air to ground and sea, they would be static, compared to air..
The claim made by dassault is for the FSO
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... e-sensors/
The FSO’s powerful TV sensor (cued by the Rafale’s active and passive sensors) is truly valuable to positively identify targets in situations where a visual contact is required by the rules of engagement.

[eloise]

The 2013 was later than my reference, so it was improved from useless to what it is now and further improvement 2025
Okay, so they tell the FSO where to look, then what does it do, besides 'identify? The radar already has the target. You really aren't suggesting an A2A targeting system are you? I thought the mica missile sensors did that. I haven't seen that claimed. I've seen group statements for air to ground and sea, they would be static, compared to air..
The claim made by dassault is for the FSO
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... e-sensors/
The FSO’s powerful TV sensor (cued by the Rafale’s active and passive sensors) is truly valuable to positively identify targets in situations where a visual contact is required by the rules of engagement.

After OFS or Talios pod are cued toward the direction of target, they can keep follow that target and provide angular direction information (single target track)




Detection range of OFS sound good but LRF is quite short

The optronics will be slaved to the Rafale's Spectra self-defence system, the RBE2 multirole radar, or the missile infrared seeker. Operational deployment is scheduled for 2003 on the F2 version of the Rafale, which will have air-to-air and limited air-to-ground capability.

Thomson-CSF Optronique says exact performance details of the FSO are classified, but it is understood that, at 20,000ft (6,100m), for example, in air-to-air mode, the system will have an infrared detection capability of about 70nm (130km), or 60nm at low altitude, while laser ranging will be possible to 12nm

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ics-50879/

Optronics
Developed by Safran Electronics & Defense, the IRST (Infra Red Search and Track) are IR passive surveillance systems designed for automatic multiple target detection and tracking on combat aircraft. Unlike radars, they are totally passive, insensitive to jamming and guarantee absolute discretion for airborne missions. For example, Safran has developed the IR Search and Track channel of the Front Sector Optronics equipping the Rafale. The IR Search and Track channel uses sophisticated processing algorithms for the automatic detection and tracking of airborne threats and targets on the ground.
The "front sector optronics" (FSO) system is a passive electro-optical sensor developed for the Rafale multirole fighter. Safran Electronics & Defense is responsible for the infrared search & track (IRST) and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) part of the FSO, while Thales provides the daytime video channel and laser rangefinder. Using those two optronic channels, the FSO provides day/night, long-range detection, recognition and identification of air, sea and land targets. The FSO does not emit any radiation and is insensitive to jamming. Fully integrated in the aircraft's nav-attack system, it provides tactical information and target engagement.
Its infrared capacities are essential during night flights, in particular for long-range target recognition.

https://www.safran-electronics-defense. ... /optronics

Rafale can also use Sniper-XR. Basically EOTS

The Qatar Emiri Air Force (QEAF) selected Lockheed Martin's Sniper® Advanced Targeting Pod (ATP) for its Rafale aircraft, marking continued growth and platform expansion for the precision targeting capability.

http://www.aviationanalysis.net/2018/06 ... niper.html

[optimist]

I'm more than happy to be corrected, just explain it to me with sources. Here is the manufacturer's page It says it is integrated into the nav-attack systems, it still doesn't say it is the targeting data source for A2A, it says it provides tactical information and target engagement. It doesn't differentiate between air or ground
https://www.safran-electronics-defense. ... /optronics
The "front sector optronics" (FSO) system is a passive electro-optical sensor developed for the Rafale multirole fighter. Safran Electronics & Defense is responsible for the infrared search & track (IRST) and forward-looking infrared (FLIR) part of the FSO, while Thales provides the daytime video channel and laser rangefinder. Using those two optronic channels, the FSO provides day/night, long-range detection, recognition and identification of air, sea and land targets. The FSO does not emit any radiation and is insensitive to jamming. Fully integrated in the aircraft's nav-attack system, it provides tactical information and target engagement.
Its infrared capacities are essential during night flights, in particular for long-range target recognition.

This is what you posted.
"Developed by THALES, the “Front Sector Optronics” (FSO) system is fully integrated into the aircraft. Operating in the optronic wavelengths, it is immune to radar jamming and it provides covert long-range detection and identification, high resolution angular tracking and laser range-finding for air, sea and ground targets.

The FSO’s powerful TV sensor (cued by the RAFALE’s active and passive sensors) is truly valuable to positively identify targets in situations where a visual contact is required by the rules of engagement."

The image of the plane is there and so it was, with the much posted rafale vs F-22. It can be cued to an area. It has IR and can put crosshairs on the heat source and follow it. Then what is it going to do? It's not a weapon targeting A2A data. The targeting passive sensor is the IR mica system. Or they go radar for guns, RF mica.


"Rafale can also use Sniper-XR"
I thought we covered this at the top of the page, neither Sniper, ATFLIR or Talios are search, track and target A2A. They are air to surface.

[eloise]

That comparison of yours would be akin for a F-35 pilot deciding to engage an enemy non-stealth fighter aircraft like your Rafale at short range instead of a longer range where it could shot the Rafale without being detected.

This base on the assumption that Spectra can't detect or jam APG-81. I am asking the question: what if it can?

My "assumptions" are based on facts and above all on the absolute fact that newer technology always obliterates older technology.
You "assumptions" are based on pure fantasy because they fail to acknowledge the very basic fact that newer technology always obliterate older technology!

Technically speaking: Gripen, J-31, J-20, Su-57 are newer than F-35
I don't think you can say they can all obliterates F-35.

And here you go with the false premisse that the Rafale always fly with its Radar turned OFF while the F-35 always fly with its radar turned ON

For the sake of argument, let say they both have their radar off.
The gap now is much closer. F-35 is not as stealthy in IR as it is in RF.

Like Hornetfinn replied to you, MWIR sensors are better in the type of engagement that we're talking about.
LWIR are only better to detect stuff coming from the space/orbit or in the very upper stratosphere. This is NOT the case here!
So the F-35 IR signature reduction will give the advantage over the Rafale even on the IR spectrum.

MWIR is better in high clutter and high humidity condition
LWIR is better against low-temperature object in cold background.
The scenario is fighters at high altitude where there is little to no cloud. So it fit the bill where LWIR out perform.
As a matter of fact: Pirate, OFS, Skyward, Legion pod are LWIR. I don't think that is a coincident

The "rising of getting shot down" means that the aircraft (this case the Rafale) will know that there's an incoming enemy aircraft firing at or getting ready to fire at.
And what you completely fail to grasp is that if the opposing aircraft is the F-35 the Rafale will never know that:
1- A F-35 is present.
2- A F-35 just shot at (your Rafale)
3- Or resuming, the Rafale will only know that the F-35 shot at it when the incoming AMRAAM goes active which would be already too late!
You also completely fail to grasp or simply decided to ignore that there won't be any considerable gain in terms RCS (or tactically revelant RCS gains) by dropping External Fuel Tanks.

This come down to the assumption on whether Spectra can detect APG-81

You know that image that you posted above is PURE BS, right?
The Rafale doesn't carry AAMs in the centerline pylon, let alone two of them.
For what's worth I made the mistake of posting that same image as being a fact but quickly learned here that it wasn't.

I don't know that
Why/how do you know it is BS?

I'm not willing to discuss with a sort of a Hallowenee/Cavok/etc... part II wannabe..

No, not the same at all.
You can ask others. I am a supporter of F-35. But I often make "what if" questions with " reserve assumption" from what i normally think

[eloise]

The image of the plane is there and so it was, with the much posted rafale vs F-22. It can be cued to an area. It has IR and can put crosshairs on the heat source and follow it. Then what is it going to do? It's not a weapon targeting A2A data. The targeting passive sensor is the IR mica system.

No, in a period of time, when they removed the IR sensor from FSO, they used Mica IR sensor as a substitute. But they don't have to use Mica for targeting information. In normal condition, IR provide angular information, TV sensor help ID and LRF provide range to target.

"Rafale can also use Sniper-XR"
I thought we covered this at the top of the page, neither Sniper, ATFLIR or Talios are search, track and target A2A. They are air to surface.

sniper-xr.PNG (388.13 KiB) Viewed 25823 times

[optimist]

Is it me or you? It's not anti french, you are posting a US system. What part of targeting don't we understand? It can show you pretty pictures of aeroplanes all day long. It can follow them. It doesn't provide targeting data, as it does for air to ground weapons.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ns/atp.htm

[weasel1962]

This must have been posted before. Can't see why anyone needs 10 Mica loadout. Can't fit 2 meteors on centreline due to physics. 3.7m for the meteor vs 3.1m for Mica. Can't fit 2 on the Rafale M centreline either because they took out 1 hardpoint. In practice, I've seen pics of almost every loadout for Rafale's centreline (ASMP, SCALP, GBUs, pods, tanks etc) except AAMs. Just have to wait until the Indians get it, I suppose.

[optimist]

eloise, I just realised what is happening, you are trying to get to a position to say it is the same as EOTS, which does have search, track and targeting in A2A. In fact it was the first US sensor to do both FLIR and search and track. Obviously the ATFLIR, Sniper and Talios don't