F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2138
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 Sep 2017, 11:28

ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Yes, I'm sure about that. Even if RBE2-AA AESA is based on RBE2 PESA, there can be very little in common. In PESA there is single transmitter which amplifies RF signal coming from modulator. This signal (usually pulse) is the directed via waveguide to phase shifters which form the radar beam. In reverse the signal goes first to phase shifters which form the receive beam and direct it to receiver via waveguide assembly. In AESA there is no single transmitter, waveguide or phase shifters. All that functionality is included in individual T/R modules. Basically only major components that could be retained from RBE2 PESA is the receiver and signal processing unit. All AESA radars are thus pretty much totally new radars as there is very little that can be retained from MSA or PESA systems.

About RBE2 I've found this:
http://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/06/01/serious-squall/

The present radar air-to-air modes include long-range search; multi target track and engagement; air combat modes; Non-Cooperative Target Recognition (NCTR); and look down/shoot down functions. In air-to-air mode, the RBE2 gives a tracking range beyond 60 nautical miles against a 30-square-foot target, with detection ranges up to 75 nautical miles. The radar can track and prioritize up to 40 targets simultaneously and engage up to eight with Mica, and soon Meteor, air-to-air missiles.



Hi hornetfinn,

First of all thanks for the link.
But please notice that the part that you quoted is in the "AESA Radar" chapter which means that data is about the RBE2-AA (AESA) radar and not about the RBE2 (PESA) radar.
So this actually seems to confirm my previous range about the RBE2-AA (AESA) radar range of around 140 km (75 nautical miles = ~139Km).
So and again that data seems to be about the AESA version of RBE2 and not PESA.

My recollection about the RBE2 PESA variant detection range (all assuming a 1 square meter target) was around 100km. If my memory doesn't fail me I read this in an aerospace magazine (which I can't remember the name) in the early 2000's (but could have been in the late 1990's).
If this is the case, and knowing that the AESA has a detection range of around 140 km than this is not twice of a gain, at least not for the RBE2.
Perhaps the reason for this was exactly what you mentioned - That the RBE2-AA (AESA) is a quite different radar from the RBE-2 (PESA)?


No problem. But the quote from the article was talking about "present radar" and it was published in 2009 which is three years before first AESA equipped Rafale was delivered. Actually the first RBE2 AESAs to Dassault were delivered in 2010. So the performance figures are for PESA version. Of course if you look closely, 30 square feet target is about 3 square meters and 75 nautical miles detection range against it would mean about 107 km detection range against 1 square meter target. Not much diffent to what you recollect.

I just found this about RBE2 AESA: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... ries-tests

he active phased array, which replaces the passive array in the RBE2 currently operating on the Rafale, offers many advantages:

- range extended by over 50% for future compatibility with new weapon systems like Meteor
- higher module reliability for reduced cost of ownership (no array overhaul required for 10 years)
- waveform agility for high-resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) imagery in air-to-ground mode and better resistance to jamming.


Of course "over 50%" could be 51% or 100% or pretty much anything. I think the real figure is likely somewhere between 50 and 100% which would mean maximum detection range of something in the region of 170-180 km against 1 square meter target. That figure is perfectly believable IMO given range figures for other fighter radars. I think RBE2 AESA will outrange most PESA and MSA radars, but will be inferior (in detection range) to larger Western AESA radars (like Captor-E or APG-81).
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 6923
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post07 Sep 2017, 13:31

wil59 wrote:The SPECTRA EW allowed us to acquire the target from the Laser Threat Detection


You cannot determine range from a laser detection sensor and without range you cannot fix a target in 3D space. You can still fire a MICA on the bearing of the laser in hopes that it acquires the target, but the picture showing an aircraft being tracked (ie fixed in 3D space) was not being proved by a "Laser Threat Detection" sensor.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

gta4

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post07 Sep 2017, 13:50

To wil59:

Can you prove Rafale can do the 360 deg targeting without help from a 3rd party?
Offline

sunstersun

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 12 Jul 2017, 06:50

Unread post07 Sep 2017, 15:47

France withdraws from Belgium tender.

http://www.lopinion.fr/blog/secret-defe ... que-133516
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post07 Sep 2017, 16:39

hornetfinn wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Hi hornetfinn,

First of all thanks for the link.
But please notice that the part that you quoted is in the "AESA Radar" chapter which means that data is about the RBE2-AA (AESA) radar and not about the RBE2 (PESA) radar.
So this actually seems to confirm my previous range about the RBE2-AA (AESA) radar range of around 140 km (75 nautical miles = ~139Km).
So and again that data seems to be about the AESA version of RBE2 and not PESA.

My recollection about the RBE2 PESA variant detection range (all assuming a 1 square meter target) was around 100km. If my memory doesn't fail me I read this in an aerospace magazine (which I can't remember the name) in the early 2000's (but could have been in the late 1990's).
If this is the case, and knowing that the AESA has a detection range of around 140 km than this is not twice of a gain, at least not for the RBE2.
Perhaps the reason for this was exactly what you mentioned - That the RBE2-AA (AESA) is a quite different radar from the RBE-2 (PESA)?


No problem. But the quote from the article was talking about "present radar" and it was published in 2009 which is three years before first AESA equipped Rafale was delivered. Actually the first RBE2 AESAs to Dassault were delivered in 2010. So the performance figures are for PESA version. Of course if you look closely, 30 square feet target is about 3 square meters and 75 nautical miles detection range against it would mean about 107 km detection range against 1 square meter target. Not much diffent to what you recollect.

I just found this about RBE2 AESA: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... ries-tests

he active phased array, which replaces the passive array in the RBE2 currently operating on the Rafale, offers many advantages:

- range extended by over 50% for future compatibility with new weapon systems like Meteor
- higher module reliability for reduced cost of ownership (no array overhaul required for 10 years)
- waveform agility for high-resolution synthetic aperture (SAR) imagery in air-to-ground mode and better resistance to jamming.


Of course "over 50%" could be 51% or 100% or pretty much anything. I think the real figure is likely somewhere between 50 and 100% which would mean maximum detection range of something in the region of 170-180 km against 1 square meter target. That figure is perfectly believable IMO given range figures for other fighter radars. I think RBE2 AESA will outrange most PESA and MSA radars, but will be inferior (in detection range) to larger Western AESA radars (like Captor-E or APG-81).


Thanks again hornetfinn for your heads up and for the second link (about the RBE2 AESA).

Yes, what you say makes sense indeed.
Probably the value of 140km for the RBE2 AA that I also recalled to have read in the past (note that I'm not talking about the RBE2 PESA radar value) could probably be a misinterpretation of the values shown on your first site/link which instead being about the RBE2 AESA was interpreted as being about the RBE2 PESA and that the 140 km detection range for a 1 square meter target was indeed for a 3 square meter one.
Basically what you say makes perfect sense and it's always a pleasure to learn something new here, namely and in this case from you. :wink:

About of what you said above I can only disagree a bit with one thing that you previously said, which is:
Of course "over 50%" could be 51% or 100% or pretty much anything

Honestly I don't think that's the case (or at least not those values) because:
1- If the gain was/is what you say (170-180km from 100km) than I'm pretty sure that Thales (in the site that you shared: https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/worldwid ... ries-tests) would instead have said something like:
"range extended by over 70%...." this instead of 50%. Even because saying this (70% instead of 50%) would have a bigger advantage in terms of marketing -> saying that a radar has a gain above 70% is much better in such regard (marketing) than mentioning a gain of "only" over 50%.
2- In the sequence of point 1- I would say or at least I believe that such gain - this taking that quote from Thales into consideration - seems more likely (in my opinion) to be something in between 50% to 60%, which would mean a detection range (against a 1 square meter target) of 150-160km.


hornetfinn wrote:I think RBE2 AESA will outrange most PESA and MSA radars, but will be inferior (in detection range) to larger Western AESA radars (like Captor-E or APG-81).


Yes, I fully agree with you on this one!
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 11:07

wil59 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:
wil59 wrote:The SPECTRA EW allowed us to acquire the target from the Laser Threat Detection


You cannot determine range from a laser detection sensor and without range you cannot fix a target in 3D space. You can still fire a MICA on the bearing of the laser in hopes that it acquires the target, but the picture showing an aircraft being tracked (ie fixed in 3D space) was not being proved by a "Laser Threat Detection" sensor.
////
It has a high-resolution angular tracking capability. A laser rangefinder built into the equipment can be used to measure the distance of air, sea or land targets.///
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/de ... -discrets/

How are you able to get a range from an external laser signal (as in the laser beam not coming from your own aircraft) reflecting on another body?

How will you be able to know the exact pulse timing and distance of the original laser sender in context with that reflecting body so you can measure the distance?

For this you seem to need:

* A perfectly synchronized clock between the original laser sender and your aircraft.
* A data signal from the original laser sending aircraft that contains the laser time track together with the distance between the original laser sender and the reflecting body.

Is this how it works?

If so isn't it much better (as in easier and more reliable) that the other Rafale just sends its target data about the bogey to you?

EDIT: Where did his post go? Dang it, I hate it when posts go stealth. :bang:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2138
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post08 Sep 2017, 11:59

botsing wrote:
wil59 wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:You cannot determine range from a laser detection sensor and without range you cannot fix a target in 3D space. You can still fire a MICA on the bearing of the laser in hopes that it acquires the target, but the picture showing an aircraft being tracked (ie fixed in 3D space) was not being proved by a "Laser Threat Detection" sensor.
////
It has a high-resolution angular tracking capability. A laser rangefinder built into the equipment can be used to measure the distance of air, sea or land targets.///
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/de ... -discrets/

How are you able to get a range from an external laser signal (as in the laser beam not coming from your own aircraft) reflecting on another body?

How will you be able to know the exact pulse timing and distance of the original laser sender in context with that reflecting body so you can measure the distance?


I think he is mixing laser threat warning equipment in SPECTRA and laser range finder in FSO. SPECTRA can detect threat laser angular direction, but definitely not range (at least not very accurately). FSO laser range finder can be used, but it needs to be tracking the target itself before that can be used. So it can work only against targets in front of the Rafale.

Laser threat warning system is horrible for tracking targets because targets using laser range finder is only using very short pulses (like in nanoseconds) at relatively long intervals (once every second for example). They are called warning systems because of that and not "laser threat tracking system" for example.
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post11 Sep 2017, 20:09

This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser), when the security bubble around the Rafale was invaded, and to execute the missile launch “over the shoulder.”


No datalink (anyway, the fight mentioned was a 1:1...)

http://www.defesanet.com.br/en/air/noti ... T--RAFALE/
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Sep 2017, 20:33

cavok wrote:
This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser), when the security bubble around the Rafale was invaded, and to execute the missile launch “over the shoulder.”


No datalink (anyway, the fight mentioned was a 1:1...)

http://www.defesanet.com.br/en/air/noti ... T--RAFALE/


Really??

By reading the link that you provided, care to explain what is the part which I underlined and put on bold from the quoted part below (again, from the link you provided)?

This combination of "letters" appears in the lower left corner of the HLD - Head Level Display, giving a real-time and instant confirmation of which sensors are signaling at that moment. Each letter representing either the RBE2 AESA radar, the Infrared / Laser / TV Front-Sector Optronics (FSO), the internal system of electronic warfare SPECTRA EW, IFF (identification friend-or-foe), and data link are merged into a unified and clear visual symbolism directly on the SA display (situational awareness), and that means keeping the pilot in the situational loop. Rarely (not witnessed at any time during our evaluations) would the pilot ever be unaware of the environment within the 360º “bubble” surrounding the aircraft.
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 01:32

What is the problem with it? One part is a general datafusion process description (part you underlined), the other relates a mockup fight with 2000C.

During our assessments, we performed BVR and WVR engagements with the Mirage 2000 C RDI, where we had the opportunity to confirm the combination of the sensibility of SPECTRA EW with the all-aspect launching and target acquisition of MICA IR. This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser), when the security bubble around the Rafale was invaded, and to execute the missile launch “over the shoulder.” Over the shoulder means that a MICA can be fired at a target located at position six o’clock (behind the aircraft) without changing flight direction.


Plain and clear isn't it?

Apparently Rafale is able - in certain circumstances - to passively designate a target at 360°.
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 115
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 02:02

Gentlemen, I think there's something lost in translation ; it's not because no datalink was used in a scenario that precludes having a datalink function on the aircraft.

Also, where is it mentioned in the article that it was a 1vs1 ?
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 146
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 12:27

viper12 wrote:Gentlemen, I think there's something lost in translation ; it's not because no datalink was used in a scenario that precludes having a datalink function on the aircraft.

Also, where is it mentioned in the article that it was a 1vs1 ?


Right viper. Especially considering that 2 loal shots were largely publicized, one using L16 (and designation by wingman), and that one. About 1 vs 1, looked implicit to me.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 13:37

cavok wrote:What is the problem with it? One part is a general datafusion process description (part you underlined), the other relates a mockup fight with 2000C.

During our assessments, we performed BVR and WVR engagements with the Mirage 2000 C RDI, where we had the opportunity to confirm the combination of the sensibility of SPECTRA EW with the all-aspect launching and target acquisition of MICA IR. This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser), when the security bubble around the Rafale was invaded, and to execute the missile launch “over the shoulder.” Over the shoulder means that a MICA can be fired at a target located at position six o’clock (behind the aircraft) without changing flight direction.


Plain and clear isn't it?

Apparently Rafale is able - in certain circumstances - to passively designate a target at 360°.


No, it is NOT plain clear.

The ONLY thing clear is that the Rafale (and not only) may receive target data into its SA display (Situational Awareness - The one shown on the picture and which allows a "360º engagement") from:
- RBE2 AESA radar
- Infrared / Laser / TV Front-Sector Optronics (FSO), the internal system of electronic warfare
- SPECTRA EW,
- IFF
- Data link --> The data link can be received either from wingmen or from AWACS (or potentially other types of platforms).

Again, that's the only "clear and crystal thing" here.

And according the part that you quoted:
[/This allowed us to designate the target from any source (EM / IR / Laser Threat Detection - Electromagnetic Threat Detection / Infrared / Laser)quote]

Note the part "any source" -> That source could also be external, like an AWACS or a wingmen which by the way, you admit that it was present here:

cavok wrote:Right viper. Especially considering that 2 loal shots were largely publicized, one using L16 (and designation by wingman), and that one. About 1 vs 1, looked implicit to me.


It was "clear" that a wingman was present in that engagement which means that by itself the "1v1 engagement" is at best disputable.

Moreover why wouldn't or couldn't a 1v1 "engagement" involve the support of an AWACS?? As far as I know you could have a 1v1 engagement where even both aircraft could be supported by their respective AWACS support.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 20:37

cavok wrote:omgz... Where are you Occam? :roll:

"here is no one more blind than he who does not wish to see".


Ok, I see where are you coming from...

If you have evidence that shows that my (and others here) doubts or reservations are wrong or if you want to dispute/argue them do it so but in a proper manner since posting sayings doesn't make your claims (and that's all they are) any more true than mine or anyone else's doubts or reservations about your own claims :roll:
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 503
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post13 Sep 2017, 21:28

cavok wrote:omgz... Where are you Occam

Occam's razor points to a 1vs1 with external targeting data through a data link.

No magic or other highly implausible and complex mechanisms needed this way.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests