F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

monkeypilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 19:09

Not so sure. Some recent radars (including some mechanical), have mode allowing to track without changing emission type from painting. Much easier to hide a target that it is tracked with an AESA than without. As Meteor can be used from very long distances, one can have a "stealthy shot" (without being detected thanks to these radar modes and distance. ??
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 19:43

hythelday wrote:
swiss wrote:
tailgate wrote: Couple that with the stealthy aspects of AESA and you might get a” stealthy “ shot off before he knows he’s been shot at. Maybe the advantage that overcomes overall stealth. Don’t think the 22 or 35 will see much outside of what we field currently besides software upgrades.


Is it so difficult to detect a Meteor? or goes that for all AAM?


I think tailgate meant radiation from AESA active homing seeker on Meteor could be designed much harder to be picked up by target's ECM.


Absolutely ! It is unnerving enough to be shot at by something you didn't even know was there or can't even see. I never had an issue with not knowing who was "looking" at me in the 22, but in the back of your mind your always worried about the shot that might get thru or isn't seen.
My dad told stories of his exploits of Vietnam with the SAM threat and being able to "see" the missile. He told me it was one thing to have bells and whistles going off saying that there was something there, but always wanted to see it whit the good ole eyeball. May have not changed any outcome, just made him feel better
Getting that weapon close or nearer to the target as undetected as possible changes the ability to effectively evade or countermeasure that weapon. Any time you can shorten a response time its a win win. I think the Meteor is an attempt at that. Now can it challenge the sensor technology on the 22 or 35, i don't know, but my opinion is it will be more effective against current threats faced from "other countries". Missiles know have already greatly improved their ability to "maneuver' and target a "maneuvering" adversary. You couple that with the ability to get in close undetected and it might be a game changer.
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 19:52

swiss wrote:Thanks for the intersting inside view of a Dogfight tailgate and blindpilot.

tailgate wrote: Couple that with the stealthy aspects of AESA and you might get a” stealthy “ shot off before he knows he’s been shot at. Maybe the advantage that overcomes overall stealth. Don’t think the 22 or 35 will see much outside of what we field currently besides software upgrades.


Is it so difficult to detect a Meteor? or goes that for all AAM?

So for a modern Dogfight thrust/acceleration is more important then a 3D TVC?


In my opinion yes, speed and energy are the game changer. Flips, stalls, nose pointer are wonderful, but being able to out accelerate or just out "muscle", if you will, your opponent......priceless. It's also top notch to retreat and fight another day than to push a bad position and smoke an asset that is already in limited numbers.
Shoot down a 22, Rafale, or Typhoon, or any other expensive platform and they just aren't readily replaced. In today's time you start loosing platforms and it becomes expensive quick. Unfortunately "we" may not look at it this way, but the money cruncher's do. With the numbers of F-22's that we have, loosing one, even in everyday, operational accidents, degrades the total force.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1376
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 20:40

hythelday wrote:
swiss wrote:
tailgate wrote: Couple that with the stealthy aspects of AESA and you might get a” stealthy “ shot off before he knows he’s been shot at. Maybe the advantage that overcomes overall stealth. Don’t think the 22 or 35 will see much outside of what we field currently besides software upgrades.


Is it so difficult to detect a Meteor? or goes that for all AAM?


I think tailgate meant radiation from AESA active homing seeker on Meteor could be designed much harder to be picked up by target's ECM.


But isn't the active homing seeker on the Meteor a MSA one (like the AMRAAM) instead of an AESA one?

I could be wrong but from what I read there's indeed a variant of the Meteor being developed together with Japan which will include an AESA active homing seeker but again such missile (variant) is still to be developed.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 21:55

The last I heard was the RF sensor was being done by the french and based on/is the mica sensor. A Japanese aesa would be a different missile variant for japan and who they may be able to on-sell to.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

tailgate

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 121
  • Joined: 19 Aug 2017, 02:46

Unread post11 Jan 2018, 22:47

Greets Ricunes, I was just speculating on his original question.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1376
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 00:40

tailgate wrote:Greets Ricunes, I was just speculating on his original question.


Hi tailgate,

I want to take this chance to thank you for your feedback about the F-22 and other stuff.
And I would also like to ask you the following:
- what would be your opinion on how would the AMRAAM, namely the latest variants like the -C7 or -D compare with the Meteor in terms of being detected by an enemy aircraft's RWR/ESM suite and/or how hard would be to spoof one missile compare to the other?
Offline

swiss

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 191
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 01:14

tailgate wrote:
In my opinion yes, speed and energy are the game changer. Flips, stalls, nose pointer are wonderful, but being able to out accelerate or just out "muscle", if you will, your opponent......priceless. It's also top notch to retreat and fight another day than to push a bad position and smoke an asset that is already in limited numbers.
Shoot down a 22, Rafale, or Typhoon, or any other expensive platform and they just aren't readily replaced. In today's time you start loosing platforms and it becomes expensive quick. Unfortunately "we" may not look at it this way, but the money cruncher's do. With the numbers of F-22's that we have, loosing one, even in everyday, operational accidents, degrades the total force.


So its seems TVC is overrated today. Its a real pity, that only less then 200 Raptor were produced.

@ Ric. Your are right the current Meteor has no AESA seeker. Like optimist said, its an advanced Mica seeker.
Offline

icemaverick

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 402
  • Joined: 21 Feb 2012, 23:05
  • Location: New York

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 02:33

I'm not sure an AESA seeker would really make a world of difference. The missile's own seeker only goes active in the terminal phase. By the time the missile goes active, the target is in big trouble. Before that, the missile should be guided by a data-link from the aircraft. In the case of the advanced American fighters, the Typhoon and the Gripen, there is a 2-way data-link between the missile and the firing aircraft. In the case of the Rafale, there is a 1 way data link. The latest AMRAAM variants and Meteors can also be guided by off board platforms such as another jet, AWACS etc.

I guess an AESA seeker would be more resistant to jamming and countermeasures but I wonder how much benefit is gained in exchange for the added cost/complexity.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2480
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 10:14

icemaverick wrote:I'm not sure an AESA seeker would really make a world of difference. The missile's own seeker only goes active in the terminal phase. By the time the missile goes active, the target is in big trouble. Before that, the missile should be guided by a data-link from the aircraft. In the case of the advanced American fighters, the Typhoon and the Gripen, there is a 2-way data-link between the missile and the firing aircraft. In the case of the Rafale, there is a 1 way data link. The latest AMRAAM variants and Meteors can also be guided by off board platforms such as another jet, AWACS etc.

I guess an AESA seeker would be more resistant to jamming and countermeasures but I wonder how much benefit is gained in exchange for the added cost/complexity.


AESA in missile seeker would or could (depending on design goals) have several important advantages:

- Longer detection and tracking range (important especially against VLO targets)
- Better discrimination ability in clutter (ground/sea clutter, jamming, chaff, rain/snow etc)
- Faster target acquisition and tracking especially if uncertainty volume (volume where missile does own search) is larger
- More difficult for target RWR/ESM systems to detect the missile seeker emissions
- Better potential for target recognition and identification
- Better reliability and lower maintenance requirements (less maintenance costs)
- Lower cooling requirements with same or even improved performance (especially with GaN modules)

Of course there are also problems and disadvantages with AESA, otherwise AESA would be used in missiles already. These are mainly:
- Higher processing requirements (higher cost)
- More complex software required (higher cost)
- Overall significantly higher development and manufacturing costs

Especially with GaN technology the costs can be brought down, but those seekers will still be more expensive than current ones. I'm sure we will see future missiles with AESA seekers becoming dominant, but it will take some time to happen.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1376
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Jan 2018, 10:37

swiss wrote:@ Ric. Your are right the current Meteor has no AESA seeker. Like optimist said, its an advanced Mica seeker.


Thanks Swiss for the clarification.


@hornetfinn,
Yes, I believe that you analysis (between AESA and non-AESA active guided radar missile seekers) is spot on, thanks for sharing it :thumb:
Offline

monkeypilot

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post16 Jan 2018, 20:48

Belgium governement still analyzing legality of French proposal for Rafale aircrafts. (Prime minister)

http://m.trends.levif.be/economie/polit ... e=Facebook
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post18 Jan 2018, 17:31

monkeypilot wrote:
Was the metrics ~1000 TR modules or actual APG-79 performance/module count. I find it hard to believe it can match its performance with 60-70% of the modules.


Performance wise. mind these mdules are more recent design and there are tenths of other physical limitations for a radar (cooling for example is a real issue)
//
rbe2 number of module
How much modules of programme reception, which are so much microphone radar independent, for the active aerial of RBE2? Several hundred answers Thales, without wanting to give the precise figure which would reveal too much the capacities of its radar. Useless to count the visible elements on the photo, it is only about a model intended to deceive the enemy © Thales
https://www.aerobuzz.fr/defense/thales- ... du-rafale/
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 720
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post18 Jan 2018, 20:43

I think we are getting too focused on antenna size, 1,500 isn't necessarily better than 1,200. I would put the back-end and software above it. It really is getting to the mine flies higher and faster with more tx modules, I win, logic. I know when I was into HF radio, it was the unit behind the antenna that was more important. A $50 CB wasn't the same as a $2,000 HF radio, even when on the same antenna
Aussie fanboy
Offline

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 209
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post19 Jan 2018, 02:41

optimist wrote:I think we are getting too focused on antenna size, 1,500 isn't necessarily better than 1,200. I would put the back-end and software above it. It really is getting to the mine flies higher and faster with more tx modules, I win, logic. I know when I was into HF radio, it was the unit behind the antenna that was more important. A $50 CB wasn't the same as a $2,000 HF radio, even when on the same antenna


There isn't only the module count that...counts ; the transmitted pulse peak power is ultimately what matters with everything else equal, and some months ago, I did such a comparison between the F-15C and the Rafale : viewtopic.php?f=36&t=53371&start=15

Using the same assumptions while comparing the F-35 and the Rafale, especially with the hypothesis that both aircraft use the same radar modules, the sore thumb is the difference in antenna size, at roughly 0.5m2 for the F-35 vs 0.238m2 for the Rafale, which would mean the F-35's radar would have 1.20 times the Rafale's radar detection range against a generic target.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests