BW it is not necessary to know every little detail, common sense based on knowledge and experience allows you to get a rough picture and I doubt GF pretends to know every little screw on a Rafale, but he certainly knows what he speaks about from a general understanding on how things work. There is certainly much more to the upgrade than you might imagine or believe to know, because what those press releases say is usually what major changes are made. It is very likely that Dassault will do a complete overhaul, which requires a layup of the aircraft. There can be dozens of minior changes, things which aren't related to adding a LRU here or there, but detail changes in the wiring, how cables are stowed and countless other small things you might not even be aware they exist at all, because it goes down to an engineering level. We'll see how long it will take to get a F1 through the upgrade and you might get an idea of how much work flows in. Even a F2 required 6 weeks to go through the upgrade to F3 and that is an awful long time for "just a software update" ;). There are no major changes in the hardware from an LRU level but certainly quite some minor changes which in sum turn out to be work intensive and time consuming in the end.

I'll give you an example of what is the difference between reality and what people get fed with.

 

We take an engine exchange as an example. The brochure states an engine change in just 45 minutes, sounds great, but the reality looks like this.

 

An engine fails or doesn't perform as expected and it is decided to exchange it. So how does it work?

 

1.) It has to be decided which engine from the depot is going to be used and that alone will involve a bit of paper work to assign the engine to the aircraft (everything has to be documented to know what the status of the aircraft and system(s) - in this case engine is)

 

2.) The engine guys are informed and they will prepare their tools and the new engine is made ready.

 

3.) The aircraft is towed to the location where the engine change will be conducted and the engine guys will move to that location with their tools if it's not in their own shop.

 

4.) The old engine is pulled out and the new one is pluged in, which requires a lot of disconnecting and connecting of stuff and those times given by industry for the engine change are just for this part and vary depending on potential problems, experience of the technicans and their routine etc.

 

5.) When everything is checked the aircraft is towed to a location where the engine run is conducted, with the engine being tested and possibly adjusted (might differ to a more or lesser extend) and in the case of FADEC you have to programme the operating parameters in SOT, NH, NL, FF servo etc. these values vary from engine to engine (of the same type) as NO engine is in the same condition and while paper brochures for example give you a fixed max value for temperature for example the allowed max temp can vary by some XX degrees to achieve the very same performance.

 

If everything goes well then the aircraft can be put again to the flight schedule. The entire procedure itself will usually take some 3 hours at best or a couple of days in the worst case. Of course there are differences depending on the engine itself and different airfo

MK :

I am going to be honest with you . What you posted is true and I have been long enough in the Forces to know how long it can take to do things , as simple as getting a new barrel for a FRF1 or a gearbox for a VAB . But this is not the things you like to talk about .

 

It's not necessary to talk about such things, but it can be useful to use such knowledge and experience to draw conclusions and give the less experienced some clues and create a better imagination of how things work. There is no need to go into much details as the matter is sensitive. 

I understand that the 45 minutes needed to change a M88 are only the required time to CHANGE the engine with a good Team , I always knew it MK .

My question was more like how long it takes to change a F-35 engine (or any fighter engine) under the very same conditions with a good Team .

Well ~45 minutes is a value stated for  most recent fighters including Rafale, Typhoon and Gripen (?) for example and I think it's a quite safe bet that a Super Hornet or a Lightning II won't do worse at all here and possibly some other types as well.

 

I certainly know more in this or that area, but I wouldn't generalise it. You might well know more than me in other areas as do others here. But much more important (at least in my opinion) than the knowledge is how things are said. You make a lot of strong claims like some others here do, but if you fail to back them up properbly you should stop and just come back if you have anything substantial. Defending things to death just for the sake of defending it makes you look like a fool and isn't really appreciated by others and there is ever an end to the patience of people and you should have recognised that many here have become somewhat hostile towards you for exactly that reason. If you want that others listen to you, prepare yourself to listen to them as well. Don't view things through binoculars, try to get a broader perspective and be a little bit more open minded yourself. And let me tell you there are others here who would benefit from doing so as well. But you ever have to start with yourself, because complaining about the behaviour of others while behaving the same way is a pretty lame double standard.

 

 

However , I could make my posts far longer and provide far more details than I do , I just keep it short . Maybe I am wrong to do so ...

 

If you desire to talk about the French logistics in general , there is much to say . Some is good , some is bad .

 

LOL idiot

they have to go on the line again, first one delivered 2012

The problem with you Herald is that you are ready to swallow every BS as long as it fits your agenda . Unfortunatly for you , this so-called paper is full of innacuracies , errors , mistakes and bias . In fact , when you know who Jon Lake is and who 's he working for (freelance for BAE) , you can spot the "clown" right away .

who claims expertise based on video games, then I've sadly msjudged your competence.

 

 

 

Hamilcar :

I found some very relevant papers and studies . It goes a rather long way as many topics are covered...

Then , some new developments of already known techniques for high edge RWRs like multiple DFFM architecture , smart digital Aesa jamming techniques , Instantaneous Frequency Mesurement (FM) , etc , bring some real capabilities against the offensive capabilities of an AESA array/radar .

I am interested in reading some of this documentation, so if you post some links, I'd appreciate it--particularly anything related to defeating AESA radars.

 

I really don't get what you're saying here, in particular about the American equipment, because you seem to intermingle terms related to radar and to ECM:  "The US are betting on active low RCS EM systems (high LPI) while France is betting on highly sensitive and highly responsive AESA jamming techniques."

 

Your steps 1-4 sound much too close for my liking to the "active cancellation" claims of the past.  I would need some serious convincing to believe that any ECM system can somehow detect all the low power pulses of an AESA radar throughout the 3 or 4 GHz, somehow establish a pattern to their random hopping throughout that frequency range, and then sync-up and start transmitting jamming pulses matching the pattern of their random hopping.  I stress the words "pattern" and "random".  I can believe that broad-band jamming can theoretically be effective, but as noted by others I think that would require great power (in relation to what power is available on a fighter) to cover the whole frequency band used by the radar.

 

Again, I would need some serious convincing of this claim, and I doubt that sufficient documentation is available in open source to do so:  "Of course , the Rafale would be aware of the tracking...."

 

That's because his post is basically word salad, he read a bunch of stuff he didn't understand and smashed the coolest sounding bits and pieces together to fit his science fiction ideas.  At least it's entertaining watching his claims change every time someone points out how silly they are.

 

Re: that list 1 through 4 stuff, basically he's describing what any DRFM deceptive jammer does. 

 

1) capture signal

2) A/D signal and store its digitized time / phase / amplitude

3) modulate signal phase, using e.g. FFT (fast Fourier transform)

4) D/A convert signal components and recombine

5) retrotransmit modulated signal.

 

What we are talking about are not "AESA Techniques", that's just more word salad on his part.  AESA is a technology for beam-steered antennas and has nothing specifically to do with jamming.  A jammer using other types of steered emitters, or even non-steered emitters, could do the same thing.

 

As always, the problem is actually discerning a LPI signal from background noise, a hard enough problem with a mech scan radar and much harder against an AESA.  For this to work your jammer would have to capture a really long transmit window from the threat radar and discern a pattern, which is pretty tough seeing as one of the techniques used in LPI radars is to maintain a track file with fairly infrequent updates.  It is a very hard problem to solve, and again there is simply no credible reason why Thales or anyone making a 4th gen airplane would bother with it now seeing as there are no such threats.

Let 's start with a simple quote :

 

""Unlike the radar unit, which has to send the pulse out and then receive its reflection, the target's receiver does not need the reflection and thus the signal drops off only as the square of distance. This means that the receiver is always at an advantage over the radar in terms of range - it will always be able to detect the signal long before the radar can see the target's echo.""

Keep in mind the "range advantage"for later ;-)

As long as the RWR is a top notch system , the pulses from an AESA radar will also be detected . High edge AESA receivers like Spectra (and very few others) have a "simultaneaous thousands of channel digital reception" capability .

From Thalès (page 12 on the pdf) :

h*tp://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=518503

 

The AN/ALQ-128 reciever (ICAP III program) onboard the Prowler also has a very similar capability . These systems are so sensitive and are listening on so many bands at once that AESA pulses will be detected and tracked from far away .

AESA radars , while being highly LPI , are still sending multiple (hundreds to thousands) low pulses every seconds and those can be detected and tracked by AESA receivers . That ' a fact .

The problem is still to jam the AESA emitter ...

 

Now , we have to keep in mind that AESA radars do NOT use chaotic search patterns . This is important to remember .

Doind so would decrease the performance of the radar . Instead , the radar chooses the most efficient patterns to keep the clearest lock it can . To archive this , the radar computer is analysing the echoes then choose what electronical approach should be undertaken . This is more or less predictable .

This is where fast fourier transform is applyed in conjonction with the 3D EM mapping of the aircraft in the databank (if its exists on the fighter) .

From there on , an AESA jammer can start to use the most obvious patterns as well as the secondary patterns to jam hundred to thousands bands at once (like a radar does during search and track) .

 

A radar like the APG-77 (F-22) emits low energy pulses over a wide frequency band using a technique called spread spectrum transmission .When multiple echoes are returned, the radar's signal processor combines the signals (N. Grumman and Globalsecurity) .

This means that the radar needs multiple echoes from multiple bands and frequencies to draw its picture . If some of these bands and frequencies are jammed , the returned echoes will not be numerous enough for the FCS to get anything usuable . This is how AESA radars can be jammed .

The USA are well aware of the fact as they try to use new sofwares and algorythms for the APG-77 , they want to use the radar as a powerfull AESA jammer . It is why I said that the AESA technology was more mature in the US and the RBE2-AA is not capable to do so yet .

I would like to emphase that Spectra has been designed for the Rafale only for a reason (Thalès did develop the ICMS Mk II , III and IV for the M2000) . Spectra is also using ~as I said before~ a "baby" kind of active cancellation . 

Whatever people might say or think , I believe it because there is already enough Doc on the open Net for one to start to thing about .

It is not hard to understand if you add 1 to 2 to get 3 . 

(Here , I am going to please Hamilcar) . When you have a decent 3D EM mapping of the aircraft , you end up with thousands of lines of code , each one with its own 'flag" (C++) . Each "flag" is bound (dedicated) to a unique situation (aspect , band , frequency , power received) . When the AESA array receiver detect "X" pulses , the ECM suite CPUs immediatly dig out the concerned "flags" from the databank and draw a picture of the return spikes (aircraft RCS) , then the AESA jammer does its job . 

This is not yet real active cancellation because white nose is used instead of out-phasing the signal , which needs even more computing power and speed .

 

As far as I know and as a stand-in jammer , Thalès and Dassault did an outstanding job .

 

Cheers .