i reckon he's waffling about rafales common tec jammer, but pixie dust about the mysterious spectra sound so much better

 

"Spectra's active jamming subsystem uses phased-array antennas located at the roots of the canards. Dassault has stated that the EW transmit antennas can produce a pencil beam compatible with the accuracy of the receiver system, concentrating power on the threat while minimizing the chances of detection. "

 

My tone hasn't changed, BW.  I think you're wrong and that you contradicted yourself, and I'm just explaining why.  I'm not calling you a troll or anything, and I'm not going to be drawn into the EW debate.  I don't know much on the subject, so I'm content to keep my keyboard stowed and not make a fool of myself debating people who know a hell of a lot more than I do on that. 

 

Yes the Rafale finished second but who were the third , fourth , fifth , etc ? I am sure that you can tell me .

I can't, because I don't care.  All that matters in business, sports, and politics is who won, not who came in second.  Sure, the Rafale came in second, but coming in second still equals zero sales. 

Do you know a pilot who understood everything and looked at everything during his/her first flight onboard an unknown aircraft ? 

 

Thanks for making my point for me.  Collins apparently didn't understand or look at everything on the Rafale.  Therefore, he may not be the best judge of how good or bad the Rafale really is.  Now if he takes another ten or so hops, that would be different.

It is the reason why Pierre Chaltiel (Spectra Team manager) said that there are ways to make an aircraft almost invisible .

It is not about fooling the adverse radar with "active cancellation" , but to saturate with low or high powered jamming (noises) the bands where the Rafales 's spikes can be detected .

thats just nonsense.  quote him properly because it makes him look stupid.  at least give the correct citation so that we can understand what he actually said..

if you are actively saturating/managing signals then you have a flying transducer/transmitter.  its why you manage signals passively so as to not turn into a variation of a flying transducer.  if you don't do it passively then by rote it is active - and Spectra is not an active signal management system.

 

Most self protection systems use two strategies after noticing an inbound threat. One is to use a decoy or lure to outshine the protected target, so that the threat will chase the lure and not the target. The other method is to feed false range data to the threat so that it will not achieve a proximity solution that allows the threat to chase a signal into the target.    

 

To feed false range data, you need a threat library and a clock so you can match your fox signal to the receiver you try to fool. If the enemy receiver has a variable code pulse recognition feature and he has better clocks, he will discriminate your false signal from his true one and his threat will chase you with drive through decision logics based on the difference and you will DIE.  

 

 

   

 

 

Collins apparently didn't understand or look at everything on the Rafale.  Therefore, he may not be the best judge of how good or bad the Rafale really is.  Now if he takes another ten or so hops, that would be different.

 

That wouldn't change the fact that he has no experience with contemporary fighters at all. So he is able to compare a 2009 Rafale with a 1980s Mirage 2000 or F-16 at best. But he is mainly used to Hawks, Lightnings and Harriers of older vintage.

Bluewings: "No , you are confusing active deception jamming with active cancellation . Spectra doesn 't integrate the signal then change it to an out of phase signal then transmit it back to the adverse emitter , which is active cancellation ."

 

ALL deceptive jamming relies on capturing the threat radar signal, modulating it in some way, and transmitting it back to the threat radar.  The modulation can consist of changing the PRF, the polarization, the power level, etc, but in each case the goal is the same: the jammer emissions gradually fool the threat radar into thinking the target is at a different bearing, velocity, or range than it actually is. 

 

In order to do this, you have to identify the threat radar so that your ECM can use a technique that the threat radar is susceptible to.  It is not possible to blap out a constant signal that will somehow globally "lower your RCS".  Every radar works differently.

 

Also, in order for this to work, the transmitted power of the ECM system has to be able to at least equal, and usually vastly exceed, the reflected signal at the threat radar (typically on the order of 10dB, the exact ratio needed depends on the threat radar).  This is really the main reason for active-scanned ECM transmitters, to allow the system to make the most efficient use of its transmit power by steering all of it at the threat.  But even with that, your little MMIC arrays can't put out anywhere near enough signal to achieve those ratios against some big search radar.

 

What you are talking about there is power jamming in which case you need a huge and powerful system like dedicated EW aircraft carry.  Those are far from stealthy, they rely on brute power to get the job done.

 

Like I said before, what you are describing is a complete fantasy.  It's no secret that the Rafale carries a DRFM based deceptive jammer with MMIC transmitters.  That means it's a sophisticated system with definite limitations on its output power, and it's all integrated into the airframe which makes it really slick.  But it's not magic.

In addition to 155E's excellent points (and I'm glad he has decided to join the fight), I'd love to hear BW's and FS' (and anyone else's) explanation of, if Spectra "reduces" the effective or equivalent RCS of Rafale against specific radars when they are on a bearing that is known to be an RCS spike, then why doesn't other ECM "reduce" the effective or equivalent RCS of other fighters against specific radars when they are known to be on a bearing that is known to be an RCS spike?  In other words, if both ECM systems are jamming the radar, then why is the Rafale more stealthy than the other fighter if its airframe is just as LO as Rafale.

 

Also, I'd like to remind everyone that the way an IADS works is that there is an early warning radar network that detects and tracks inbound threats, which tracks are then handed off to the C2 of shooters, like SAM brigades and fighter GCI/ACI, to actually acquire and engage.  The entire kill chain must remain unbroken in order to actually be able to shoot down an attacker.  However, BW and in particular FS have often trumpted the idea that the Rafale is able to penetrate undetected through an IADS, in part due to Spectra's capabilities, including jamming.  Therefore my second question will focus on the way in which an IADS detects and tracks targets in the first place, and ask BW and FS what they think is the jamming frequency range of Spectra, and what is the frequency range of early warning radars used in the air surveillance network of an IADS which is what is used to form the air surveillance picture?  Given the answers, how is it then that Spectra's jamming contributes to the Rafale being able to penetrate undetected through an IADS?

 

 

 

Thanks.  But that made my head hurt.

 

As far as why a system like Spectra is helpful in penetrating airspace defended by IADS, it's all about locating and avoiding the threat.  IF you can geolocate radars, AND you have an up to date threat library, then you can potentially navigate around the threat envelopes and do your thing.  The last thing you want to do in this instance is emit any signals.

 

I would add this.  ECM does not make you "more LO" or reduce your RCS.  But, the lower your RCS, the more effective your ECM.  It all comes down to the jamming-to-signal return at the threat radar.  The lower your RCS, the less return signal the threat radar sees, so the easier it is for your ECM to achieve the J/S ratio needed.

For the record, 155E, I just wanted you to know that I knew that (although I could not have said it so clearly and succinctly) and agree with you completely.  I'm trying to get BW and/or FS to respond.  :-)

 

warpig :