Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: UK Pilot flight test the Rafale F3
Bluewings12    11/9/2009 1:57:05 PM
By Peter Collins : Chapter 1 , the aircraft : "Most advanced Allied air forces now have operational fleets of fourth-generation fighters (defined by attributes such as being fly-by-wire, highly unstable, highly agile, net-centric, multi-weapon and multi-role assets). These Western types include the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG. The Boeing F-15E and Lockheed Martin F-16 have an older heritage, but their latest upgrades give them similar multi-role mission capabilities. Of the above group, only the Super Hornet and Rafale M are capable of aircraft-carrier operations. As these fourth-generation fighters' weapons, sensor systems and net-centric capabilities mature, the likelihood of export orders for such an operationally proven package becomes much more realistic. On behalf of Flight International, I became the first UK test pilot to evaluate the Rafale in its current F3 production standard, applicable to aircraft for both French air force and French navy frontline squadrons. The "proof-of-concept" Rafale A first flew in 1986 as an aerodynamic study, leading to the programme's formal launch two years later. The slightly smaller single-seat Rafale C01 and two-seat B01 for the French air force and single-seat M01 and M02 prototypes for the navy flew from 1991. The first production-standard Rafale flew in 1998, and entered service with the navy's 12F squadron at Landivisiau in 2004 in the F1 (air-to-air) standard. Deliveries of the air force's B- and C-model aircraft started in 2006 in the F2 standard, dubbed "omnirole" by Dassault. Since 2008, all Rafales have been delivered in the F3 standard, which adds reconnaissance pod integration and MBDA's ASMP-A nuclear weapon capability. All aircraft delivered in earlier production standards will be brought up to the F3 configuration over the next two years. The French forces plan to purchase 294 Rafales: 234 for the air force and 60 for the navy. Their Rafales are set to replace seven legacy fighter types, and will remain as France's principal combat aircraft until at least 2040. To date, about 70 Rafales have been delivered, with a current production rate of 12 a year. Rafale components and airframe sections are built at various Dassault facilities across France and assembled near Bordeaux, but maintained in design and engineering configuration "lockstep" using the virtual reality, Dassault-patented Catia database also used on the company's Falcon 7X business jet. Rafale software upgrades are scheduled to take place every two years, a complete set of new-generation sensors is set for 2012 and a full mid-life upgrade is planned for 2020 SUPERB PERFORMANCE The Rafale was always designed as an aircraft capable of any air-to-ground, reconnaissance or nuclear strike mission, but retaining superb air-to-air performance and capabilities. Air force and navy examples have made three fully operational deployments to Afghanistan since 2005, giving the French forces unparalleled combat and logistical experience. The commitments have also proved the aircraft's net-centric capabilities within the co-ordination required by coalition air forces and the command and control environment when delivering air support services to ground forces. Six Rafale Ms recently carried out a major joint exercise with the US Navy from the deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier the USS Theodore Roosevelt. The air force's B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy's Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter's navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples. Dassault describes the Rafale as omnirole rather than multirole. This is derived from the wide variety of air-to-ground and air-to-air weapons, sensor pods and fuel tank combinations it can carry; the optimisation of aircraft materials and construction; and the full authority digital FBW controlling a highly agile (very aerodynamically unstable) platform. This also gives the aircraft a massive centre of gravity range and allows for a huge combination of different mission stores to be carried, including the asymmetric loading of heavy stores, both laterally and longitudinally. Other attributes include the wide range of smart and discrete sensors developed for the aircraft, and the way that the vast array of received information is "data fused" by a powerful central computer to reduce pilot workload when presented in the head-down, head-level and head-up displays. The Rafale is designed for day or night covert low-level penetration, and can carry a maximum of 9.5t of external ordinance, equal to the much larger F-15E. With a basic empty weight of 10.3t, an internal fuel capacity of 4.7t and a maximum take-off weight of 24.5t, the Rafale can lift 140% of additional lo
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34   NEXT
Bluewings12       11/29/2009 5:22:32 PM
MK :
""BW what you describe is not active cancelation, I therefore suggest to drop that term to avoid unnecessary confusion.""
 
I know and it is the reason why I used the term "baby" regarding the technology . I don 't want anyone to think that the Rafale is using active cancellation because it is not true as far as I know . However , the know-how is there .
What is needed is a more mature Bragg Cell technology and better processing power , that 's it . Give it 5 years .
 
""And for that matter a 3-D RCS database is also used by the F-22 and at least to a certain extend by the Eurofighter""
 
I know . But in this regard , the Rafale and the F-22 are both better equipped for the task than the Typhoon . Nothing is AESA on Typhoon . Furthermore , the Americans (first) and the French are more advanced in AESA and ECM technologies than the Eurofighter Team is .
 
""You say the ECM antennas are used for receive functions as well and while that might be possible I wonder why there're individual RWR antennas.""
 
To cover the full 360deg . Spectra AESA antennas are only usuable in the 180deg front sector .
That means that if the adverse fighter using an high edge AESA radar is behind the Rafale , the Dassault fighter only relies on its conventional RWR antennas .
 
Nothing is perfect ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

jackjack       11/29/2009 9:34:53 PM

BW what you describe is not active cancelation, I therefore suggest to drop that term to avoid unnecessary confusion. And for that matter a 3-D RCS database is also used by the F-22 and at least to a certain extend by the Eurofighter. You say the ECM antennas are used for receive functions as well and while that might be possible I wonder why there're individual RWR antennas. 
do you ever get the feeling that its a complete waste of time ?
he still says its active cancellation
he still says its asea antennas
i did look up the spectra system a few months ago, from memory there are 3 rf receivers and 2 rf transmitters

 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    It goes directly to competence.    11/30/2009 2:40:04 AM

Hamilcar :


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

 As posted in the title ON TOPIC
.

This is squarely off on topic . Now , if you want to call the software your Tankers are using for training purpose a "video game" , feel free . Surely , I know some US Tankers including Instructors who could explain to you why you are wrong .

****************
 
Confirmed  as in a player you admit. Confession is good for the soul



Anyway , I asked earlier : "what the AESA technology brings in regard to detection versus ECM ?"

 I explained that. You did not understand.

I have been reading a lot and from various sources . First , I checked if my basics were right then I started to read what people like Northrop Grumman , Raytheon and Thalès had to say .
 
No you didn't. If you did, then you would not claim that light behaves in ways it does not.   

I found some very relevant papers and studies . It goes a rather long way as many topics are covered , like how LPI works and how RWRs can try to counter the threat , how an AESA array works and how it can be used in both offensive and defensive ways , etc ...

Just words with no details.

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.
 
Buzzwords and no details.

The Low Probability of Intercept (LPI) capability defeats conventional RWR/ESM systems .

Obviously but how?  

I found a big difference in between the US and French ways to use the AESA technology .
 
Of course. Its called WAR experience.
 
The US have a clear edge overall , now I have no doubt . The US technology is more mature and very much aimed at using a single array to do pretty much everything , from long range detection to single target jamming . I 've read some good papers on the APG-77 demonstrating how the radar could be ptentialy used . I noted the huge capability in multitasking and its second to none beam forming . This radar is a gem .

The inaccuracy of the description is so fatuous that I can barely restrain chuckling. Again offensive ECM is not single platform or radar restricted.   I described this here earlier..
 
On the other hand , France is more looking for an AESA response to this kind of threat . We have a nice RBE2-AA but it is not going to be used as an offensive jammer for now but can be used as a second RWR (like the APG-77) .

ROTFLMAO. Did you just write that nonsense?  Is this like some of the stuff you pulled from Steel Beast for tanks?
 
I 've been reading (again) some French studies from Thalès and others and I did compare the various systems and ideas with the ones from various US firms , I found some differences .

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 .

 Again some form of false range data transmission? Against multi-beam radars? This is hilarious.

This is where I need help from everybody .

So far , it seems to me that the bottleneck is how to predict more efficiently the wave form(s) pattern(s) used by a high edge AESA radar . To counter this , the French (and maybe others ?..) have combined multiple AESA t
 
Quote    Reply

MK       11/30/2009 3:59:09 AM
I know . But in this regard , the Rafale and the F-22 are both better equipped for the task than the Typhoon . Nothing is AESA on Typhoon . Furthermore , the Americans (first) and the French are more advanced in AESA and ECM technologies than the Eurofighter Team is .
 
AESA or not doesn't matter for using a 3-D database of the aircraft's RCS modell. It works in conjunction with the RWR/ESM to calculate the leathal zones of enemy ADs on the F-22 and is used to optimise the performance of the TRD on the Typhoon. AESA itself has nothing to do with it. And claiming the french are more advanced in AESA and ECM technology is a strong claim without substantial back up. There are AESA radars and ECM systems available in these nations, just because they aren't fitted onto the Typhoon, doesn't mean they lack behint at all.
 
To cover the full 360deg . Spectra AESA antennas are only usuable in the 180deg front sector .

That means that if the adverse fighter using an high edge AESA radar is behind the Rafale , the Dassault fighter only relies on its conventional RWR antennas .
 
There are 3 RWR each of which has a 120° coverage. 2 are located on the intakes and one is located at the fin tip (Spectra pod). The ECM antennas are separate 2 in the canard roots and one at the tail base in the rear.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    In the plane of flight.   11/30/2009 4:10:56 AM

I know . But in this regard , the Rafale and the F-22 are both better equipped for the task than the Typhoon . Nothing is AESA on Typhoon . Furthermore , the Americans (first) and the French are more advanced in AESA and ECM technologies than the Eurofighter Team is .

 

AESA or not doesn't matter for using a 3-D database of the aircraft's RCS modell. It works in conjunction with the RWR/ESM to calculate the leathal zones of enemy ADs on the F-22 and is used to optimise the performance of the TRD on the Typhoon. AESA itself has nothing to do with it. And claiming the french are more advanced in AESA and ECM technology is a strong claim without substantial back up. There are AESA radars and ECM systems available in these nations, just because they aren't fitted onto the Typhoon, doesn't mean they lack behint at all.

 

To cover the full 360deg . Spectra AESA antennas are only usuable in the 180deg front sector .



That means that if the adverse fighter using an high edge AESA radar is behind the Rafale , the Dassault fighter only relies on its conventional RWR antennas .

 



There are 3 RWR each of which has a 120° coverage. 2 are located on the intakes and one is located at the fin tip (Spectra pod). The ECM antennas are separate 2 in the canard roots and one at the tail base in the rear.


 



 

Top and bottom aspect is a problem for that plane as it is for many planes.
 
Quote    Reply

MK       11/30/2009 1:05:20 PM
Just in the todays news the upgrade from F1 to F3 will take some 12 - 18 month!
 
h+tp://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/110251/france-to-upgrade-older-rafale-marine-fighters-to-f3-standard.html
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/30/2009 1:54:46 PM
..
Just in the todays news the upgrade from F1 to F3 will take some 12 - 18 month!
h+tp://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/110251/france-to-upgrade-older-rafale-marine-fighters-to-f3-standard.html
and that supports my prev.  that the F1's do not have the legacy architecture of the F2's and would thus take slightly longer to update than the F2's.

These are averaging 1.2 to almost 1.6 months each - and thats beside having prior knowledge and experience gained by the F2-F3 updates.

I would assume the tailenders would speed up though...

 
Quote    Reply

sentinel28a       11/30/2009 2:45:48 PM
A quick apology to MK and BW for accusing one or the other of sockpuppetry.  Sorry, guys.
 
Now back to your regularly scheduled argument.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       11/30/2009 2:58:53 PM
jackjack
""do you ever get the feeling that its a complete waste of time ? he still says its active cancellation""
 
No this is not what I am saying , re read what I wrote :
""I don 't want anyone to think that the Rafale is using active cancellation because it is not true as far as I know""
 
It is true that France did and still do extensive research in active cancellation technology but I don 't think it is used onboard the Rafale . I don 't remember exactly when France started to work on it but we had working prototypes in 1999 .
 
""MBDA-France has been developing active stealth systems that attempt to cancel the radar return from an airframe by transmitting a second signal of equal frequency and amplitude to the genuine return. Unlike Ram, this technique retains is effectiveness at low and medium frequencies, where the efficiency of passive stealth technology tends to decline.
In 1999, the company conducted ground tests using a C-22 target drone fitted with an experimental active-stealth system, and flight tests conducted using ?testbeds? (probably C-22s) were carried out at the Centre d?Essais des Landes range at Biscarosse in southwest France.
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/1899/003c22wing.jpg" width="360" height="262" /> 
***************************
 Hamilcar , if you didn 't know that an AESA array can be used as a RWR , it is not my fault .
""AESAs can be switched to a receive-only mode, and use the targets jamming signals as a powerful source to track,""
 
You also notice that an AESA radar in passive mode (receiver) can also possibly use an HoJ missile to passively fire at an emitting target . I don 't invent it . I know that the APG-77 , APG-81 , RBE2-AA and probably other radars are pecfectly capable to do so .
This is the reason why an AESA jammer is needed , to specificaly counter this very threat .
 
You also talk about "false range data transmission" . This is only one way to jam , others exists .
Btw , you should really stop to talk about "clocks" . It is getting tiring . Mica doesn 't have any timing problems and our LAM works as planned . Get lost with your usual bulls .
 
MK , AESA has a lot to do with it because of its LPI capability . Using a LPI jamming has many advantages , discretion , avoidance of HoJ counter threats , etc .
Are you sure that the rear active antenna at the tail base is of the same kind that the ones on the canards ?
 
Cheers .
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

jackjack       11/30/2009 3:12:12 PM
Just in the todays news the upgrade from F1 to F3 will take some 12 - 18 month!

h+tp://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/110251/france-to-upgrade-older-rafale-marine-fighters-to-f3-standard.html

and that supports my prev.  that the F1's do not have the legacy architecture of the F2's and would thus take slightly longer to update than the F2's.
These are averaging 1.2 to almost 1.6 months each - and thats beside having prior knowledge and experience gained by the F2-F3 updates.
I would assume the tailenders would speed up though...

by the time they organise it, it also supports my saying they have to go back on the line and the first one delivered 2012
there was only one person who was wrong, http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emwink.gif" alt="" />
 
Quote    Reply
PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics