Dassault Rafale, tender | News & Discussions

[KEETARP]

I don't really understand why you brought EO-DAS into this .
But what I can make out is you meant

1) SPECTRA is =equal to or better than EO-DAS
2) Euro-DAS dosen't gives all-round coverage .
3) F18G which is a dedicated EW platform is inferior to Rafale in Electronic attack capabilities
4) F18 having HARM for DEAD (in addition to excellent stand-of weapons) is at disadvantage to Rafale which dosen't have any HARM capability .

Let me explain my POV

1) EO-DAS is a generation ahead of SPECTRA , why ??
Would be better if Gambit/DBC enlighten us ,
but let me try for time-being by a quote by director L.Martin

"Designated the AN/AAQ-37, and comprising six electro-optical sensors, the full EO DAS like EOTS , the F-35's distributed aperture system is incorporated in the fuselage design and does not require a pod. Six IR cameras--Porter calls them situation awareness "eyeballs" that create a flying "Imax"--are embedded in the aircraft, positioned to provide full spherical imagery around the aircraft.

The red - part explains very well why EO-DAS is unmatched .
6ix optical IR ( Thermal imaging) cameras are distributed and integrated on aircraft's surface to provide a video/digital image into displays of not only threat but also whole battle-field picture .
Compare it to Rafale - Only one camera that is TV imaging and that too a part of front-sector-optronics unit covering only a sector of hemisphere .

Tests begin on Rafale optronics-05/05/1999-Flight International

read the first para of article about separate irst and separate tv imager

See the difference in above image display when a camera is attached on rt side .


Until Rafle gets six such FSO distributed on air-craft , it wont get that Imax effect . In addition the other passive sensors of rafale don't have imaging camera so only provide information about threat not surrounding .

Second about the technology of detection - Northrop.Grumman and L.Martin used infrared imaging instead of TV imaging for display . Additionly DAS used FPA(Focal plane array ) IR-detection and seeker coupled with Thermal-imager into a single unit to provide a better resolution/pixel/sensitivity into picture .
FPA is present on AIM-9x+Python5 , while Mica+R73+OSF lacks it .
I am not going into details why Thermal imaging is better than TV imaging ( highly sensitive Thermal imager's are only allowed for military purposes speaks for itself )
but in short TV imager requires in addition to detectors - a Multiplexer + a transmission line + a FPS controller to render images at exactly at 25FPS to avoid flickering + A synchronizer to deactivate pixel-by pixel photons and brightness to match display,
Further everytime a Pixelated picture is generated - TV scans the pixels line by line (ignoring interlace), starting at the top, say left hand corner, scanning to the end of the line, then jumping back to the beginning of the second line and repeating the process until the whole image has been scanned, top to bottom.
All of this must of course happen within the short period of time allocated to that particular frame. The process is thus repeated, say 25 times a second. Here is where one of the troublesome aspects of TV becomes apparent. Consider an array of say 488 x 380 pixels. To transmit a continuous TV picture we must then transmit around 185,000 brightness samples 25 times a second and that is a lot of information (around 2000 voice channels). The problem is unfortunate as the finer the resolution (or higher the pixel density) or quality of the picture, the greater the channel capacity required, which translates into faster and thus more expensive electronics.

In comparison the FPA -
FPAs are however much easier to support than vidicon based TV and mechanically scanned FLIR, as most of the timing, control and level amplifying electronics are very compact (and often on the same substrate) and consume little power. The only outside support required is refrigeration (i.e. placing the whole FPA into a Dewar module, or glueing it on to a thermoelectric Peltier solid state refrigerator) and of course mechanical stabilisation.
initially filters out visible and undesired infrared light with a special window (usually an interference filter, hence the mirror look). The 'cleaned up' (spectrally) IR then enters the optics, which provide specific viewing angles (usually NFOV and WFOV) for specific systems, the optics are usually changed mechanically.
Signal processing chips (here virtually only the die) and connections are then also attached, creating a hybrid module instead of separate link channels .
There are two broad families of FPAs, discrete and monolithic
Monolithic FPAs come in two basic families, the simpler CID (Charge Injection Device) and the more sophisticated CCD (Charge Coupled Device) , The CCD imaging array contains all the necessary support circuits and as such is a complete TV camera, needing only a lens and wires to connect up the power and a timing reference (sync).

 

[calcutta]

MMRCA : Contenders to be eliminated this week

7 July, 2010, 2:14 pm


IAF (Indian Air Force) is all set to submit its technical evaluation committee’s report by end of this week to Ministry of Defence (MOD), on basics of this report six manufactures which have offered their fighter aircraft’s to Indian air force to fulfill their requirement of 126 jets will be narrowed down to four to three contenders, IAF after testing this aircraft’s all over India and also after carrying out weapon testing in their home country will submit their report.

IAF to avoid any misunderstanding and legal process which might further delay acquisition of this jet will provide detail report and information on why this jets where rejected and on what basis they did not meet IAF’s requirement, as per source one American jet might be axed in this round other been unknown yet.

MOD will be the one to decide which jet it wants to order and IAF will only be recommending 3 to 4 contenders which can fulfill its requirements, for first time IAF and MOD other than the price will also look into cost of operation and life cycle of the jets before making any decisions , Defence experts have already indicated that it will be more of a political decision and Price factor will play limited role in decision making .

American jet manufactures have not revised their prices and Gripen and Euro fighter manufactures have offered reduced price factor which might play an important role in decision making since recently IAF informed MOD that it cannot calculate cost of life cycle of the jets accurately.

Recently France backed out of providing Avionics kit for Sino-Pakistani JF-17 and Russia is trying to please India by not providing RD-33 engines to China which currently powers again Jf-17, these measures have been seen by Defence expert to please India.

 

[KEETARP]

About Euro-Dass

but actually it uses the wingtip stations for the ECM pods and that indeed occupies weapon stations just like poded version before. Spectra instead has the pod at the tail fin and is really a fully integrated system.

Being not internal , Dosen't mean that its not integrated ,
internal or external dosen't matters till integration is being compromised. Even Rafale has conformal antennae's outside .
+plus quote from BR monitor - " Jamming pods are (by contrast to internal ECM) more effective as they are externally mounted and can cover an arc of almost 360 degrees and don't suffer from heating / power issues .

Also the normal DASS includes only the ECM pods with RWRs, MAWs, LWRs, or TD are only optional features and only UK EFs use them all so far. Spectra instead combines these features at once!

Dosen't mean , Typhoon lacks those components
Or dosen't imply other countries won't have access to them

From your quote only -

The modular nature of the DASS has also resulted in each consortium nation refining their individual DASS fits. At this time it is becoming increasingly clear that only the Royal Air Force Typhoon's will employ the full set of detection and counter measure systems originally envisaged. However this can be seen as being of potential benefit for overseas purchases who will be able to specify individual fits tailored to their requirements. An additional benefit of using such a modular system is that upgrade paths can be somewhat simplified.
At the present time (mid-2000) discussions are already underway as to future improvements in the DASS architecture for each subsequent Tranche. This will lead to later Eurofighter's benefiting from complete 360° spherical detection and protection capabilities. However even in its current state DASS represents one of the most advanced self-protection systems available.

First link is a decade old mid 2000 , compare it to 2010 to be fair
second i have highlighted Red part which explains everything - ( note this line ) Benefit to export ..........................

About 360 degress coverage ,
i gave you scanned copy of brochure stating all-round coverage , here it is again . yellow marker highlight on left side

About F18's SEAD capability ,
-don't you think having HARM is an asset to F18
-Stand-of weapons from US are cheap won't that be an advantage to F18
-Growler having ability to carry 5An/ALq99 and other wide-band Jammers with 50Kw power is better than small conformal jammers of Rafale .

We are talking of Jet's capability , not in terms of MRCA benefits .

 

[sancho]

I don't really understand why you brought EO-DAS into this .

Because that was what I initially said, that at the moment there is no comparable EWS that can offer similar capabilities in a 360° field except the coming EO DAS of F35.

But what I can make out is you meant

1) SPECTRA is =equal to or better than EO-DAS
2) Euro-DAS dosen't gives all-round coverage .
3) F18G which is a dedicated EW platform is inferior to Rafale in Electronic attack capabilities
4) F18 having HARM for DEAD (in addition to excellent stand-of weapons) is at disadvantage to Rafale which dosen't have any HARM capability .

1) I always said similar, or comparable, because too less is known so far about EO DAS and it's way too early to make fair comparisons, but what is clear so far, is that Spectra already provides similar capabilities!
2. Not all-around coverage with enhanced situational awarness, or cueing capabilities, it offers it mainly for countermesures and as I pointed out, similar capabilities like Spectra, or EO DAS could only be available in future, while Rafale can offer it for IAF through MMRCA!
3 and 4, I never mentioned F18 in my post, so not sure how you came to that conclusion.
What I said before is, that the only weapon that F18SH can offer without a direct counterpart for Rafale is the Harm so far, but as I pointed out that doesn't mean that the Rafale can't do SEAD. The French simply uses another strategy here, that's all.

The weapons most often associated with this mission are anti-radiation missiles (ARMs) such as the American AGM-88 HARM and British ALARM. Weapons used for SEAD missions can be anything which damages or destroys a component of an air defense system. A Paveway LGB, for example, is not a SEAD-specific munition but, when used to destroy a radar antenna, it achieves the objective of Suppression of Enemy Air Defense.

Possibly the most effective type of unguided ("dumb") weapon used during SEAD strikes are cluster bombs, because many SAM sites are dispersed over a fairly wide area, in order to increase the difficulty of inflicting serious damage on the battery, and the relative "softness" of the targets (missile launchers, exposed radars, etc.). The Mk-20 Rockeye II anti-armor cluster munition and the CBU-87 general-purpose cluster munition are often used against these fixed-location SAM sites, often for "clean-up" of a site whose radar or C&C facilities are first destroyed by a longer-range ARM or AGM. The relatively new American AGM-154 Joint Standoff Weapon is a valuable SEAD weapon due to its fairly long standoff range which allows the launching aircraft to avoid being threatened by all but the longest-range missiles, and its relatively large area of destruction against soft targets.

Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Let me explain my POV

1) EO-DAS is a generation ahead of SPECTRA , why ??

The red - part explains very well why EO-DAS is unmatched .
6ix optical IR ( Thermal imaging) cameras are distributed and integrated on aircraft's surface to provide a video/digital image into displays of not only threat but also whole battle-field picture .
Compare it to Rafale - Only one camera that is TV imaging and that too a part of front-sector-optronics unit covering only a sector of hemisphere .

You mean like this?

For comparison, here the view of EO DAS IR sensors:

NG DDM:

DDM NG was launched at the end of 2007, this first programme of flight trials has produced extremely convincing results. As a result, the DGA has ordered DDM NG equipments for the 60 Rafale combat aircraft which were ordered in December 2009 for delivery commencing in 2012.
The concept behind DDM NG is the ability to detect incoming attacking missiles from any direction and angle of attack with regard to the host aircraft. It will succeed the current DDM system on the Rafale as a “form, fit and function” replacement. DDM NG incorporates a new infrared array detector which enhances performance with regard to the range at which a missile firing will be detected, offers improved rejection of false alarms and gives an angular localisation capability which will be compatible with the future use of Directional Infra Red Counter Measures (DIRCM). With two sensors, each equipped with a fish-eye lens, DDM NG provides a spherical field of view around the aircraft.

Second about the technology of detection - Northrop.Grumman and L.Martin used infrared imaging instead of TV imaging for display . Additionly DAS used FPA(Focal plane array ) IR-detection and seeker coupled with Thermal-imager into a single unit to provide a better resolution/pixel/sensitivity into picture .
FPA is present on AIM-9x+Python5 , while Mica+R73+OSF lacks it .

So your point is, that because MICA don't has FPA, the French don't have it at all?
Sorry to disappoint you again:

Damocles (France), Airborne electro optic (EO) systems

Description
Damocles is a multimode, multifunction Laser Designator Pod (LDP) that incorporates a staring Focal Plane Array (FPA) Generation 2.5 Thermal Imager (TI), operating in the 3 to 5 µm waveband...

Damocles (France) - Jane's Avionics

AREOS : Airborne Reconnaissance Electro Optical System

Main characteristics

* A pod integrating - 2 large sized focal plane arrays in the visible and in the 3-5 μm infrared - 2 wide and 2 narrow high resolution fields of view, both in the visible and in the infrared
* High speed IR scanner for panoramic acquisition at very low altitudes
* Mobile bearing-mounted pod head for an optimal flexibility
* Recce Management System incorporating advanced operational functions and stereoscopic data acquisition, link management and digital recording

AREOS Airborne Reconnaissance Electro Optical System - Thales


If you like it, or not my friend, Spectra and its capabilities are unique in the MMRCA competition and are comparable to F35 EO DAS.

 

[KEETARP]

So much talk of systems being internal mounted and integrated . And we come down to Damocles + Aeros

Is Damocles+Aeros part of rafale airframe - no
Is it part of Spectra/OSF - no
Will it be offered free of cost with every rafale - no
Does F35 need targeting pod like Damocles - no it has EOTS blended into the nose .

Compare above to EO-DASS finely blended 6 optical cameras into the air-frame , which need no pod whatsoever

To add
OSF+MICA clearly lack FPA seeker , while AIM9x+EO-DASS incorporates one , which gives F35 advantage .
Below image mentions Scanning IR seeker of Mica while Python5+Aim9x have starring FPA array

How does it matter , becoz Sensor fusion also involves missile's seeker

Aim-9x seeker from F18 dosen't need inputs from EOTS of f18 /EO-DASS of f35 it can itself work as an additional sensor even before launch . FPA not only gives sensitivity but also tracking range enhancement . For the time being-I am not going to describe how FPA does that .

Like it or not Damocles/Aeros are not unique , even Sukhoi-30 carries wide range of ISTAR and targeting system

For intelligence, surveillance, targeting for attack and reconnaissance (ISTAR) operations during both peacetime and wartime, the IAF has decided to equip its Su-30MKIs with Elbit Systems' Condor-2 LOROP pod and ELTA's 590kg EL/M-2060P belly-mounted inverse synthetic aperture radar (ISAR) capable of tracking ground targets—both stationary and mobile—300km away and using the EL/K-1850 microwave data link operating in C-band, Ku-band and X-band for transmitting battlespace reconnaissance data to ground-based Corps-level HQs in real-time. generates in real-time synthetic aperture radar-based (SAR) maps approaching photographic quality (in both STRIP and SPOT modes) and ground moving target imagery (GMTI) while cruising at an altitude of more than 45,000 feet, and are capable of penetrating clouds, rain, smoke, fog and smog. The Su-30MKIs have already been equipped with a SIGINT suite (derived from the DARE-developed SIVA HADF pod) that will search, intercept, measure, localise, analyse, classify and monitor short-duration ground and airborne transmissions and their signals parameters—all aimed at building up, in real time, a picture of the electronic order of battle . In addition all su-30 will be equipped with Litening targeting pod incorporating state-of-the-art Infra-red and Laser technologies .

Regarding SEAD -
Why French do differently to what US/Russia is doing - Is it because they are better without HARM , Or is US system junk ----No
because Rafale has no other alternative and lacks behind not only F18 but Su30 as well .

To continue the discussion on SPECTRA - You tell me one subsystem or capability of Rafale/SPECTRA to which Eurofighter/F18E/growler /F35 has no alternative .
Don't bring in 90Kms range for OSF etc etc etc , because Ranges for F18/Eurofighter/F35 are more or less classified .

 

[jha]

Thales reveals 'cloud' concept for Rafale radar technologies​

Thales has revealed the first details of its new technology roadmap for the Dassault Rafale's radar and electronic warfare systems, which it believes could create opportunities to equip several other aircraft types over the next 20 years.

The new concept allows for the insertion of future technologies, such as gallium nitride transmit/receive modules, by using a so-called "cloud" architecture, says Pierre-Yves Chaltiel, head of electronic combat systems for Thales Airborne Systems.

Likely to be available within the next several years, the new T/R modules would enable Thales to reduce the depth of the antenna on the Rafale's RBE2 active electronically scanned array radar. Within a period of 10-12 years, it could also allow additional sensors to be embedded elsewhere within an aircraft's structure to enhance its overall sensor coverage.

The advance would also deliver increases in processing power, bandwidth capability and electronic counter-countermeasures characteristics, Thales claims.

For the Rafale, Chaltiel says a key benefit of the "cloud" concept would be to allow technologies to be added without having to re-qualify all the software used in the fighter's radar and Spectra EW packages. "The key is the systems knowledge - the processing power coupled with the radar and overall aircraft integration," he says.

The same technology could also be adopted for use by maritime patrol aircraft and airborne early warning platforms, or even offered as part of future mid-life upgrades for the Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen under a possible co-operation agreement with other European radar manufacturers, Chaltiel believes. "Thales is ready and open for co-operation," he says.

French industry and the nation's DGA defence procurement agency have made combined investments worth over €1 billion ($1.2 billion) in sensor development for the Rafale over the last decade or so, and Chaltiel confirms that the nation is "already working on advanced technology demonstrators for the future".

Meanwhile, Thales will in August deliver the first of three production-standard AESA RBE2 arrays to the defence ministry to support test activities with the Rafale. The new sensor will enter squadron service in 2012 as part of France's December 2009 order for a fourth tranche of 60 Rafales.

"The system is far different, in range and capacity of intercept in a multi-threat environment," Chaltiel says.

 

[sancho]

Come on Prateek, keep the discussion on a fair base and don't put words in my mouth please!

To add
OSF+MICA clearly lack FPA seeker , while AIM9x+EO-DASS incorporates one , which gives F35 advantage .
Below image mentions Scanning IR seeker of Mica while Python5+Aim9x have starring FPA array...

...Like it or not Damocles/Aeros are not unique , even Sukhoi-30 carries wide range of ISTAR and targeting system

I never said that OSF, or MICA have that technology, neither did I say that the Damocles/Aeros pod are unique. The point was that you claimed only the US has FPA, which is not true, because as I showed you, the French are using it even in the older versions of both pods.

So much talk of systems being internal mounted and integrated . And we come down to Damocles + Aeros

Is Damocles+Aeros part of rafale airframe - no
Is it part of Spectra/OSF - no
Will it be offered free of cost with every rafale - no
Does F35 need targeting pod like Damocles - no it has EOTS blended into the nose .

Compare above to EO-DASS finely blended 6 optical cameras into the air-frame , which need no pod whatsoever

If you had read my first and my last post about a bit better, you would have noticed, that the NG DDM is the tech that offers similar IR images in a full 360° coverage as EO DAS does and that it is integrated to both sides of the Spectra tail fin pod.

As you can see here:

So as EA DAS, Spectra is fully integrated and offers similar capabilties!

Regarding SEAD -
Why French do differently to what US/Russia is doing - Is it because they are better without HARM , Or is US system junk ----No
because Rafale has no other alternative and lacks behind not only F18 but Su30 as well .

That's your personal opinion and as it seems out of emotions, so calm down and try to understand. Besides that MBDA has also the ALARM anti radiation missiles available, that Rafale could use if they wanted such a missile, the French simply seems to think that there are better strategies for SEAD and maybe they are even right:

Another measure of efficiency pertains to tactics. One common SEAD tactic to fire numerous HARM missiles preemptively — that is, in the direction of a SAM that is suspected to exist, but which hasn’t turned on its radar. Thirty three of 56 HARMs used in Operation Deliberate Force were fired preemptively.11 Over 1,000 HARMs in Operation Allied Force were fired at only a handful of SAMs, suggesting many preemptive shots.12 While using HARMs in this way may effectively deter adversaries rom shooting SAMs or AAA at U.S. aircraft, it also poses two problem areas. First, preemptive HARM use can be expensive since HARMs cost approximately $250,000 per missile. Second, preemptively fired HARMs present a fratricide risk. If there are no enemy radar emissions for the HARM to guide on, the missile could lock-on to friendly emissions and destroy the wrong target. According to Lt. Gen. Michael Short, “The preemptive HARM shot, when it opens its eyes and there is nothing for it to see, takes off like a ‘mad dog.’ At least six HARMs (shot during Kosovo) ended up by accident in Bulgaria.”13 While launching HARMs preemptively may be an effective and necessary tactic, it not an efficient tactic. More importantly, reliance on this tactic may be an indication of intelligence and targeting cycle shortfalls that may need to be addressed.

http://www.fas.org/man/crs/RS21141.pdf

As you can see, fireing a missile from distance, only because it's the save solution don't have to be the best solution!

To continue the discussion on SPECTRA - You tell me one subsystem or capability of Rafale/SPECTRA to which Eurofighter/F18E/growler /F35 has no alternative .
Don't bring in 90Kms range for OSF etc etc etc , because Ranges for F18/Eurofighter/F35 are more or less classified .

LOL, again I don't understand why you bring things up that where not part of the discussion. We both agreed earlier that F18 Growler is not available for India, so why should we compare its capabilities with one of the MMRCA contenders?
The only point why I compared Spectra with EO DAS is, because both are pretty comparable in capabilities and it shows where the French, or at least the Spectra EWS lies in terms of advanced avionics. Neither the EF, nor the normal F18SH has similar capabilities, that's what I said before and what my opinon is.
In several exercises it proved itself in the SEAD role and only HARM can be fired from 100Km, while AASM "only" from around 50Km makes it less useful. There are different weapons and different strategies for this role and with Spectra and AASM, Rafale seems to be more than useful for it. Also because you mentioned the MKI, just as I said before, it is good to have fighters and weapons that gives IAF different capabilities. So if MKI can do the high altitude distance strikes and Rafale the low level deep penetration strikes, wouldn't it be a perfect combination for IAF?

 

[KEETARP]

Come on Prateek, keep the discussion on a fair base and don't put words in my mouth please!

Really , and how abt this statement below

The point was that you claimed only the US has FPA, which is not true

Where did I claim only US has such Tech . ??
My previous post still lie un-edited would love to be located where I claimed that
On the contrary you tried to put words into my mouth -

So your point is, that because MICA don't has FPA, the French don't have it at all?

While I only stated facts , whether you accept it or not OSF+Mica lacks FPA that is a fact .

To add

So as EA DAS, Spectra is fully integrated and offers similar capabilties!

I have shown EO-DASS has two critical tech ahead of Rafale , still you don't accept that F35 has better capability . Way to Go

Another measure of efficiency pertains to tactics. One common SEAD tactic to fire numerous HARM missiles preemptively — that is, in the direction of a SAM that is suspected to exist, but which hasn’t turned on its radar. Thirty three of 56 HARMs used in Operation Deliberate Force were fired preemptively.11 Over 1,000 HARMs in Operation Allied Force were fired at only a handful of SAMs, suggesting many preemptive shots.12 While using HARMs in this way may effectively deter adversaries rom shooting SAMs or AAA at U.S. aircraft, it also poses two problem areas. First, preemptive HARM use can be expensive since HARMs cost approximately $250,000 per missile. Second, preemptively fired HARMs present a fratricide risk. If there are no enemy radar emissions for the HARM to guide on, the missile could lock-on to friendly emissions and destroy the wrong target. According to Lt. Gen. Michael Short, “The preemptive HARM shot, when it opens its eyes and there is nothing for it to see, takes off like a ‘mad dog.’ At least six HARMs (shot during Kosovo) ended up by accident in Bulgaria.”13 While launching HARMs preemptively may be an effective and necessary tactic, it not an efficient tactic. More importantly, reliance on this tactic may be an indication of intelligence and targeting cycle shortfalls that may need to be addressed.

Yes ,and from the same FAS site

Restricting weapons firing until specific conditions are met reduces potential fratricide as well as avoids inefficient weapons employment. However, ROE must be optimized for all platforms in theater and take into account each system's capabilities and limitations. Each service employs ARMs with different objectives and philosophies. Individual service platforms can employ ARMs with varying degrees of accuracy. To improve integration during a joint campaign, each service must understand how the other executes ARM employment. Likewise, inaccurate targeting and fratricide is prevented by knowing how friendly ground and naval emitters operate. Joint planners must extensively coordinate all aspects of ARM employment during a SEAD campaign. Critical to planning is the transmission of friendly emitter order of battle information to the aircrews. Timely, accurate data, combined with appropriate ROE and knowledge of ambiguous theater systems, will overcome the obstacles presented by a dense frequency spectrum.
New systems and/or improvements to existing systems are required to ensure successful accomplishment of the lethal SEAD mission. In the near term, an upgrade to Harm Targeting System (HTS) will be fielded in 1999. Eventual augmentation or replacement of the HTS with an improved emitter targeting and passive identification system will provide expanded frequency coverage, more precise target location information and unambiguous emitter identification capability. Multi-ship targeting will provide great improvements in targeting accuracy and timeliness. It will require data link capability for real-time targeting of both reactive and preemptive target sets.
For the future, CINCS are demanding reliable, one-shot hard kills against threat radar, even if the radar shuts down prior to missile impact. The Navy has a three-step program to develop this capability for HARM.

HARM Block 3a and 5 software updates have completed testing and were incorporated as a software only engineering change starting in August 1999. The software improves missile performance against several threat countermeasures. The Block V software upgrade was fielded in 1999 and incorporates tighter control of missile flight path to reduce the risk of fratricide and increase kill probability. AGM-88C Block 5 missiles also feature a lethal capability against high power GPS jammers showcased in fleet battle experiments. To ensure continued EA-6B compatibility, OFP's SSA 5.2 and 89A 1.0 have been developed by the Weapons System Support Activity, Point Mugu, California. Both are baselined from 5.1 COD, will include HARM III/IIIA/IV/V, and are supported by the same TEAMS release. Two successful live fires of IIIA and V missiles from Block 89A aircraft were made in September 1998 and were followed by Block 82/89 live fires. The differences in the OFP software is nearly transparent to the fleet. The 89A 1.0 OFP has been optimized for the Block 89A avionics architecture that includes a second 1553 navigation bus and CDNU bus control.
The international HARM upgrade program (AGM-88D Block 6 is the US designation) is a cooperative software and hardware upgrade. It will incorporate a current state of the art GPS/IMU in place of the original mechanical gyros to improve missile precision, increase kill probability, and further reduce the probability of fratricide. As a by-product, the missile will have a high-speed, point-to-point capability. Plans call for retrofit kit production in 2003.
The Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM) project is adding to the Block VI capability by demonstrating technology for RF homing integration with an active millimeter wave terminal seeker to provide a counter-shutdown capability. Fielding this capability could be in the 2005 time-frame.

Above is a copy-paste from FAS site , site which hasn't been upgraded for years , and today what HARM has in its kitty only US would know ??
To add to the woes , you haven't highlighted the problems of SEAD mission without ARM . I wrote it before
1- You don't remain passive
2- You give away your position
In which case , you are under more threat ? ? ?

Neither the EF, nor the normal F18SH has similar capabilities, that's what I said before and what my opinon is that's what I said before and what my opinon is

Claim was no other system except F35 has Passive detection 360 like Spectra ,
and I proved DASS+PRETORIAN provide 360 passive detection
courtsey scanned pictures of official Brochure . That too twice .

LOL, again I don't understand why you bring things up that where not part of the discussion. We both agreed earlier that F18 Growler is not available for India, so why should we compare its capabilities with one of the MMRCA contenders?

If you go thru my previous posts , I clearly wrote - We are talking of Jet and capabilities only & not in terms of benefits to MRCA tender.
Even I would like to see rafale in IAF . But dosen't mean other Jets are behind Rafale , that's my point
You call for an unbiased comparison , I am not biased in first place .
I see every Jet in MRCA on par with each other , everyone excelling in one or other field while lacking in some other .
I have supported F18+Eurofighter+F35+Su30+Gripen+Mig35 , in fact every Jet flying around .
Its not only Rafale that has unique capability or weapons .
Time you look beyond Rafale

Brings another question in mind ,
Do you believe Export version of Spectra will be similar to original one , and will its critical technology be handed over to India .

 

[KEETARP]

..not the right thread to spread your ignorance. Neither the F-22 nor the F-35 are in the MRCA competition so please stay on topic - thank you.

I would say since SPECTRA vs EO-DASS has been started in MRCA
Your insight will be highly appreciated .

One more favour - I remember you wrote somewhere
" F22 and F35 2nd gen AESA radar field Ga-Ni chip"
and you posted these below pics

Would like the links to those original articles about tech .

 

[sancho]

Where did I claim only US has such Tech . ??
My previous post still lie un-edited would love to be located where I claimed that

That's the way I understand you, that's why I even asked you if that was correct, but the only reply was again about MICA and FSO don't have that tech, while EO DAS and AIM 9X has it. So why suddenly these switch to MICA and FSO capabilities that has nothing to do with what we were talking about?
Then please explain once again, what it has to do with Spectra, that MICA and FSO don't have such a tech?

I have shown EO-DASS has two critical tech ahead of Rafale , still you don't accept that F35 has better capability . Way to Go

Not really, you have claimed, but because you didn't undnerstand how the same capability is available in Spectra, that's why you thought it would be in the Damocles pod. Spectra and EO DAS offers full spherical IR imaging, the only difference is that EO DAS uses 6 IR sensors all around the aircraft and Spectra 2 (possibly 3) at the tail fin pod, the result is as the pics show the same, which you can't deny. As I said above, I understand your 2nd point, that only Northrop.Grumman and L.Martin uses such a tech, which is not true as I showed you. So there is no critical tech missing like you said and Spectra indeed is very similar in capabilties to EO DAS.

To add to the woes , you haven't highlighted the problems of SEAD mission without ARM . I wrote it before
1- You don't remain passive
2- You give away your position
In which case , you are under more threat ? ? ?

I did, check post 2161/ 62:

Spectra provides passive, all-weather reliable, long-range detection, identification and geographical location of threats in the infrared, electromagnectic and electro-optical ranges...
...The angular localization performance of Spectra makes it possible to precisely discover ground threats and to target them for immediate destruction with precision-guided munitions. In this totally passive mode, Spectra is also used as a general awareness and intelligence reporting system...
...He explains two different scenarios:

- against short and medium range SAM, a Rafale will close in to the target, and as soon as Spectra provide accurate enough data, the weapon is fired ;
- against long range SAM, Rafale will close in but this time it will fly as low as possible to benefit from terrain masks. The inconvenient is that in this case, the shooting rely on an external designation system.

So even if it don't uses ARM, it will detect, identify and destry ground targets in passive mode!

Claim was no other system except F35 has Passive detection 360 like Spectra ,
and I proved DASS+PRETORIAN provide 360 passive detection
courtsey scanned pictures of official Brochure . That too twice.

You still don't get it right? Pretorian can detect missiles, possibly is 360° (if all features are integrated), but can't enhance the situational awareness by passive detection the way Spectra, or EO DAS can. It also can't cue weapons passively to targets, can't give and 360° IR image and I even provided you a source that said, that these capabilities could only be possible for future versions of Pretorian.
The detection of an incoming missile and countering it with chaf, flares... should be the minimum what an EWS must do, that is something that all EWS can (and I even expect Pretorian to be good in that field), but only Spectra in MMRCA and EO DAS in general can be used in such additional ways and that's what makes them superior, or NG systems.

I see every Jet in MRCA on par with each other , everyone excelling in one or other field while lacking in some other.

How can you really believe that an EF for example, where the parters will decide only by july 20th about the new AESA radar development and doesn't have a minimum of A2G weapons integrated to make it a multi role fighter, is on par with fully a developed fighter like F18SH for example? Any fighters has advantages and disadvantages, the difference is some have more than other once and also in different fields, but most of them are clearly not on par with ich other.

I have supported F18+Eurofighter+F35+Su30+Gripen+Mig35 , in fact every Jet flying around .
Its not only Rafale that has unique capability or weapons .
Time you look beyond Rafale

I never said something like that, on contrary I always said that Rafale offers the most advantages in different fields, while Gripen NG is the cost-effective choice and imo even the better choice than EF, also that F18SH, although not a bad fighter, will be chosen mainly for political advantages. That's my opinion for a long time and it didn't changed too!

Do you believe Export version of Spectra will be similar to original one , and will its critical technology be handed over to India .

Not sure about it's jamming capabilities, or threat liberies, but the enhanced situational awareness features are all integrated in that system, not only optional, so they should be available for sure.

 

[KEETARP]

Pretorian can detect missiles, possibly is 360° (if all features are integrated), but can't enhance the situational awareness by passive detection the way Spectra, or EO DAS can. It also can't cue weapons passively to targets, can't give and 360° IR image and I even provided you a source that said, that these capabilities could only be possible for future versions of Pretorian.
The detection of an incoming missile and countering it with chaf, flares... should be the minimum what an EWS must do, that is something that all EWS can (and I even expect Pretorian to be good in that field), but only Spectra in MMRCA and EO DAS in general can be used in such additional ways and that's what makes them superior, or NG systems

Spectra and EO DAS offers full spherical IR imaging, the only difference is that EO DAS uses 6 IR sensors all around the aircraft and Spectra 2 (possibly 3) at the tail fin pod, the result is as the pics show the same, which you can't deny. As I said above, I understand your 2nd point, that only Northrop.Grumman and L.Martin uses such a tech, which is not true as I showed you. So there is no critical tech missing like you said and Spectra indeed is very similar in capabilties to EO DAS.

Let's see
-This NG-DDM having 2 IR imaging sensor are part of MAWS ???? right
-Program of DDM-NG started in 2007 and has gone just one set of trials.?? This will become certified for operation only in 2012 not before , ??
-It lacks DIRCM and there are no plans in France as yet to fit Rafale with ability to cue a directed infrared countermeasures system, giving electronic warfare subsystem . . correct ??

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blog...&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

DDM, new generation missile warning system for rafale - MBDA

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forum...-Rafale-News&p=4857760&viewfull=1#post4857760

Now when you say NG-DDM(Part of MAWS) giving you IR imaging while Eurofighter lacking it .

You should have also checked about PIMAWS on Eurofighter

link - Eurofighter Technology and Performance : Defences

The second and more likely potential replacement, announced by Germany's Bodenseewerk Geratechnik (BGT) in June 2001, is termed PIMAWS, or Passive Infra-red Missile Approach Warning System. PIMAWS began development in 1997 as an advanced technology demonstrator jointly funded by the German Ministry of Defence and BGT, the project is due to complete in 2003. The system is intended for installation as Line-Replaceable Units in both of the wing-tip pods achieving full spherical coverage. The detector portion of the system is a step-stare infra-red sensor operating in the 3-5µm frequency range allowing for both air to air and surface to air missile detection up to the post-burn-out phase. All the resulting data is fed into a custom designed image processing system utilising a Systolic Array Processor and DSP. Over 64 targets can be tracked simultaneously and through a built-in threat library they can also be determined. All the resulting data can be fed via a STANAG-1553B databus to the rest of the avionics, here one unit acts as the master the other the slave. This should allow the information to be fused with the other AIS sources. Although ground tests have been carried out and flight tests are scheduled for October 2001 no decisions have been reached by EADS or the partner nations as to whether PIMAWS will be integrated into Eurofighter.

The image shows IR-sensor location on each side .

that these capabilities could only be possible for future versions of Pretorian.

Sancho article you posted for above quote is good 9 years/decade old .
Just 3 years later in 2003 PIMAWS was available
I already showed above PIMAWS is just like DDM-NG and development started in 1997 much before DDM-NG , and all ground testing was complete
what is its operational status now - Only users would know ,Germany in this case also happen to be leading MRCA campaign .
What is known now till date is that all MAWS on non-German typhoons have Active MAWS instead of Passive like DDM-NG/PIMAWS and that is an advantage in terms of Range and dependence on motor stage of missile
To add PIMAWS also has FPA staring array , and there will be minimum 3 stations for PIMAWS , with option of 2 more on wingtip mounted ECM pods having these MAS in addition to 3 , depending upon user .
A user if wants can have any configuration of Typhoon / MKIze it
See the picture for DASS i posted 2 posts back

For last time
I think discussion started with claims that Eurofighter dosen't have 360 Passive detection and only Rafale has one such thing

OSF = PIRATE
DDM-NG = PIMAWS
SPECTRA = DASS + PRETORIAN

"Other sensors can include radar warning receivers (RWR), laser warning receiver (LWR) and a missile approach warner (MAW), integrated within an advanced defensive aids subsystem (DASS). This airframe-integrated system (no external pods needed), developed by the Euro-DASS consortium led by BAE Systems, includes the following:
A wideband (below 100-MHz to 10-GHz) 360-degree scanning RWR and active jammer, with antennas at each wingtip and on the fuselage;
Pulse Doppler-based MAW sensors on wing leading edges and tailcone; and
An LWR in front of the cockpit, plus (on RAF aircraft) expendable towed radar decoys.
Threats can be identified by comparing their signatures with those stored in an extensive threat library

Not all-around coverage with enhanced situational awarness, or cueing capabilities, it offers it mainly for countermesures and as I pointed out, similar capabilities like Spectra, or EO DAS could only be available in future, while Rafale can offer it for IAF through MMRCA!
Then please explain once again, what it has to do with Spectra, that MICA and FSO don't have such a tech?

I think discussion started with claim that only Rafale can provide 360 passive Situational Awareness (SA) .
I have shown Eurofighter and F35+F18 does also so

And this enhanced situational awareness comes with excellent fusion of data obtained by all active and passive sensors on aircraft whether FLIR-IRST/OSF/MICA seeker /RBE2/ SPECTRA and its subsystem etc
Isn't FSO a part of Passive Optronics sensor covering the Frontal hemisphere of circular area around Rafale with double range of Ddm-ng or not ???
Dassault claim that Rafale have 360 SA bcoz of comprehensive Sensor fusion between FSO - I posted a pic about sensor fusion back .

Ability to cue MICA with SPECTRA only or an ASRAAM with DASS only (when radar is shut off ) requires sync of seeker on both missile & aircraft .
This comes with sensor-fusion which Euro-fighter has , once DASS picks up threat it prioritizes and displays it on HMS of pilot , same as SPECTRA will pick up and display it on center AMLCD .

If answer is No - FSO isn't part of SA , then Thank you for information .

If yes , then 6IR sensor of F35 have FPA + additional in EOTS , while only 2 out of 3 IR-sensor of Rafale have FSO .
To add if you are counting MAWS sensor , even F35 has MAWS in addition to EO-DAS imo & adding those sensors(whether active or Ir/UV passive ) count goes up more than 6+xxxx.
I am sure anyone can figure out , no-matter whatever you say 2DDM+1OSF sensor will not give SA which 6-8 better IR sensor provide in F35 .
One more thing MAW on Eurofighter have ability to cue DIRCM while DDM-NG lacks one .
And just like DDM-NG , Malaysian su30MKM have MAW-300 + South African Gripen c,d have MAW -300 with IR imaging surrounding the aircraft .
http://www.defence-guide.com/airfor...vices/missile-approach-warning-system-maw-300
Gripen NG will have even better system with UV filter to rule out sunlight clutter .

against short and medium range SAM, a Rafale will close in to the target, and as soon as Spectra provide accurate enough data, the weapon is fired ;
- against long range SAM, Rafale will close in but this time it will fly as low as possible to benefit from terrain masks. The inconvenient is that in this case, the shooting rely on an external designation system.

If this is scenario then
- First tell me which system would tell you whether SAM is long-Range or Short-Range , and how would a Rafale pilot decide whether to Fly Low or ......

-What you imply for LR-SAM tactic is to fly as low as possible to hide below horizon of LR tracking radar ,
tell me does this also imply that SR-Tracking radar horizon (which I guess will be -xyz feet below LR radar) will also miss Rafale like Non stealthy Jet ???


AASM has range of 15Kms in low altitude launch which is within Short-Range and Medium-range Sam ,
50 Kms in high altitude range which is within long-range Sam .
In any case you go within target range of SAM .

In comparison HARM has range in excess of 100Kms , plus Kh-58UsHE on Su30 has range in excess of 200Kms
I guess ARMs are the ones having better chances to survive

Now to the weapons itself -
After overcoming all this , when you prepare to launch your weapon
Options are either AASM or Paveway

For AASM , guidance is purely on GPS/Inertial
First you depend on accurate GPS availability in the area . Subject to US nod etc
Second GPS guidance has its own limitations+Vulnerabilities to Jamming

The biggest single natural source of error is unmodelled ionospheric signal delay, the model broadcast by the satellites can only compensate for about one half of the possible error, with the resulting error being up to 10 metres. In addition, another effect comes into play, Geometrical Dilution Of Precision (GDOP). Where the angles to the satellites in view are very similar, GDOP will result in inaccuracy in solving the coordinate equation, which will further degrade the solution. Because all of these sources of error will fluctuate in time, users may experience substantially better accuracy at some times, and worse accuracy at other times, depending on the geometry of the satellites in view and ionospheric conditions (the latter a Jindalee problem as well).
In the military context, this vulnerability is a major concern and has produced some heated debate in the US trade press. Even low powered jammers radiating pseudo-noise signals against the GPS carriers could cause typical receivers to either break lock, or fail to acquire satellites from distances of tens of miles. A one Watt transmitter (comparable to a mobile phone) at a distance of 60 km (32 NMI) can in theory prevent a common GPS receiver from acquiring the C/A code. Military receivers locked on to the encrypted P(Y) code are more resilient, and cca 100 W of jam power at 20 km (10.7 NMI) is required to break lock. Significantly, a jammer radiating hundreds of Watts can foil satellite C/A code acquisition at ranges of several hundred nautical miles. The Saddams of this world could potentially disrupt attacks by weapons using many current generation receivers by hoisting such jammers to several thousand feet altitude on devices as simple as tethered balloons

Compare AASM to HARM88E/JDAM ,
One - costly

Two - numbers in inventory barely three figures + no export also while HARM has ample stock and in addition exported to others in good numbers . Italy got significant package of 250 lately .

Three - CEP of AASM is 30-40 feet /10 meters
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/Frances-AASM-Precision-Guided-Bombs-06200/
While CEP of HARM without GPS is 3-4 meters even if radar shuts down with help of ARH+DAMASK seeker+mWW seeker . Add GPS to it and even better CEP .

Now to second series of weapons namely the Paveway series smart weapons
As your article itself mentions

"The inconvenient is that in this case, the shooting rely on an external designation system.

Who will keep designating the threat for targeting .
HARM gives you Launch and Leave option
IMO HARM dosen't have these disadvantages or does it .

How can you really believe that an EF for example, where the parters will decide only by july 20th about the new AESA radar development and doesn't have a minimum of A2G weapons integrated to make it a multi role fighter, is on par with fully a developed fighter like F18SH for example? Any fighters has advantages and disadvantages, the difference is some have more than other once and also in different fields, but most of them are clearly not on par with ich other.

What a competing company is offering to India , is way different to what is in active production .
For that matter
Rafale still has to get HMS ( must for any modern jet )
Uprated engine
AESA for rafale is not in current production .

If you look - the only aircraft that is in production with same specs as offered with MRCA - only F18 fulfills that .
All others are still immature -
F16 has no prototype of f16IN Block70 super Viper , what we have seen up till now is just Block60 Falcons
All non-US jets lack Production line AESA .
Rafale lacks HMS and till METEOR enters service ( India will get even more late than Europe) rafale will lack in BVR , bcoz no other BVRAM integration has been done . Atleast Eurofighter + Gripen user have other alternative .
Eurofighter apart from radar also fall behind in A2G capability .
GripenNG has just completed full trials but is far from being in active production
UAC corp has still not shown Mig35 with 11 Hardpoints and enlarged airframe .

Will it matter - If all companies comply with delivery of final specs Jet within 36 months of contract signing .
Contract signing I assume will not happen before Mid-late 2011, may be 2012
Point to remember
When we picked up MKI/Mig29K , not even a single prototype was built . BARS and TVC were in testing phases
Fact that the - Technical trials as well as Field trials response from SAAB,EADS,Boeing & Russian Ambassador were optimistic . Its safe to assume each Jet has met or surpassed the requirements asked by IAF to demonstrate .

 

[KEETARP]

Double-post

 

[lhuang]

Can you guys make your posts more umm, concise?

It's like uni all over again

*runs away before I get mobbed*

 

[KEETARP]

Can you guys make your posts more umm, concise?

It's like uni all over again

*runs away before I get mobbed*

I deleted my whole post , the one before your comment .
Check the reason for editing .
See how much we care for others .

 

[SpArK]

MMCRA contenders’ list likely to take a month​

Posted: Saturday, Jul 10, 2010

New Delhi: Despite speculations on contenders for the $ 11 billion Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) deal, it could be atleast four more weeks before such a list is finalised.

The technical team of the Indian Air Force (IAF) is still in the process of finalising the trials reports, sources in the ministry of defence told FE.

“Technical evaluation report of the field trials, during which the six foreign contenders in the race were tested by IAF pilots both in India and abroad under different weather conditions.”

“We still have a long way to go before short listing the fighters that have done well in the trials. There was actually no set date for the trial results to be out. Its all speculations and it will take IAF several weeks for submitting the exhaustive report,” said a source.

Recent changes in India’s requirements are changing the relative rankings of the contenders. Geopolitical considerations will also have a crucial role to play, as most of these choices have the potential to improve relations with an important potential ally.

In what started as a lightweight fighter competition to replace India’s shrinking MiG-21 interceptor fleet has now divided into two categories. The multi-billion dollar fighter deal is a contest between the American F/A-18 ‘Super Hornet’ (Boeing) and F-16 ‘Falcon’ (Lockheed Martin), Swedish Gripen (Saab), French Rafale (Dassault), Russian MiG-35 (United Aircraft Corporation) and Eurofighter Typhoon (consortium of British, German, Spanish and Italian companies), India is likely to extend its competition for a year, because competitor flight trials could not be completed in May as planned and then two years after accepting price quotes the bids expired and the MoD asked manufacturers to submit offers for an additional year.

Flight trials were carried out at 3 key locations: near Leh, high in the Himalayas; a desert base in Rajasthan; and Bangalore’s tropical climate.

Lockheed Martin (F-16 Block 60+) and Boeing (F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet) have said that they have modified their bids, Sweden’s Saab (JAS-39NG) extended its bid unchanged, and Dassault (Rafale), EADS (Eurofighter), and RAC-MiG (MiG-35) have made no public commitment one way or another. While the one year delay could raise costs, it would however, give the contenders more time to deepen Indian partnerships the ability to revise that information in their offer.



MMCRA contenders’ list likely to take a month