Rafale May Not be the Best Choice for the IAF

[LeGenD]

What else do you want to know? Look up Vivaldi, you will get what you want by simply googling this stuff.

I can't deal with you lot on this. One guy asked some technical questions about signal processing, I answered them and then he claimed I got all the answers from someone else. So you guys can believe what you want.

So you do not know much about radar systems, got it.

Next time, do not boast about your self-assumed superiority in knowledge.

How dumb can one be? RBE2-AA entered service years ago.

And you say I am the one trolling.

The French are now working on a whole new type of radar which will give the Rafale 360 degree visibility.

French naming schemes are puzzling, but unlike you, I admit my mistake.

1. RBE2 = PESA
2. RBE2-AA = AESA (I am talking about this version)
3. Ground Master 200 Multi Mission (under development)

So you are comparing a '55cm' radar with an '80cm' radar which has only 400-500 more modules and you claim the 80cm radar is superior?

Wow. The common sense is overflowing here. So much troll power.

Superiority of a radar system depend upon numerous factors and density is only a part of the equation = a reality which your puny brain is unable to come to terms to.

You ignored this part:

"Additionally, these two radar systems are able to detect up to 100 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 20 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds. This is 'more than twice' the capability of RBE2-AA for similar ends (able to detect up to 40 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 8 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds)."

Anyways:-

RBE2-AA = 55 / 838 = 0.065
AN/APG-81 = 80 / 1676 = 0.047
AN/APG-77 = 91 / 1956 = 0.046

SUCK IT

So the bigger MF-STAR with GaN and digital beamforming is less capable than a smaller SPY-1D which is a PESA? Wow logic ko goli maaro.

Yeah, it's been public since a few months, so now I can say that MF-STAR is a GaN. If you have doubts, then google it, the information is available now.

Jhoot bolnaa koi aap sey seekhay.

1. AN/SPY-1D(v) is a much bigger radar system than MF-STAR.

2. AN/SPY-1D(v) is not exactly PESA but a special architecture which work like AESA = information not in public domain. And AN/SPY-1D(v) completely outclass MF-STAR in range, threat recognition and more.

To refresh your memory:

"The only public numerical figure on Aegis detection range against a specific target is that the SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers." A golf ball-size (1.68 inches diameter) sphere corresponds to radar cross section of about 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz. This statement was made in the context of the soon-to-be deployed SPY-1D(V) radar to detect mortar and artillery shell and small-caliber rockets against a clutter background, so presumably it applies to the D(v) version. Scaling to a radar cross section more typical of a ballistic missile warhead (0.03 m^2 at 3.3 GHz) gives a range of at least 310 km. Now scale further in accordance with the known RCS figures of various combat aircraft."

MF-STAR's figures do not compare, not even close.

"The MF-STAR radar will provide mid-course guidance updates for the missile initially after the launch from the ship. MF-STAR is a multifunction surveillance track and guidance radar used by Kolkata Class ships which can detect sea skimming missiles at a 30–35 km range."

Link:
3. ELM-2090S SPECTRA incorporate GaN technology but ELM-2248 MF-STAR incorporate GaS technology.

Indian Kolkata class destroyers feature ELM-2248 MF-STAR radar system, big difference.

Shame on you.

Stop getting suckered into propaganda with such less amount of information.

http://geimint.blogspot.com/2010/05/

The Libyan AD was quite capable, even if obsolete compared to NATO. But they had received plenty of upgrades and were in the process of acquiring a lot of more capable weapons from Russia. Even France was willing to sell Rafales before the conflict started. I would comfortably say even Indian IADS the previous decade was significantly inferior to Libya's.

The region which the French infiltrated had significant SAM presence. Hell, the US even complained to France about using fighter jets without commencing SEAD/DEAD.

Obviously Syrian defences in 2018 and 2019 are superior to Libyan defences of 2011. But the Libyans were still up to date for their time.

Since when reputed sources such as the Air Force Magazine and RAND are regarded as propaganda outlets?

"Libya’s air defense system relied on Soviet and Russian systems, most 20-30 years old and at least two generations behind current surface-to-air missile (SAM) technology." - FAS

And I have repeatedly pointed out that American and British forces took care of the Libyan Air Defense arrangements whereas the French focused on softening Libyan forces near Benghazi, and nothing suggest that Rafale encountered any form of opposition near Benghazi. Even Libyan Air Force did not bother to intervene.

Libyan Air Assets
The Chief of Staff of the U.S. Air Force estimates that prior to the initiation of Operation Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan air force possessed “multiple tens of combat aircraft,” flying only “tens of sorties a day.” Although Libya’s 10 major air bases notionally house about 180 fighter and attack aircraft and just over 100 helicopters, most are believed inoperable. As Libyan pilots are believed to average only 85 flight hours per year, about half the flight time of coalition air forces, even those aircraft which are operational may not be flown effectively. Libya’s aircraft are also rather antiquated, mostly Soviet-era fighters with a few more modern French Mirage jets. On February 21, 2011, two Libyan Air Force colonels flew two of the Mirages to Malta, where they were interned.

As of March 23, 2011, Libya’s air force remained grounded. A DOD briefer stated that there had been “no confirmed flight activity by regime forces over the last 24 hours.” On March 24, one Libyan jet reportedly flew a mission near Misrata, but was destroyed upon landing by a French fighter No further Libyan air operations were reported through March 27. - FAS

Sorry to disappoint you but Rafale's performance in Libya does not prove much, rather a publicity stunt to earn 'combat proven' tag.

Sure. We actually want you to believe that.

We will see.

JF-17 Thunder Block III is coming, no worries.

 

[randomradio]

So you do not know much about radar systems, got it.

Next time, do not boast about your self-assumed superiority in knowledge.

*yawn*

French naming schemes are puzzling, but unlike you, I admit my mistake.

1. RBE2 = PESA
2. RBE2-AA = AESA (I am talking about this version)
3. Ground Master 200 Multi Mission (under development)

Look at the quality of this forum. Such clowns. You don't even know what mistake you've made.

RBE2-AA entered service in 2012. Rafale has been operating with an AESA radar for years, dude.

French names are not puzzling. They are all very simple and easy to remember. The difference is you have no clue what you're talking about.

Superiority of a radar system depend upon numerous factors and density is only a part of the equation = a reality which your puny brain is unable to come to terms to.

You ignored this part:

"Additionally, these two radar systems are able to detect up to 100 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 20 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds. This is 'more than twice' the capability of RBE2-AA for similar ends (able to detect up to 40 targets, and develop a fire solution for up to 8 targets, in one go, in under 3 seconds)."

Anyways:-

RBE2-AA = 55 / 838 = 0.065
AN/APG-81 = 80 / 1676 = 0.047
AN/APG-77 = 91 / 1956 = 0.046

SUCK IT

Such a fail. RBE2-AA has ~1100 modules, plus the modules themselves are more advanced.

You can put 2900 French modules on APG-77.

Jhoot bolnaa koi aap sey seekhay.

1. AN/SPY-1D(v) is a much bigger radar system than MF-STAR.

2. AN/SPY-1D(v) is not exactly PESA but a special architecture which work like AESA = information not in public domain. And AN/SPY-1D(v) completely outclass MF-STAR in range, threat recognition and more.

To refresh your memory:

"The only public numerical figure on Aegis detection range against a specific target is that the SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers." A golf ball-size (1.68 inches diameter) sphere corresponds to radar cross section of about 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz. This statement was made in the context of the soon-to-be deployed SPY-1D(V) radar to detect mortar and artillery shell and small-caliber rockets against a clutter background, so presumably it applies to the D(v) version. Scaling to a radar cross section more typical of a ballistic missile warhead (0.03 m^2 at 3.3 GHz) gives a range of at least 310 km. Now scale further in accordance with the known RCS figures of various combat aircraft."

MF-STAR's figures do not compare, not even close.

SPY-1D is smaller than MF-STAR.

3. ELM-2090S SPECTRA incorporate GaN technology but ELM-2248 MF-STAR incorporate GaS technology.

Indian Kolkata class destroyers feature ELM-2248 MF-STAR radar system, big difference.

Shame on you.

MF-STAR is part of the EL/M 2084 family and is GaN. 2090 Spectra is a different radar entirely.

"Libya’s air defense system relied on Soviet and Russian systems, most 20-30 years old and at least two generations behind current surface-to-air missile (SAM) technology."

- FAS

And even then only France can fly over SAMs, not the rest of NATO.

Even with 3 decade old technology, the Americans did not like France entering Libya without SEAD/DEAD happening first. What do you think that tells you?

And I have repeatedly pointed out that American and British forces took care of the Libyan Air Defense arrangements whereas the French focused on softening Libyan forces near Benghazi, and nothing suggest that Rafale encountered any form of opposition near Benghazi. Even Libyan Air Force did not bother to intervene.

Benghazi is one of Libya's prime AD nodes after Tripoli.

JF-17 Thunder Block III is coming, no worries.

Yes, we are not worried.

To refresh your memory:

"The only public numerical figure on Aegis detection range against a specific target is that the SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers." A golf ball-size (1.68 inches diameter) sphere corresponds to radar cross section of about 0.0025 m^2 at 3.3 GHz. This statement was made in the context of the soon-to-be deployed SPY-1D(V) radar to detect mortar and artillery shell and small-caliber rockets against a clutter background, so presumably it applies to the D(v) version. Scaling to a radar cross section more typical of a ballistic missile warhead (0.03 m^2 at 3.3 GHz) gives a range of at least 310 km. Now scale further in accordance with the known RCS figures of various combat aircraft."

MF-STAR's figures do not compare, not even close.

"The MF-STAR radar will provide mid-course guidance updates for the missile initially after the launch from the ship. MF-STAR is a multifunction surveillance track and guidance radar used by Kolkata Class ships which can detect sea skimming missiles at a 30–35 km range."

Link:

This is exactly why you shouldn't be talking about radars.

Do you even know what these two statements mean?
-"SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers."

-MF-STAR is a multifunction surveillance track and guidance radar used by Kolkata Class ships which can detect sea skimming missiles at a 30–35 km range."

This requires only common sense, nothing else. Do you know what they are talking about?

3. ELM-2090S SPECTRA incorporate GaN technology but ELM-2248 MF-STAR incorporate GaS technology.

Indian Kolkata class destroyers feature ELM-2248 MF-STAR radar system, big difference.

Shame on you.

The link you posted, did you bother to actually read it?

Here it is again:
The MF-STAR radar of Kolkata-class destroyers has Gallium Nitride (GaN)-based Transmit/Receive elements. That means around 5x times greater transmitting power than usual Gallium Arsenide (GaAs)-based TR AESAs which are a generation behind in terms of technology.

 

[Armchair]

Underestimating the Rafale will be at Pak's own peril. Ask @messiach she thinks the Rafales will give IAF the edge.

 

[LeGenD]

*yawn*





Look at the quality of this forum. Such clowns. You don't even know what mistake you've made.

RBE2-AA entered service in 2012. Rafale has been operating with an AESA radar for years, dude.

French names are not puzzling. They are all very simple and easy to remember. The difference is you have no clue what you're talking about.

Do you keep a count of your mistakes and unsubstantiated nonsense? I really doubt it. Two examples in this post below.

Such a fail. RBE2-AA has ~1100 modules, plus the modules themselves are more advanced.

You can put 2900 French modules on APG-77.

Provide evidence.

SPY-1D is smaller than MF-STAR.

To look at AN/SPY-1D(v) in isolation is akin to missing the point; the parts highlighted in green are components of the holistic Aegis Combat System and completely integrated in terms of functions including target search and acquisition responsibilities.

The entire superstructure houses AN/SPY-1D(v) within.

Total number of panels = 4 but widely spaced (vs. 4 but closely spaced in MF-STAR for Frigates)
Diameter of each panel = 12 feet (same in MF-STAR for Frigates)
No. of elements in each panel = 4350 (vs. 2500 in MF-STAR for Frigates)

The four array faces send out beams of electromagnetic energy in all directions, providing a continuous search and tracking capability for hundreds of targets, just like in the case of MF-STAR.

MF-STAR is part of the EL/M 2084 family and is GaN. 2090 Spectra is a different radar entirely.

And yet:

"It has 4 active arrays in S-Band frequency, each one pointing in a different direction. Overall, the EL/M-2248 performance and appearance is similar to the US Navy’s AEGIS combat system and its AN/SPY-1D radar antenna."

Link:
Something is amiss; massive gap in the number of elements in each panel of both radar systems for one (see above), and additional unknown qualitative gaps as well.

And even then only France can fly over SAMs, not the rest of NATO.

Even with 3 decade old technology, the Americans did not like France entering Libya without SEAD/DEAD happening first. What do you think that tells you?

Benghazi is one of Libya's prime AD nodes after Tripoli.

Baseless assumptions on your part.

FYI:

On March 17, 2011, Air Force Chief of Staff General Norton Schwartz "said it would take upwards of a week to establish a no-fly zone and would require U.S. forces to first neutralize Libyan ground to air anti-aircraft sites." - FAS

And;

"The no-fly operation was enabled by a strike against Libyan air-defense assets and other targets using 110 Tomahawk and Tactical Tomahawk cruise missiles and strikes by three B-2 Spirit bombers delivering 45 Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs) against Libyan air bases. Tomahawks were also fired from British ships in the area, and British Tornado GR4 aircraft flying from the Royal Air Force base at Marham, England, reportedly employed Storm Shadow cruise missiles." - FAS

1. Benghazi was under the control of rebels prior to Operation Odyssey Dawn in 2011, aqalmand insaan. French military aircraft including Rafale could easily operate over Benghazi because the Libyan Air Defense infrastructure in this sector was compromised.

"On the other side it must be noted that, according to the most informed sources, any SAM sites in the Benghazi area are not believed to be operational and, MANPADs aside, real threats to the French fighters were extremely limited in that area. For this reason, without much trouble a French attack plane (Mirage 2000D or Rafale) fired the first shot of Operation Odyssey Dawn at 14.45Z (using either a GBU-12 laser guided bomb or a AASM air-to-ground guided weapon)."

2. The initial French strike package to operate over Benghazi included 8 x Rafale, 2 x Mirage 2000-5, 2 x Mirage 2000 D, 6 x C-135 tanker and 1 x E3F AWACS (20 aircraft in total).

Details in this link: https://theaviationist.com/2011/03/20/operation-odyssey-dawn-explained/

But but Rafale is super-duper martian invincible, right?

I can understand the capability of cutting-edge American stealthy aircraft such as B-2, F-22 and F-35 to penetrate formidable set-of-defenses and deliver results, but Rafale? EXCUSE ME?

Yes, we are not worried.

Good, PAF will surprise YOU again.

This is exactly why you shouldn't be talking about radars.

Do you even know what these two statements mean?
-"SPY-1D "can track golf ball-sized targets at ranges in excess of 165 kilometers."

-MF-STAR is a multifunction surveillance track and guidance radar used by Kolkata Class ships which can detect sea skimming missiles at a 30–35 km range."

This requires only common sense, nothing else. Do you know what they are talking about?

Yes, I do.

"DDG-51 Flight IIA is equipped with the SPY-1D(V) version of the radar, which is designed for littoral warfare to detect and engage small-sized sea-skimming anti-ship cruise missiles in clutter conditions caused by interference from coastal land or electronic jamming." - heritage.org

SPY-1D(v) can identify and track a target having an RCS of 0.0025 m^2 at ranges in excess of 165 KM on 3.3 GHz frequency. And in case you didn't knew, SPY-1D(v) have managed to notice and track ballistic missiles at distances in excess of 1000 KM (heritage.org).

If the MS-STAR radar system is able to detect and track sea-skimming cruise missiles within the 30 - 35 KM range at most then this radar system is simply not in the league of SPY-1D(v), not even close irrespective of its marketing hype.

The link you posted, did you bother to actually read it?

Here it is again:
The MF-STAR radar of Kolkata-class destroyers has Gallium Nitride (GaN)-based Transmit/Receive elements. That means around 5x times greater transmitting power than usual Gallium Arsenide (GaAs)-based TR AESAs which are a generation behind in terms of technology.

And yet:

"It has 4 active arrays in S-Band frequency, each one pointing in a different direction. Overall, the EL/M-2248 performance and appearance is similar to the US Navy’s AEGIS combat system and its AN/SPY-1D radar antenna."

Link:
I have repeatedly pointed out to you that 'numerous factors' collectively determine true performance of a radar system. One cannot accurately gauge the performance of radar systems relative to each other on the basis of black & white comparisons and/or raw parameters you seem to subscribe to. Heed my advice.

In your face: The link you posted, did you bother to actually read it?

And keep in mind the fact that MF-STAR does not have BMD capability as in it cannot help stop ASBM attacks. In conclusion, your claim of MF-STAR being a vastly superior radar system in comparison to AN/SPY-1D(v) [post # 59; page 4] is unsubstantiated nonsense, rather opposite is true.

 

[randomradio]

Do you keep a count of your mistakes and unsubstantiated nonsense? I really doubt it. Two examples in this post below.

Oh, yeah, just like your gem that Rafale's AESA is yet to enter service.

Provide evidence.

You won't find proof on the internet for that, matey. You're gonna have to know people for that.

Even this guy called Toan from some other forums has pointed out that the RBE2-AA has 1100-1200 T/R modules. But considering you didn't even know the Rafale is operating with an AESA radar, I doubt you know anybody who can help you with information.

Otoh, I got plenty of information from a person who was number 4 in Dassault and also a serving Brigadier General in the French Air Force, along with a French defence journalist, and this is only the French. The good news for us is none of you remotely have a clue about how good the Rafale really is, which suits us just fine.

Total number of panels = 4 but widely spaced (vs. 4 but closely spaced in MF-STAR for Frigates)
Diameter of each panel = 12 feet (same in MF-STAR for Frigates)
No. of elements in each panel = 4350 (vs. 2500 in MF-STAR for Frigates)

The four array faces send out beams of electromagnetic energy in all directions, providing a continuous search and tracking capability for hundreds of targets, just like in the case of MF-STAR.


And yet:

"It has 4 active arrays in S-Band frequency, each one pointing in a different direction. Overall, the EL/M-2248 performance and appearance is similar to the US Navy’s AEGIS combat system and its AN/SPY-1D radar antenna."

Link:
Something is amiss; massive gap in the number of elements in each panel of both radar systems for one (see above), and additional unknown qualitative gaps as well.


Baseless assumptions on your part.

Like I said, pretty much everything you know about MF-STAR on the Kolkata class is nonsense.

And you most definitely do not know what you are talking about, especially when you are comparing an old PESA with a DBF capable GaN AESA.

"On the other side it must be noted that, according to the most informed sources, any SAM sites in the Benghazi area are not believed to be operational and, MANPADs aside, real threats to the French fighters were extremely limited in that area. For this reason, without much trouble a French attack plane (Mirage 2000D or Rafale) fired the first shot of Operation Odyssey Dawn at 14.45Z (using either a GBU-12 laser guided bomb or a AASM air-to-ground guided weapon)."

*yawn*

Ever heard of mobile SAMs? Do you think enemy armour will not be protected by SPAAG and SRSAMs? Common sense, brah.

2.

The initial French strike package to operate over Benghazi included 8 x Rafale, 2 x Mirage 2000-5, 2 x Mirage 2000 D, 6 x C-135 tanker and 1 x E3F AWACS (20 aircraft in total).

Oh, yeah, C-135s, AWACS etc were all flying over the target. Great logic. Someone give this guy a cookie.

The only aircraft that entered Benghazi were 4 Rafales. The rest were around to provide top cover and escort. Dude, all of this is just common sense.

Even in your post Balakot attack, you had 2 dozen aircraft, but only 3 entered Indian air space.

Common sense and logic, you don't get that from a textbook.

SPY-1D(v) can identify and track a target having an RCS of 0.0025 m^2 at ranges in excess of 165 KM on 3.3 GHz frequency. And in case you didn't knew, SPY-1D(v) have managed to notice and track ballistic missiles at distances in excess of 1000 KM (heritage.org).

If the MS-STAR radar system is able to detect and track sea-skimming cruise missiles within the 30 - 35 KM range at most then this radar system is simply not in the league of SPY-1D(v), not even close irrespective of its marketing hype.

Utter fail. You have no idea what those two statements mean. Better ask someone more informed what those statements mean. I can give you a hint, but I'm not gonna bother.

And keep in mind the fact that MF-STAR does not have BMD capability as in it cannot help stop ASBM attacks.

Totally irrelevant. The radar itself can easily be modified for BMD, it has the angle for it. We are just not bothered by having this capability on a small ship due to limited firepower compared to AB class. The MF-STAR is better suited for BMD than the AB class is. Unlike the US, all our BM threats are over land.

 

[crankthatskunk]

Link to the article ?

Also, Modi never made the statement in blue. He said the results would have been different if we had the Rafale. Nothing about any damages. Don't deliberately misquote.

Good, you put the record straight. While you at it, care to explain how the results would have been different. Considering what the articles says that Su 30 is superior to Rafale in every department. Why Rafale would have made a difference to the results which Su 30s couldn't!!!

 

[Aasimkhan]

Can Pakistan not go for a MiG-35 with Chinese radar, weapons, EW and avionics fit?
-Would provide a high speed, high altitude BVR platform that can shoot at range
-A cheap solution compared to anything that can play a similar role (Eurofighter, Su-35, J-10C)
-Would have parts and engine commonality with the JF-17

Why not J16?

 

[Ultima Thule]

Why not J16?

Not possible, because design is Russian intellectual property @Aasimkhan

 

[Aasimkhan]

Not possible, because design is Russian intellectual property @Aasimkhan

Let China worry about it, why should we?
If intellectual property rights were important then these rights of nuclear bomb, rocket engine , submarines , jet engines etc etc belong to German engineers whose plans were stolen by USA and UK after ww2

 

[Ultima Thule]

Let China worry about it, why should we?
If intellectual property rights were important then these rights of nuclear bomb, rocket engine , submarines , jet engines etc etc belong to German engineers whose plans were stolen by USA and UK after ww2

China can't export J-16 there are rules of intellectual properties written after ww2, and think that you developed nike shirt copy illegally and trying to sell to market then nike company would sue you because they spend millions of $$$ to develop these products, our best chance to get J-10C not J-16 @Aasimkhan

 

[Signalian]

So you do not know much about radar systems, got it.

Next time, do not boast about your self-assumed superiority in knowledge.

You are wasting your time with an idiot. He doesn't know a thing about radars. Last year in sept i had a discussion with him on radars and he had no clue to what a simple radios transmitter is, let alone a radar . Seeing that he has zero knowledge about radars, i felt i had just wasted my time for nothing. He will copy paste stuff from all around the world to prove a point which in the end amounts to nothing at all.

 

[M.AsfandYar]

@LeGenD what a colossal wastage of your time and bandwidth so much so that he made you do that, it made me depressed.

 

[Daghalodi]

@LeGenD please dont waste your time feeding a stupid indian troll.

 

[Armchair]

Why not J16?

hi Aasim Bhai, for the following reasons:

1. Not available for export
2. Highly overpriced (more expensive than the J-20s)
3. Maintenance intensive with a high maintenance engine
4. New, highly complex and sensitive engine would need completely new overhaul facilities.

 

[Ultima Thule]

2. Highly overpriced (more expensive than the J-20s)

No J-16 is not expensive than J-20, and please tell me where do get this information, can you give a back up for your claims @Armchair

3. Maintenance intensive with a high maintenance engine
4. New, highly complex and sensitive engine would need completely new overhaul facilities.

And every new fighter jets induction of any air force faces similar problems (new technology), remember PAF faces similar technology hurdles when we inducts F-16 in early 80s @Armchair