Know Your 'Rafale'

[halloweene]

Just for the fun, AASM trial movie...

 

[Drsomnath999]

Aviation Week, Feb 23:

COURTESY:OLYBRIUS
THANK U FOR THE PICS MATE

 

[halloweene]

I would like to quote bue apple for the answer he gave long tie ago to jon lake in keypublishing about paveway iv

Typhoon has an edge because it has a better low cost weapon (namely the PWIV, which is a highly maneuverable, inflight selectable fuse, dual mode bomb). Point agreed. No need to discuss this.


ANSWER


Of course there is reason to discuss this because it isn't true!

A Paveway bomb is made of three elements:
1) The bomb body filled with explosive
2) The fuse
3) The guidance kit

To understand why the PW IV is such a big deal for the uk and the uk only, you have to understand the specific background of English weapons.

The US has been using the Mk 8x serie of bombs since the 50s. These so)-called "slick"bombs were designed to minimize drag which explains their elongated shape. Other countries used their own bomb designs slowly migrated to what has become a de facto NATO standard.

Now, the UK decided to stick with their own serie of bombs (developped during WWII) much longer, to the point that they tried to fit Paveway guidance kits to their old Royal Ordinance bombs which resulted in the "Frankenbomb", the EPWII "Lot 1" which is a Mk 13/20/22 bomb (1000 lbs) fitted with the kit designed for the Mk 84 (2000 lbs) because the Mk 13 is much shorter and wider than the Mk 83 (1000 lbs). The end result is a bomb with less than ideal aerodynamic caracteristics.

The UK finally decided to develop its own Mk 82 clone and fill it with insensitive explosive for use aboard carriers (like the CBEMS used by the Aeronavale and the BLU-11 used by the US Navy).

The second piece of the puzzle is the fuze. Along with the standardization towards the Mk8x serie of bombs (and clones like the CBEMS from MBDA), the same standardization went towards 3" fuzes placed in the rear well of the bomb. Here also the UK decided to go against the trend to the point that their latest fuze (the AURORA from Thales UK) is using a 2" format that cannot fit in a Mk 8x bomb unless you put it in an adapter and even then it sticks in the back. This forced Raytheon to slightly adapt the rear of the PWII kit to fot around the fuze.

It's the fuze that brings the reprogrammable in flight aspects (as long as the plane weapon system is compatible with it, the Rafale is and the ability to clear all safety from the cockpit has been qualified as a huge improvement by its operators). The AURORA is an all-digital fuze with advanced modes that is similar to the FBM 21 developped by the French and the FMU 15x developped by the US (all these fuzes were developped in the last 10 years).

Now you can understand why the PW IV is such a big deal for the UK while no one else care about it. For a UK mission planner, you can either use a bomb that is too large, has less range, is less safer to store and manipulates and lacks the advanced safety features and the reprogrammability of the latest bombs or use a PW IV with all bangs and whistles.

For the French or the US, they can mix and match kit according to the mission. Don't need advanced fusing option? The older FMU-139 can do the job. Don't need the extended launch enveloppe? Use the standard PW II guidance unit. Don't operate from ships? The Mk 82 standard bomb is insensitive enough to be used safely.

A GBU-12 fitted with a FBM21 and operated from a Rafale has the same fusing options as a PWIV or an AASM because it's the fuze that matters, not the bomb it's put in.

And if you want the whole shebang, the GBU-49 with the same guidance unit as the PWIV, a similar fuze (AURORA vs FBM 21) and similar bomb bodies (MK 82E vs CBEMS) will deliver the same performance as a PW IV.

Well, except that the PWIV is 10% heavier, so it will have roughly 10% less max range.

 

[halloweene]

I'm going to make a purely private statement, without any clue : things are going well. Believe it or not. There's also been some trouble few months ago when an employee was found to fax confidential items to india from Thales . No clue about the destination... (could have been any agency, embassy or lobbyist)

 

[p2prada]

I'm going to make a purely private statement, without any clue : things are going well. Believe it or not.

Good to know. News from insiders on both sides are appreciated.

There's also been some trouble few months ago when an employee was found to fax confidential items to india from Thales . No clue about the destination... (could have been any agency, embassy or lobbyist)

That was a rather dumb thing to do.

 

[Armand2REP]

 

[halloweene]

Good to know. News from insiders on both sides are appreciated.



That was a rather dumb thing to do.

Honestly i think you'll find this kind of things in any huge international markets (and from every parts concerned) noone knows who's the guy was faxing to (secret service, newspaper, EADS india, or whatever).... When Elysee was hacked from the US few months ago, The IP adresses of hackers were tracable...
I'm not really insider, only reservist, just hear one thing or two sometimes...

 

[Immanuel]

GBU 105 is a gliding bomb... Different purpose. You cannot ask a gliding bomb various angle of striking for example, neither can you use it with decent range during low altitude high speed high G lauching. It is a very good weapon, but ay not as versatile as Hammer. Try to lauch 6 SDB towards six different targets in six different direction in a single salvo for ex.
I dont understand your point about itar not being a big deal once again i'll quote obama's will to have itar retroactive. About Rafale, can you cite me which parts are ITAR? Near none (and french built afaik).
2m concrete is hardly a bunker.
France ordered 3400 AASM atm.
Not any ammo was lended/given to France during Lybian war, its an urban legend. Some were to other airforces, but its kinda out of topic no (and i dont get your sentence tbh, what is unkil?).
About cost, you can cite french order costs, as they include development costs we do not have any idea of weapon cost for export. But considering SA asked an implementation on their Tornado, one can guess it is not "unworkable" :cool2: .

I already see two types of missions : deep low altitude strike (propelled vs gliding) and Air interdiction (usage versatility) where it would be superior to SDB. That is not saying SDB isnt a good weapon (more weapons/rack, longer range under some circumstances) just they are different stuff/use.

No idea about future sdb2 price. Have you?

CBU 97/105 are cluster weapons, with all the collateral damage this type of ammo have, absolutely different from smart weapons like aasm and SDB. In lybia, first ROE was to avoid collateral damage...

Noone said India should use only AASM

AASM can only be carried in small numbers 6 and the number goes down if the bomb is bigger and is just not worth the cost per unit, while SDB can be carried in more numbers 16+ secondly, SDB has a decent enough range at low level as well.

CBU-105 is a smart cluster muniton possibly the smartest ever made, designed to recognise enemy ground vehicles and kill, it is a weapon of significant damage and its kill radius is wide enough to take out air defence batteries, tank regiments and support elements with a single bomb, would be silly to use expensive multiple launches of AASM while single CBU would kill more ground vehicles than all six AASM combined.

AASM doesn't make any economic sense due to the very high volume of targets. However, I guess a few heavy AASMs could be ordered for certain missions.

 

[halloweene]

I do not know the exact low altitude range of SDB1 (if we keep talking about existing weapons). AASM is 15 Kms released at 100 feet, 500 knots. I'm genuinely interested in info if you have
I agree AASM is expensive, (and will be less expensive the more are ordered) but it has capabilities SDB do not have. Btw France also use GBU on Rafale.
Very high volume of targets is your opinion of what may be a future conflict. Noone prevents you from integrating CBU it on Rafale.
The 16 packaging "on any fighter"vis pure paperboard AFAIK. (4 BRU61)
Finally, they definitely do not have the same explosive content. One is propelled, the other gliding etc. Comparing apples and oranges.
And it comes with ITAR restrictions...

 

[Armand2REP]

I do not know the exact low altitude range of SDB1 (if we keep talking about existing weapons). AASM is 15 Kms released at 100 feet, 500 knots. I'm genuinely interested in info if you have

You already know the base stats. It follows an altitude/speed curve. Assuming cruising speed, 15km/treetop, 20km /1000ft, 30km/10,000ft, 40km 20,000ft, 50km/30,000ft, 60km/40,000ft.

I agree AASM is expensive, (and will be less expensive the more are ordered) but it has capabilities SDB do not have. Btw France also use GBU on Rafale.

GPS/INS/IR is three times what we pay for Paveway II and GPS/INS is twice. I think it worth the price for the capability of stand-off and greater precision.

Very high volume of targets is your opinion of what may be a future conflict. Noone prevents you from integrating CBU it on Rafale.
The 16 packaging "on any fighter"vis pure paperboard AFAIK. (4 BRU61)

Finally, they definitely do not have the same explosive content. One is propelled, the other gliding etc. Comparing apples and oranges.
And it comes with ITAR restrictions...

SDB just doesn't have the explosive punch needed for most fixed targets. The video of it punching through a thin concrete hanger would still only destroy what was under a shaped charge, not everything in the hanger like a 250kg Hammer would. It only has twice the explosives of our 120mm mortars. The cost of SDB at $70,000 has ballooned past what we pay for Paveway II. MBDA France is making a 125kg AASM, but that is still going to be cost prohibitive as it won't be much cheaper than the 250kg version. I really hate the Brimstone for Rafale's light weight requirement as it costs more than Paveway II and must be fired at lower altitudes. The cost effective solution would be Thales' LMM, but that has the same altitude limitations as Brimstone.

 

[halloweene]

In the end, point is what use India want or could be led to do with A2G weapons. Stand off weapons is certainly something India will need, but for which purpose? Indian involved in foreign operations with UNO? Fighting heavy brigades from China or Pakistan? A weapon system is designed for a task. That task is nothing but an expansion of politics. Do india for example need a high end stand off weapon very safe for launcher (AASM)? Or high end .... Way less safe (for delivering vector) but with more ammos and less power (SDB)? Or near mass destruction weapon like CBU? Or versatile one?
Noone can say AASM "beat" SDB or Paveway or whatever (and te reverse). It is expensive. true (last number i heard is around 140k dollars), but also very versatile.
The choice of any of these weapons (or combos) is highly political, in the good acception of that term : what do you intend to do with those?
(btw, same thing could be said of CATOBAR vs STOBAR carriers)

 

[Armand2REP]

In the end, point is what use India want or could be led to do with A2G weapons. Stand off weapons is certainly something India will need, but for which purpose? Indian involved in foreign operations with UNO? Fighting heavy brigades from China or Pakistan? A weapon system is designed for a task. That task is nothing but an expansion of politics. Do india for example need a high end stand off weapon very safe for launcher (AASM)? Or high end .... Way less safe (for delivering vector) but with more ammos and less power (SDB)? Or near mass destruction weapon like CBU? Or versatile one?
Noone can say AASM "beat" SDB or Paveway or whatever (and te reverse). It is expensive. true (last number i heard is around 140k dollars), but also very versatile.
The choice of any of these weapons (or combos) is highly political, in the good acception of that term : what do you intend to do with those?
(btw, same thing could be said of CATOBAR vs STOBAR carriers)

India definitely needs stand-off weapons like AASM and Scalp EG. Just look at the SAM threats. For light requirements it still needs something that can be launched out of manpad range and it needs it fighting Maoist rebels or China.

 

[p2prada]

Honestly i think you'll find this kind of things in any huge international markets (and from every parts concerned) noone knows who's the guy was faxing to (secret service, newspaper, EADS india, or whatever)....

Maybe an overeager rookie got excited when "someone" from "India" called him up for information.

 

[p2prada]

In the end, point is what use India want or could be led to do with A2G weapons. Stand off weapons is certainly something India will need, but for which purpose? Indian involved in foreign operations with UNO? Fighting heavy brigades from China or Pakistan? A weapon system is designed for a task. That task is nothing but an expansion of politics. Do india for example need a high end stand off weapon very safe for launcher (AASM)? Or high end .... Way less safe (for delivering vector) but with more ammos and less power (SDB)? Or near mass destruction weapon like CBU? Or versatile one?
Noone can say AASM "beat" SDB or Paveway or whatever (and te reverse). It is expensive. true (last number i heard is around 140k dollars), but also very versatile.
The choice of any of these weapons (or combos) is highly political, in the good acception of that term : what do you intend to do with those?
(btw, same thing could be said of CATOBAR vs STOBAR carriers)

No point getting into a debate between bombs.

India's policy seems to be much simpler. Buy everything and see what works in a real war. One of them is bound to work against the enemy rather effectively.

I think I made a compilation of all the BVRs we've had and also plan on having. Came up to 16 different BVRs minus the Chinese and South African missiles.

8 (or 10) from Russia, 2 from India, 3 from France, 2 from Israel and one from the US. That's 16+2.

Russia - R-77 RF, R-27 RF/IR, RVV-SD, RVV-MD, RVV-BD + 2-4 options from PAKFA program. K-100 is an unknown entity. Possibly doesn't exist. So not counted.

India - Astra Mk1 and Astra Mk2. Two different missiles.

France - MICA RF/IR, Meteor

Israel - Derby, Stunner.

US - Aim-120 (option on Jaguar as a radar guided WVR missile).

So you can get into any this BVR missile vs that BVR missile discussion. No matter which missile you decided to back, we got it and it won't make a difference to us.

Similarly, we have Paveway 2 and 3. We have the French BGL series. We have the Israeli Grifin. We have the Russian KAB series. IAF recently placed an order for 50 Indian Sudarshan kits. Will obviously go for the newer AASM, Paveway 4 and any new Israeli or Russian kits in the future. Once again, pick any LGB and decide the pros and cons of each, won't make a difference to us. We have 'em all.

 

[Immanuel]

Offcourse IAF will have the CBU-105 as well as the Paveways on the Raffy, would be very silly not to have them. Griffin, Spice, Popeye-2, etc will also be integrated. Would be nice to acquire more CBUs. Love the versatality of the CBU as well since it can carry the CLAW as well as the SFW.
We should order another 2000 CBUs

Textron Defense Systems - Clean Area Weapon (CLAW)

Guess we can order a few of the heavy AASMs for stand off bombing of large targets. order SDBs as well.

As for standoff missiles, I am hoping the mini brahmos comes into play asap together with home made Anti radiation missile. Stormshadow is also very expensive better to go for the SLAM-ER, JASSM which also can be used from the P-8I.

 

[halloweene]

Well...Lets say all these weapons are useful, each in their way. Main quality of AASM is versatility, just use it for air interdiction. Otherwise we'll keep turning around.

 

[Drsomnath999]

BRAHMOS MAY BE DEPLOYED IN RAFALE IN FUTURE
Aviation Week , March 2013:

COURTESY:OLYBRIUS
THANK U FOR THE PICS MATE

 

[Drsomnath999]

AASM zeroes in on moving targets and is proven on Rafale -

Sagem is ready to begin delivery of the AASM SBU-54 laser terminal guidance version of the Hammer weapon to the French Air Force pending administrative clearance by the DGA. Clearance is expected within a matter of weeks and will pave the way for the weapon to enter operational service later this year.

Final qualification firing of the air-to-ground missile was carried out by the DGA in December 2012. The test firing was conducted by a Rafale fighter - still a contender for the UAE fighter - at the DGA's missile range in Biscarrosse, and has been declared a complete success.
The target for the test firing was a remotely piloted all-terrain vehicle that travelled at varying speeds before reaching a speed of 50km/h at the time of impact approximately 15km from the Rafale. The weapon was launched from the aircraft at an extreme off-axis angle of 90° and hit the target at an oblique angle, the vehicle was illuminated by the aircraft's Damocles pod during the final seconds of the AASM's flight. The weapon struck the target with an accuracy of less than one metre.
Speaking at Sagem's Montluçon facility in January 2013, Jean-Christophe Mugler, marketing and sales director, deputy, Sagem Avionics Division, said the firing was reflective of the weapon's extreme agility, manoeuvrability and accuracy, adding that the SBU-54 brings extended capabilities to the Hammer family.
Two previous versions of the weapon are already qualified on Rafale – the INS/GPS (SBU-38) and INS/GPS/ infrared (SBU-64), with the latest SBU-54 guidance kit featuring a laser seeker in place of the infrared imager of the SBU-64, with tracking algorithms which are activated during the terminal phase, allowing the weapon to engage agile, moving land or naval targets illuminated by a ground or airborne laser designator.
'With INS GPS, the SBU-38 can be used when the target coordinates are very well known,' Mugler said. 'However in the case of target location error, GPS unavailability or jamming, the SBU-64 is a better choice, as this weapon will be guided toward rough coordinates and then use scene-matching tracking algorithms during the terminal phase to find the target within the scene and hit the target.'
With a simplified model of the scene around the target first being uploaded to the SBU-64, the infrared imager allows the AASM to recalculate its trajectory during the last few seconds prior to impact, using image recognition algorithms. This allows the AASM to hit its target with the highest possible accuracy, even if GPS coordinates are incorrect, or the GPS signal is unavailable. The SBU-54 adds to this, using powerful algorithms for detection and flightpath slaving to a laser pointer to strike mobile targets.
'Now, the SBU-54 brings a mobile target capability to the family,' Mugler said. 'If the laser spot is locked on a mobile target, such as a moving vehicle, the weapon uses powerful algorithms for detection and flightpath slaving to that laser point to hit that target - thanks to the high manoeuvrability of its double-canard configuration.'

Arabian Aerospace - AASM zeroes in on moving targets and is proven on Rafale

 

[halloweene]

There have been new tests since on high G release, ordered by "an export customer" (source : dassault internal newspaper). SA or INdia?

 

[p2prada]

There have been new tests since on high G release, ordered by "an export customer" (source : dassault internal newspaper). SA or INdia?

UAE actually, not SA.