Know Your 'Rafale'

[StealthFlanker]

If you have to overhaul (or change) the radar every 2, 3 or 4 flights.... It's a logistical nighmare.

They dont change the radar, they just turn it on and off after the flight, which is a a normal thing, aircraft radar don't stay on when it land and go to the garage

 

[gadeshi]

Not necessary about MK series but stuff like JSOW-ER, NSM, or 4 SPEAR may be around that range

In weight, not size...

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[StealthFlanker]

.
The point is those bombs are useless for actions in contested airspace...

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

In contested space they likely use SDB II and SPEAR instead of JDAM

 

[StealthFlanker]

In weight, not size...

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Yes, and future missiles like JSOW-ER, NSM may weight around that range, the point is flexibility, if the hard point can carry more then you have a wider range to work with

 

[StealthFlanker]

It will be very raugh analysis if you don't have complete object 3D model with different materials and RAMs distribution map.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

They did make a 3D model of the F-35 and in my opinion it is reasonably accurate, but you are right about RAM. However, without RAM map you can still see the effect of shaping and general scattering pattern, that is as good as we can get , and ways more accurate than saying one fighter is more agile than the others just because it got lower wingloading or higher T/W

 

[gadeshi]

Yes, and future missiles like JSOW-ER, NSM may weight around that range, the point is flexibility, if the hard point can carry more then you have a wider range to work with

No, the point is F-35B internal carriage is restricted not because the ordnance weight but the ordnance size which must not be longer than Mk-83 bomb with Paweway-II LG unit attached.
This is because F-35B's lifting fan has eaten weapons bays space.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[gadeshi]

In contested space they likely use SDB II and SPEAR instead of JDAM

It is useless also...
They should use 250km+ capable ARMs and/or ALCMs for this but none of them can be places inside F-35 bays due to their sizes (even for A and C versions).

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[StealthFlanker]

No, the point is F-35B internal carriage is restricted not because the ordnance weight but the ordnance size which must not be longer than Mk-83 bomb with Paweway-II LG unit attached.
This is because F-35B's lifting fan has eaten weapons bays space.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

Yes but it is restricted in term of weight too

 

[StealthFlanker]

It is useless also...
They should use 250km+ capable ARMs and/or ALCMs for this but none of them can be places inside F-35 bays due to their sizes (even for A and C versions).

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

And why would they be useless ? it not like you would magical detect F-35 from 200 km or more.
Also JSM have around 555 km range as i can remember, JSOW-ER have like 560 km range

 

[Rahul Singh]

[URL='http://ajaishukla.blogspot.in/2016/08/gripen-f-16-compete-in-mmrca-re-run.html']Gripen, F-16, compete in MMRCA re-run[/url]

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 16th Aug 16

Since April 2011, when the Indian Air Force (IAF) shortlisted the Eurofighter and Rafale for purchase, Swedish company Saab has believed its JAS-39 Gripen fighter was unfairly eliminated from that globally watched tender for 126 medium multi-role combat aircraft (MMRCA). Similarly, US aerospace giant, Lockheed Martin, which had offered an F-16 Block 50/52 variant called the Super Viper, feels hard done by. Yet, one of these companies might still have the last laugh after the eventual MMRCA winner, Dassault of France, failed to conclude a contract for the Rafale.

The Gripen NG and the F-16 Block 70 --- improved variants of the fighters Saab and Lockheed Martin had earlier offered --- are frontrunners in a truncated replay of the MMRCA contest. Boeing, meanwhile, has repeated its offer of the F/A-18E/F Super Hornet. All three offers are couched in the rubric of “Make in India”.

Of the original six vendors in the MMRCA race, only Russia’s RAC MiG has faded away. Dassault continues negotiating with New Delhi, albeit only for 36 Rafales under a government-to-government sale. Eurofighter remains poised on the sidelines; offering to step in should negotiations with Dassault collapse.

A call to battle

In April 2015, when Prime Minister Narendra Modi ended three years of tortuous negotiations with Dassault, compensating the French vendor with an order for 36 fighters, Defence Minister Manohar Parrikar realised a light fighter would still be needed to replace the IAF’s retiring MiGs and bolster plummeting fighter numbers.

On April 13, 2015, Parrikar stated on Doordarshan TV: “Rafale is not a replacement for MiG-21. LCA [Light Combat Aircraft] Tejas is a replacement for MiG-21. Or, if we build some other fighter under “Make in India”… another single engine [fighter] in India, which is possible, that could be a replacement for the MiG-21.”

For Saab and Lockheed Martin, which both had single-engine, light fighters to offer, this was a call to battle. And the Aeronautical Development Agency (ADA), which runs the LCA programme, realised the Tejas had to come good quickly.

The IAF and ADA wasted no time in accelerating Tejas’ induction. Since the Tejas Mark II requires the time-consuming integration of a new engine, it was agreed to induct a stopgap Tejas Mark IA. This would have four improvements over the Mark I: active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar to boost air combat capability; an externally-carried self-protection jammer (SPJ) to blind enemy radar; mid-air refuelling to extend its range, and tidied-up internals for easier maintenance. The IAF undertook to order at least 80 Tejas Mark IA fighters.

Saab makes its play

Meanwhile, Saab prepared a three-point plan that piggybacks on the Tejas. This has not been formally proposed, but its strategy is evident from the informal offers made.

First, Saab has offered to manufacture and assemble the Gripen NG in India, partnering an Indian firm. Ministry insiders say Saab hopes to roll out the first fighter in 36 months; ramping up quickly to 18 fighters per year. The Gripen NG’s cost will depend upon how much indigenisation India demands. Building more components and sub-systems indigenously would naturally raise the cost.

Second, Saab has offered to partner ADA in developing the Tejas Mark IA, focusing on the four improvements needed. The Gripen NG’s vaunted Selex Galileo Raven ES-05 AESA radar would be manufactured in India for the Tejas Mark IA and the Gripen NG. With a 100-degree sweep, this scans a wider cone than any other current radar.

Third, Saab would help ADA develop its planned fifth-generation (Gen-5) fighter, the Advanced Medium Combat Aircraft (AMCA). In this, Saab’s capability is untested, since Europe has no Gen-5 fighter programme. Instead, Saab is part of a European consortium working on an unmanned stealth aircraft, called the nEUROn.

Significantly, Saab is silent on the Tejas Mark II --- which would directly compete with the Gripen NG. Saab’s vision clearly involves bypassing the Tejas Mark II --- and moving from the Mark IA, to the Gripen NG, to the AMCA.

Jan Widerstrom, Saab India chief, says on the Saab website: “The offer includes setting up of a full manufacturing facility; transfer of state-of-the-art technology; setting up of an aerospace eco-system in India; creation of a local supplier base of ancillary systems; employment of a well-trained Indian workforce. We would train engineers in Sweden, as we’re doing with Brazilian engineers right now for the Brazilian Gripen program. We see ourselves as a catalyst. We will provide India with cutting-edge technology which will energise India’s aerospace ecosystem.”

A usually reticent Stockholm has thrown its weight behind Saab. Sweden-India discussions centre on a joint working group (JWG) that meets annually, in accordance with a 2009 Indo-Swedish defence cooperation agreement. After the last JWG meeting in Delhi on September 29-30, the two national security advisors met in October in the first Indo-Swedish “strategic dialogue”. Ramming home the message, Sweden’s prime minister, Stefan Lofven, travelled to India in February for the “Make in India” exhibition in Mumbai.

According to a joint release after his meeting with Modi: “The two prime ministers… agreed that under the rubric of Make in India, cooperation possibilities between their respective defence industries could be identified and taken forward appropriately, including in the field of aviation.”

On June 10, IAF boss, Air Chief Marshal Arup Raha, travelled to Saab’s production facility in Linkoping, Sweden, and test flew the Gripen NG at a Swedish air base. There is talk of IAF test pilots travelling to Sweden to check out the fighter.

While the IAF apparently likes the Gripen NG, it does not want to disturb the Rafale negotiations, which it considers top priority. While not a Gen-5 fighter, the Gripen NG’s data link --- a key element in modern air combat --- is reputedly the world’s most advanced. Its avionics are built of Gallium Nitride, which delivers superior performance over conventional Gallium Arsenide avionics. The Gripen NG carries diverse weaponry from various countries, including the French Meteor beyond visual range air-to-air missile (BVRAAM), reputedly the world’s most advanced, with an estimated range of about 150 kilometres. Independent researcher IHS Jane’s, finds the Gripen the cheapest contemporary fighter to operate.

F-16 Block 70 offer

Going toe-to-toe with Saab, a characteristically aggressive Lockheed Martin is pushing hard on its offer, made through the Indo-US Defence Trade and Technology Initiative (DTTI), to shift its F-16 production line from Fort Worth, Texas to India.

Over the preceding four decades, 4,588 F-16s have been built, in 138 versions, for 27 user countries, the sheer size of that production run making it a cheap and affordable fighter. But now F-16 orders have dried up, and Lockheed Martin wants Forth Worth fully turned over to building the thousands of F-35 Lightening II joint strike fighters (JSFs) on order.

“An Indian F-16 order clearly serves multiple US interests. It would revitalise the F-16 production chain, which is about to shut down; sell India the 1970s production line instead of just junking it; allow Fort Worth to focus on building F-35s; and strengthen defence ties with New Delhi”, notes a senior IAF officer.

At a media briefing in New Delhi last Friday, Lockheed Martin’s Randy Howard made it clear that production would be shifted to India only if the IAF buys the F-16.

Howard talked up the “next generation avionics” of the Block 70 version of the F-16, but IAF officials are sceptical. Its APG-83 Scalable Agile Beam Radar (SABR), while a reputed AESA radar, has been built by Northrop Grumman since 2014 for the US and Taiwanese air forces. Nor is the “high speed data network” and the “upgraded core computer” that Howard advertised noticeably superior to what is on the older Block 50/52. Analysts wonder what changes justify a new block number.

Within the IAF, which has for the last four decades, focused its training and tactics on fighting Pakistan F-16s, there is entrenched resistance to buying that fighter. Further, the air marshals are certain Washington would never allow Lockheed Martin to offer the kind of holistic proposal and technology transfer that Saab has offered.

Assuaging these concerns, Ben Schwartz, who heads aerospace and defence for the US-India Business Council says: “The F-16 offers would come in as FMS deals with unprecedented technology transfer and Make-in-India characteristics. A lot of work has gone into evaluating the level of indigenization – more so than in any other case that people can recall.” Backing him up, a senior Pentagon official says: “In US-India negotiations today, you have to throw away all the assumptions of the past about what Washington will allow and what it will deny. Don’t assume anything is off the table.”

Boeing officials, who have separately offered to build the heavy, twin-engine F/A-18E/F Super Hornet in India, say their “Make in India” beats Lockheed Martin’s. “If India wants an indigenous aerospace eco-system, it makes no sense to buy an old production line, with all its inefficiencies. Boeing is offering a fighter that will remain in service through the 2040s, and possibly the 2050s, far longer than the F-16, and offering to build it on a brand new Indian production line”, says one official.

Boeing’s most powerful argument for the Super Hornet is perhaps its utility for the Indian Navy. After worrying questions from the Comptroller and Auditor General over the Russian MiG-29K’s ability to operate off a carrier, there is talk of the need to hedge India’s bets for the second indigenous aircraft carrier, INS Vishal.

With three offers in hand, the defence ministry has not yet taken the initiative, nor issued a single “request for information” (RFI) or “request for proposals” (RFP). New Delhi has not divulged whether it wants competitive tendering, or a government-to-government strategic acquisition. The long-promised policy for nominating Indian “strategic partners (SP) remains in limbo, leaving foreign vendors with little idea about who could be their Indian partner.

Says a senior executive from one of the vendor companies: “It may well emerge that New Delhi is using discussions with Saab, Lockheed and Boeing as a stalking horse for the Rafale negotiation, putting pressure on Dassault with the range of options that India has. Until there is clarity, we can only continue groping in the dark.”

----------------

We know why we say it, what is highlighted in red.

 

[Yumdoot]

F-35 already joined exercise with F-15E , F-15C and F-16
and for your information doing exercise with older aircraft is nothing new , even the F-22 did exercise with T-38 and in fact they got shot down by T-38 too , in a dogfight , anyone can die

Did the F-22 die consistently to older generation planes?

With F-35 its nearly a habit now. There would hardly be any plane in USAF inventory that has not humped the JSF.

Only reason its not been killed others is because it has not yet been exposed.

loiter time has nothing to do with wingloading , B-1 have much higher wingloading than all fighters but it also stay in the air for much longer too
heck even wingloading is not that simple , you cannot just compare the wingloading of 2 different planes and conclude that one othem is more agile without take into account their respective lift coefficient , otherwise F-4 would be more agile than F-16 and F-106 would turn better than F-22

First make up your mind if you are here to discuss F-35 or B-1. You can off course carry large amount of fuel too just the way F-35 ultimately has to do to get a loiter time that is poorer than A-10.

And what give you the idea that F-135 need to be operated at near wet thrust most of the time ?

Check out how it does it uses modified Rutowski manuvers just to raise itself to operating heights. Then the stupid full afterburner dash based supercruise is even funnier. Iske baad aur kay chahiye. That fat turkey cannot fly without that big engine on full AFB or such higher operating regimes, most of the times

 

[Yumdoot]

The picture wasnt supposed to show the situation where F-35 attack the Awacs , it was to show the relationship between burn through range and RCS ( aka RCS and jamming effectiveness )

AWACS locate and track emitters by passive methods by the hundreds at the least.

Do you actually understand what is multistatic ?

Oh I am always ready to be educated.

Your radar power , range and resolution cell doesnt just
magically increased because you put them in the so called "multi static " arrangement
the point of multi-static is simply to get a chance to look at stealth aircraft from an angle where it's RCS is higher than frontal direction , but to do that you have to station your aircraft so far apart that they can hardly even able to support each others, and it also require you to know the general direction before hand

But seriously Multi statics are used in several different ways. For the lower ranges you have heard of, you will seriously need to check out the peak powers first.

Multi static arrangements do increase ranges. This is so even in the Sonar systems where again the multistatic arrangements alongwith lower freq. is a deciding factor in increasing detection ranges.

Re. "so far apart". Do check out what the promotional material are claiming. Mostly in 5 km or so ranges. Actually good multistatic systems require sensors to be somewhat closer and in line of sight. The range increases is because of the chain of these sensors.

Not just that the multistatic capabilities are most likely already there on even the AWACS of third world countries by now. It this was not effective then nobody would be willing to look at UAVs.

Re. "know the general direction before hand". Now what can I say about this. The earliest radar arrangements were multistatic arrangements because of hardware limitations and ease of characterizing the radar return patterns. Knowing the general direction is about as much as with any other system. Even for monostatic radars you will have to know which general direction to transmit.

Because ,if you only listen then you can hardly even able to get a firing solution for your missiles , passive ranging again stationary ground target is easy , passive ranging again moving non coporeative air target is a completely different story

Lock on before and after launch for Semi active guidance systems. Rings a bell.

Happens even in sound ranging for artillery.

You are heard you will be detected and killed.

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/
Moreover , there is nothing to stop 1 F-35 from transmitting and share information with others F-35 through directional datalink , if your Rafale , AWACs stay passive then the best you could hope to see is the one that transmitting but not the others silent hunters

And Su-30MKIs could share information about a decade back for its quasi AWACS functions. I don't deny that F-35 too can. But that chatter will light up screens of those listening.

The problem is not about computing power , jamming on F-35 will be more effective simply due to it's lower RCS

Yes that is how Mig-21 got to kill F-15s. Not really a discovery.

But come on you brought up that stupid picture of an X band radar or support jammer jamming an AWACS (mostly S Band, L Band or VHF). W. T. Hell. Jab tak American stuff hai tab tak jo marzi bol do aur jo marzi jammer say jo marzi sensor jam karva do.

You should look at the size of these S , C band fire control radar , it not a coincident that they are all massive .
If you go lower frequency then your gain reduce , which mean power concentration reduce and resolution cell increase , to get higher range you better get massive aperture for your antenna. And just because you go to lower frequency doesnt mean you can magically detect stealth aircraft from all distance and all aspect angle and all others factors like clutter and signal-noise ratio suddenly disappeared

Yup I cannot ............if its B-2. Which the JSF is not. .

And they are massive from the JSF size perspective. For their ranges which often run into 200+ km the size looks to me at least very very reasonable. Today some of these systems even have emplacement and decampment times matching with the 5 minute schedules of the modern SAMs.

1) passive ranging to get a firing solution moving aircraft is not easy and almost impossible again noncoperative target

For now. You may add.

2) 1 F-35 can transmit and share information with the whole formation which mean if you stay silent then you easily catch the bait too

They are going to be silent already. They are VLO with LPI. Only death can make them more silent.

3)all radar have a certain bandwidth that they can operate in , wider bandwidth = more false alarm

That I may have to check out deeper. But they have already failed with even Sea Based X-Band. CFAR is dependent on clutter and decoys too and X-band decoys are much more easier to make can lug around.

So I don't see how that is relevant. JSF is still dead if its heard.

1)the radar isnot junk level , all radars obey physic rules , and if physics still applied then lower RCS will always reduce burn through distance significantly , a radar than can burn though Rafale jamming from 300 km will only able to do that to an F-35 from merely 30 km

What is 'significant'?

Is that the 10 km that you were showing in that picture against an AWACS.

2) IRST need LRF to give firing solution , LRF range is around 20-30 km on good weather ( for example the maximum range for OLS-35 on Su-35S is merely 20 km for air targets )

Sir ji, 20 km for now. Tomorrow the L Band radar and even off board sensors will provide that info fully calculated and lighted up on the Sukhoi's screens.

And there is going to be more methods to do that ranging part.

It is only a general engineering problem not difficult to solve.

Currently nobody is betting that JSF will be a success and there are not very many of F-22s. The incentive is simply not there to work on that problem.

3) IRST range that you often see in PDF advertised are in best possible condition ( look up , maximum zoom , clear weather no cloud , target flying supersonic ) in others condition such as target flying at lower altitude , subsonic or near cloud then the range is much shorter
simply reduce speed from supersonic to mach 0.8 can reduce IR detection range by more than 2 times

Hence the L band sensors on the PAKFA. Which will stay on even the FGFA. Which works perfectly fine even in the worst of weather.

moreover , if you increase your speed to close the distance with an F-35 firing AIM-120 or Meteor at you then basically you are commiting sucide , increase closuare rate will only make it harder to avoid missiles

Not if you are playing with the Doppler calculations of the opponent's sensors.

And what speeds would these missiles be traveling at. Remember your own Temp vs. Velocity graph . Now I don't even need to know where your F-35 is.

Here's why the F-22 with its pitch only TVC is difficult to gather on the screens of opponent's radar:
http://vayu-sena.tripod.com/interview-simonov1.html

How is that that supermaneuverability leads to the reduction of the aircraft's visibility on the radar screen?

Supermaneuverability should be looked at as a system of maneuvers for close aerial combat. Once the pilot receives a signal that his plane is being tracked by an enemy radar, the first thing he needs to do is to go vertical. While gaining altitude and losing speed the aircraft starts to disappear from the screens of radars that use the Doppler effect. 10 However, the opponent is no fool either and will counter by pitching his aircraft upward as well. By that time our plane is going vertical and its speed approaches zero. But all Doppler radars can recognize only a moving target. If the aircraft speed is zero or simply low enough to prevent the enemy radar from calculating the Doppler component, for the enemy our aircraft will disappear. He may still be able to track us visually, but he will not be able to launch a radar-guided missile (either active or semi-active), simply because the missile's seeker would not pick-up the target.

Holds true for Sukhois too. But not for JSF. Because the fat turkey cannot fly properly in the first place. Needing to do a modified Rutowski maneuver just to get to its operating altitudes.


BTW I am a great supporter of JSF........................... so long as we Indians don't have to buy the stupd thing. That the Americans do buy it is a wind fall gain for us Indians.

 

[gadeshi]

And why would they be useless ? it not like you would magical detect F-35 from 200 km or more.
Also JSM have around 555 km range as i can remember, JSOW-ER have like 560 km range

JASSM ER has 560 km, but it cannot be put to MWB.
JSOW is just a gliding bomb.
F-35 can be detected from 650+ km with any capable M-Band radar (such as Niebo-U from S-400 regimental complects) as far as its stealth abilities work fine in X-Band (3-4sm) and doesn't work at all in M-Band (1-2M).

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[Yumdoot]

StealthFlanker said: ↑
RCS can be estimated ( to a certain degree of accuracy ) by software, especially if airframe is in optical region of the wavelength , they have done that for aged.

reply:

RCS beiing estimated? You are pulling our legs ! In this case why investing in huge RCS chamber? Or the accuracy is.... totally inapropriate. It's not like seeing a woman to estimate her breast size (with practice it's possible). LOL.

You can be funny too. :biggrin2:. Enjoyed that comment.

But he did qualify his view with the words "to a certain degree of accuracy". Even if he did not mention the degrees.

Anyhow, I need to read up, but RCS should be an estimate only. Its kind of hard to believe that any scientific study will be able to move the surface and the sensor in all possible orientations, for any given aircraft (real airframe that is).

In fact if its upto me I would like to use scale models of the air frame and find out other methods to make the data collected relevant for RCS calculations. And this would again be estimates only.

 

[Yumdoot]

The problem is you wont be able to locate F-35 from hundreds km , and the precision wont be 5 km , precision must be viewed in term of resolution cell , a L-band arrays with similar aperture to fighter fire control radar can achieve angular accuracy of 10-20 degree at best , good luck shot down anything with that.
and even 5 km precision is horrible given that long-range missile have to follow ballistic arcs , you missiles will dive down ways before it can find it's target.

What if the IRST is also added to the mix and changes in azimuth and elevation angles is used by a single quick manuvering Rafale/PAKFA/Su-30MKI, moving at say 200 meters per second (0.5 mach approx.).

Or say the instantaneous azimuth and elevation angles of two Rafales/PAKFA are available for triangulating. Will that resolve the range resolution problem.

What if the missile itself comes with a Track Via Missile that PAC-2 has.

Or a more esoteric Ground Radar Guidance with Missile Sensor receiving updates like the S-400/S-300 has.

Do these systems look like being capable of resolving the range resolution problem to you.

 

[Yumdoot]

And why would they be useless ? it not like you would magical detect F-35 from 200 km or more.
Also JSM have around 555 km range as i can remember, JSOW-ER have like 560 km range

Detection ranges of even Akash SAM Radars will be enough to challenge F-35 type targets at tactically relevant ranges. All this is open source information.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Did the F-22 die consistently to older generation planes?

yes it did , here is F-22 got shot down by T-38 in dogfight

First make up your mind if you are here to discuss F-35 or B-1. You can off course carry large amount of fuel too just the way F-35 ultimately has to do to get a loiter time that is poorer than A-10.

irrelevance , you said higher wing loading will lead to lower loiter time , which is ultimately wrong. Most fighter wont be able to achieve longer loiter time than aircraft with very high bypass ratio engine like A-10

Check out how it does it uses modified Rutowski manuvers just to raise itself to operating heights.

Absolute nonsense ,Rutowski maneuver is used to take advantage specific excess power to accelerate, it the matter of speed , it has nothing to do with climbing here ,( and it was the F-35C and B who did it in test not the A version ) next time dont talk about things that you dont actually understand.
https://www.google.com.sg/url?sa=t&...rprwa4B89tDebCz8Q&sig2=ntrTrCmMycU799RXbk8qxQ
Btw Rutowski is not uncommon , unload is common among fighter pilot to gain speed.

Then the stupid full afterburner dash based supercruise is even funnier.

Really ? , give one official source that stated that F-35 need full afterburner to have supercruise dash then ? or you pulled it out of your behind again , like the Rafale and MACE XIII rumour ?

AWACS locate and track emitters by passive methods by the hundreds at the least.

no they dont , to give firing solution again aircraft they need the active elements, they dont just put a massive radar on AWACs just for fun you know .

But seriously Multi statics are used in several different ways. For the lower ranges you have heard of, you will seriously need to check out the peak powers first.
Multi static arrangements do increase ranges. This is so even in the Sonar systems where again the multistatic arrangements alongwith lower freq. is a deciding factor in increasing detection ranges.
Re. "so far apart". Do check out what the promotional material are claiming. Mostly in 5 km or so ranges. Actually good multistatic systems require sensors to be somewhat closer and in line of sight. The range increases is because of the chain of these sensors.
Not just that the multistatic capabilities are most likely already there on even the AWACS of third world countries by now. It this was not effective then nobody would be willing to look at UAVs.

you dont actually know anything about how radar work do you ?
multi static arrangement in sonar is not for increasing range , it for triangulate the sound location , otherwise you wouldnt be able to measuare the range.
Another use of multi static arrangement is to increase accuracy , in which using aircraft flying only 5 km apart from each others is ok ( it basically triangulation to improve angular accuracy ). But if you want to detect stealth fighters , your receivers elements in your so called multistatic arrangement need to be stationed from the direction where the RCS scattering is high (aka a spike ) , which is ways outside frontal direction. A simulation done by MBDA and BAE showned that even with massive L band AWACS radar , they still need to stationed 30 degrees boardside from flight path of stealth aircraft to be effective. do you understand how big is 30 degrees at 100-200 km ?

"know the general direction before hand". Now what can I say about this. The earliest radar arrangements were multistatic arrangements because of hardware limitations and ease of characterizing the radar return patterns. Knowing the general direction is about as much as with any other system. Even for monostatic radars you will have to know which general direction to transmit..

That not what i mean , this is how a multi static system can detect a stealth aircraft , because for normal radar the receiver and transmitter located at one place so the airframe of the stealth aircraft just have to deflect the radar wave away from the source. For a multistatic arrangement the receiver is so far from the transmitter that the deflection wave from the airframe of stealth fighter may still get into the receiver elements.The problem is that for a fighter formation , if you want to create a multi static arrangement you need to know exactly where the enemy come from before hand why ? because the fighters need to be very far apart from each others , if let say you put fighter fly side by side along a line to make a multi static arrangement , what if enemy dont attack from the front but from the side ? Understood ? they dont work by magic.

Lock on before and after launch for Semi active guidance systems. Rings a bell.

this has nothing to do with passive ranging , the seeker of the SARH missiles simply home on the CW reflection. They do not measuared the range. And the fire control radar still need to lock on target ( need to know range and speed ) before you launched the missiles and changed to CW mode

Happens even in sound ranging for artillery.
You are heard you will be detected and killed.

for artillery you can see the fire/flash and them timed the time it take until you hear the noise to estimate the range ( there are 2 elements the noise and flash ), and you know the angular direction too , how exactly do you plan to do it again fighter transmitting it's radar ? not to mentioned the fact that enemy fighter actually moving.

And Su-30MKIs could share information about a decade back for its quasi AWACS functions. I don't deny that F-35 too can. But that chatter will light up screens of those listening.

there is something called directional datalink ( MADL ) ;look it up

But come on you brought up that stupid picture of an X band radar or support jammer jamming an AWACS (mostly S Band, L Band or VHF).

and what make you think MALD-J can only work in X band ?

And they are massive from the JSF size perspective. For their ranges which often run into 200+ km the size looks to me at least very very reasonable.

the range is not why these radar are big , you should read up resolution cell and radar gain to know why low frequency radar need to be big

And no ,RCS of stealth fighter doesnt suddently fo to hundred dBsm just becaused you go to low frequency.

decampment times matching with the 5 minute schedules of the modern SAMs..

what VHF , S , L band radar can decamp by 5 minutes ? there are none , i saw people repeat that BS like a thounsands time before but no one can even pointed out to an offficial source

For now. You may add.

unless one day you can break physic , my assessment still correct , they dont put radar on fighters for fun.

They are going to be silent already. They are VLO with LPI. Only death can make them more silent.

the one transmitting is VLO and LPI , but the one who didnt transmit have VLO and NPI

CFAR is dependent on clutter and decoys too and X-band decoys are much more easier to make can lug around..

You go to lower frequency you will have more clutters because you beam width are wider , and no X band decoys are not easier to make , unless you compare to MMW decoys ( which with 99% atmosphere attenuation per km , they cant hardly be used at long distance)

So I don't see how that is relevant. JSF is still dead if its heard.

No it isnt , detect and lock are 2 different things

What is 'significant'?
Is that the 10 km that you were showing in that picture against an AWACS.

It not the exact number that is important , it is the proportion that we care about , the number is simply to illustrate the proportion for lazy people , but there is the basic radar a equation there , use it.
Honestly , it very hard to explain if you dont understand even the most basic of radar and ECM
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/radar-electronic-countermeasure/
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/08/11/radar-fundamentals-part-ii/
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/electronic-countermeasure-ecm/

Tomorrow the L Band radar

THe L band transmitter on Su-35, PAK-FA wing slat are IFF system , not a radar , with that size and working at L band their resolution cell would be so massive that they are practically useless as a radar

and even off board sensors will provide that info fully calculated and lighted up on the Sukhoi's screens.

And what frequency that so called off board sensors will work at ?

And there is going to be more methods to do that ranging part.
It is only a general engineering problem not difficult to solve.

it is a massive problem. If it was that easy to solved then it would have been solved

Currently nobody is betting that JSF will be a success

"Currently no internet armchair general is betting that JSF will be a success" fixed it for you

the L band sensors on the PAKFA

1) the L band on PAK-FA is not a radar , it is an IFF system , a land with that size will have a massived beam width and useless as a radar. why do you think the main fire controlled radar of PAK-FA still work in X band ?
2) just because you go to L band doesnt mean you can suddently detect stealth aircraft at all distance

Not if you are playing with the Doppler calculations of the opponent's sensors.

that thing is called beaming , aka you choose a path that is near perpendicular to missiles flight path , you dont have to go vertical. That work well again old radar , not so much again the new one. MTI of modern radar can actually see the movement of troops and grounds car , tank , how well do you think that doppler notch can work ?

JASSM ER has 560 km, but it cannot be put to MWB.
JSOW is just a gliding bomb.

JSOW-ER can be put in main weapon bay , it is the same size as JSOW

F-35 can be detected from 650+ km with any capable M-Band radar (such as Niebo-U from S-400 regimental complects) as far as its stealth abilities work fine in X-Band (3-4sm) and doesn't work at all in M-Band (1-2M)

Stealth aircraft have higher RCS in low frequency , but they dont increase that much

.In term of shape going from optical to Mie region only increase your RCS by around 4 times , and if you go to rayleigh region the RCS will actually decrease.
" NEBO VSU to detect F-35 from 650 km ", that is nothing more than wishful thinking, almost a child dream but far from reality

 

[smestarz]

Sorry to barge in, Like I said before, firstly why are you talking about F-35 on Rafale thread?? Besides just to reply a point, F-35 is still new, the pilots still have to get used to the way it handles etc, and after that they will device tactics for F-35. So till that time the tactics are not fully developed, a lot of people are going to say a lot of things. Planes like Eurofighter, F-16 are going to beat it in exercises.
But once the tactics for F-35 are developed and when they enter exercises which are fair (as per actual combat) you might see planes like F-16, Rafale, etc being downed well before they detect F-35.

IF the limit of exercise will be only WVR, then the odds are very much in favour of the opponent.

When people call names to planes like F-35 and PAKFA which are not even fully operational, they do not really understand some of the basic facts..

By the way our own IAF top brass had given similar comments about Tejas when it was being developed and also about the availability rate of Su-30 MKI, but Parrikar simply with putting some new policies in place, made the availability rate much better. Tejas is now being appreciated by everyone including IAF.

Congress party was not really in favour of Tejas it seems and so they were not really pushing that project or maybe they did not have any clue. Then IAF automatically get benefit of it and start to push for "imported maal" to suit their needs and personal pockets

So I feel Let the tactics first be evolved and then if F-35 loses to planes like F-16 then its different matter, till then it is just a plane that is learning and evolving

Did the F-22 die consistently to older generation planes?

With F-35 its nearly a habit now. There would hardly be any plane in USAF inventory that has not humped the JSF.

Only reason its not been killed others is because it has not yet been exposed.



First make up your mind if you are here to discuss F-35 or B-1. You can off course carry large amount of fuel too just the way F-35 ultimately has to do to get a loiter time that is poorer than A-10.




Check out how it does it uses modified Rutowski manuvers just to raise itself to operating heights. Then the stupid full afterburner dash based supercruise is even funnier. Iske baad aur kay chahiye. That fat turkey cannot fly without that big engine on full AFB or such higher operating regimes, most of the times

 

[StealthFlanker]

What if the IRST is also added to the mix and changes in azimuth and elevation angles is used by a single quick manuvering Rafale/PAKFA/Su-30MKI, moving at say 200 meters per second (0.5 mach approx.)..

passive kinematic ranging is nothing new but it will only work again cooperative target

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/
This method have several problems : Unless initial guesstimate of target heading and speed is very close to real value ( 0.5-1% errors) , the result isnot accurate enough for BVR targeting , and you need over 40 seconds to get enough angular change for measurement. Moreover, it requires the target to move at constant speed, keeping constant heading and altitude otherwise estimation of range is not possible. Moreover flying zig zag also exposed your high RCS beam aspect

Or say the instantaneous azimuth and elevation angles of two Rafales/PAKFA are available for triangulating. Will that resolve the range resolution problem.

Triangulation fare better , but the problem is : if you are in a multiship engagement , what stop a single F-35 from transmitting while share information with the whole formation ? if your Rafale , PAK-FA stayed passive then the best you could hope to see is the one F-35 transmitting with it's LPI radar but not others F-35 that it share information with

What if the missile itself comes with a Track Via Missile that PAC-2 has..

Doesnt help at all , that literally just a more modern version of SARH

Or a more esoteric Ground Radar Guidance with Missile Sensor receiving updates like the S-400/S-300 has.

air to air missiles have used ARH method for aged , nothing new

Do these systems look like being capable of resolving the range resolution problem to you.

it not the range resolution that is a problem here : the problem with passive system is that they cannot measure range , the problem with low frequency radar is their massive beamwidth result in very big resolution cell

Detection ranges of even Akash SAM Radars will be enough to challenge F-35 type targets at tactically relevant ranges. All this is open source information.

The question is how accurate is your "open source information " ? or is it the similar kind of source that think everything can be solved as long as you have a low frequency radar ? . FYI official source also said that F-35 can challenged S-400 family , so who is right ?

 

[Zebra]

Gripen, F-16, compete in MMRCA re-run

By Ajai Shukla
Business Standard, 16th Aug 16


----------------

We know why we say it, what is highlighted in red.

Sir, for that red color part, few powerful Indian people also wants it.
It is sad, but true.

Anyway, which aircraft you like -----> F-16 / Gripen.

BTW, my choice is Gripen E.

And that per hour operating cost for Gripen is wrong.

It should be per operating hour (for Gripen C) , about $ 7200.