Know Your 'Rafale'

[Steven Rogers]

Absolutely false. It is a true real fusion.
This point was among the strengths of Rafale in the 2011 Swiss eval. Sure it is always more robust today.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/


MULTI-SENSOR DATA FUSION
Implementation of the “multi-sensor data fusion” into the Rafale translates into accurate, reliable and strong TRACKS, uncluttered displays, reduced pilot workload, quicker pilot response, and eventually into increased situational awareness.

It is a full automated process carried out in three steps:

1. Establishing consolidated TRACK FILES and refining PRIMARY information provided by the sensors,
2. Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by SHARING TRACK information received from all the sensors,
3. Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays."

 

[Steven Rogers]

That's how rafale sensor fusion works.

And that's how F35's fusion work

 

[Immanuel]

I'm sorry where did you pull this 200km figure out of? Are we talking about a target coming toward or going away with full AB?
No one sensible is dubious enough to claim a 9mm handgun has a range of 2 kms just because the round goes that far before it drops to the ground.
The point to note is - what is the practical application of said ~1000km range against rockets?
Nothing.
Can F-35 launch a missile that can chase and take out a rocket/ballistic missile in ascent stage from 1000km away? Nope.
Will F-35 DAS provide some form of ballistic missile launch-warning from 1000km? Nope. SBIRS satellites will do that far more effectively and they can pick up launches in boost phase itself (where they are still without line-of-sight of any F-35 1000km away).
So you tell me....what F-35 plans to do with a ~1000km range of DAS? You tell me that is not dubious?
Quote few examples?

The point I made is with regard to range. Don't tell me you're naive enough to not see that?

The bigger the source of radiation, the farther you can see it from. That's how IR works.

Radar on the other hand works on principle of how much power is being transmitted. Low power - you can only see few kms. High power, you can track asteroids.

That is how fundamentally radar & IR differ. So quoting an incredible range of an IR tracking system...and then saying it corresponds to a huuuuge signature is nothing but dubious at best. Especially when said range & target type is not at all relevant to a tactical battlespace or air-to-air combat in any way.

Point a WSO in the required direction and it will track all the things a DAS will track. The ranges will differ slightly sure...but there is no secret sauce in DAS that allows it to get 10x the tracking range vs DDM-NG within the same or even smaller form-factor. It's ridiculous to even believe that.

The primary reason for F-35 program problems stems from its root...the plan to create 3 different aircraft (A, B, C differ greatly...especially B) for 3 different purposes, all from a common platform. It was too ambitious a plan.

DAS is nothing but a glorified MAWS. An incremental development of systems which were present on aircraft since the 90s. Just because you can now stream the feed from the sensors to an overweight HMD does not really 'revolutionize' anything to be frank.

Calling DAS a glorified MAWS is stupidity to say the least. It is a system based on IR sensors, IRST is the the standard term for such a sensor. Ability to detect rockets from far is a good thing in a war. Many conventional militaries like China and Pak can deploy plenty of rocket artillery,cruise missiles, MRLS etc. While depending on heat signatures, size, trajectory, many smaller rockets etc won't be detected at a 1000km range, but even if detected at ranges of upto 300 km with precise geolocation of such targets, it becomes easy to take out targets of opportunity.

Finding & tracking (shoot and scoot concept) mobile Cruise missile launchers, rocket artillery, tracked howitzers etc. is always a challenge. Searching & Taking out such targets becomes easy for the F-35, even if the aircraft isn't the one taking out the threat, knowledge of such a threat instanly allows the pilot to share this info, the general target area can be alerted, casualties avoided. The F-35 in turn can using one of it's ground weapons to prosecute it or if it's doesn't have the appropriate weapons for it would allow for another asset in the ground, air or sea to counter it. A standard MRLS can lauch around 12 rockets in quick succession, while WLR and radars can detect them, the F-35 can detect, track them, track the source of the fire, allow for early warning on expected target zone and would allow for quick counter action.

Better information leads to better ability to conduct a respectable war.

You may find it ridiculous to believe it's long range sensory ability, I would rather take the word of a respectable AF that attests to the F-35s sensory ability.

http://www.thetower.org/israel-declares-its-squadron-of-f-35s-operational/

In a farewell interview with Haaretz in August, Major-General Amir Eshel, the former Commander of the IAF, discussed the potential of the F-35, saying “Not everything is perfect […] There are some things you only learn on your feet. This happens with every plane that we add. But when you take off in this jet from Nevatim [IAF base], you can’t believe it. When you ascend to around 5,000 feet, the entire Middle East is yours at the cockpit. It is unbelievable what you can see. The American pilots that come to us didn’t experience that because they fly there, in Arizona, in Florida. Here they suddenly see the Middle East as a fighting zone. The threats, the various players, are in short range as well as in long range. Only then do you grasp the tremendous potential this machine has. We already see it with our own eyes”.

The rest about how a DDM-NG is the same as the DAS is also non sense. The secret sause isn't even DAS or it's 6 IR cameras really, it's the brain, the software behind it that is able to refine what it detects into context.

The videos released of detection of rocket launches prove ranges over 1300km for very large emitting ballistic missiles is possible. For a Rafale turning away, it would probably be in 100-200 km range or more. Keep in mind DAS not only detects & classifies rockets or missiles, but also tank rounds, AA guns etc. Such information in an active battle zone is priceless. In the Indian context it would be invaluable in detecting cruise missile launches for example , the Babur. Detecting such missiles at launch would be ideal since in a Lo-Lo mode and clever way points, they could evade some areas where radar coverage at low altitude isn't adequate. Moreso, combined with the APG-81, the launcher would be spotted, tracked and neutralized as well.


The helmet was overweight, but it's the only one of it's kind in operational use and as far as we know no one else has deployed it. Having DAS, AESA, a large panel seamless cockpit, high levels of sensor fusion, autonomous detection, classification, prioritization and tracking of targets and that helmet is a revolution in air combat.

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/18/f35.aspx

From Block 3F onwards most of the Helmet issues were solved and the helmet lost weight.

The program had indeed very ambitious goals but it pushes the envelope in most areas. Once issues are stabilized and the US and it's key allies end up operating between 2000-4000 aircraft over it's life time, it will be a giant commercial success. There are way too many powerful interests in it.

 

[Picard]

F35 has 6 electro optical sensors and they are used to detect targets such as a2a missiles,Sams ,aircrafts at long ranges depending upon the heat signatures.

That is EO DAS, and it is just bog standard IIR MAWS. The only potential difference is that F-35 may have included option to feed its image to pilot's helmet, but last time I checked (quite some time ago, admittedly), they couldn't get it to work - too much lag.

 

[Picard]

1. I never said it is irrelevant but rather proved it is irrelevant to compare with an stealth fighter on stealth basis,it should better of being compared with other European aircrafts.
2. Rafale has RCS which exposes it against advance radar 100ds of km away when it Flies at the altitudes of f35 in a strike mission that's why it has to fly dangerously low however it's advance sensors make it safe but that comes with a sacrifice and is range.
3. Total ignorance,the AESA has thousands of transmitting and receiving elements, so they can function and can jam various targets at once ,not only they can jam but can effectively balance power output for the jamming. If arm can hunt such system then it can also do the same with better accuracy to jammers which have far less elements than f35's radar . And as far as I know their has been integration of modes for ew in radar itself, don't think french claim that their AESA can use as a jammer as spectra has separate jammer and receiver and AESA is not the part of that.
4. F35's DAS has better cameras than an avg MAWS ,and they don't work individually rather they contribute in data which is fused and then displayed with the radars data to provide the most accurate information about the target .
the granularity of data being fed into the fusion engine,rafale sensor engine correlate tracks ie. processed data, selecting the most robust, for presentation to the pilot and discarding the others. The F-35 fusion engine OTOH correlates and processes raw unbiased sensor data streams from onboard and offboard sensors/data links, to build the most accurate accurate and comprehensive COP of the battlespace. It also speaks to a tighter integration of the avionics courtesy of those multi-million lines of software code.
5. Rafale RWR coverage is not so great and their was a news in most forums and pages that iaf demanded more robust RWR coverage than what it is presently on .
6. From what Dassault says on rafale sesensor fusion in appears it chose among several tracks the one with the highest confidence. Which Sounds like fusion at the track level. F-35 fusion engine generates a single unified track from scratch.

1) When it comes to RCS, yes. But in IR signature, Rafale should not - at least - be much worse than F-35, and may in fact be better.
2) True. But how long until even F-35 has to fly below radar horizon? And radar stealth is primarily dependant on shaping, so F-35 would still be vulnerable to detection by radars which are outside its optimal areas - which means that in deep strike missions, it may well have to fly at low altitude as well, or else trust to EW/ECM measures.
3) Wrong. AESA has hundreds of elements (largest radars have up to 2000-2500), but that does not mean it can emit on hundreds of different frequencies simultaneously. Beam scanning is done via signal interference between various T/R elements, which means that you have to have several elements transmitting on each frequency. I do not know the exact minimum number of elements required to produce the scanning effect, but if I remember it right, F-22s radar can simultaneously produce four beams. And yes, AESA can be used for jamming, but if you use your own radar for jamming, you make your radar frequencies predictable and thus vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles. Plus it also precludes you from using those elements for detecting targets.
4) Doesn't change the fact that EO DAS is still not a "proper" IRST, nor it can be one. RE: your second post, DDM NG can easily detect missiles, though I admit I am unsure on its ability to recognize aircraft - but that is a question of software (recognition programme), not hardware.
5) Details?
6) Details? Because this does not appear to be any different from what you are claiming for the F-35:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/

1. Establishing consolidated track files and refining primary information provided by the sensors,
2. Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
3. Assessing the confidence level of consolidated tracks, suppressing redundant track symbols and decluttering the displays.

Also:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/ar...game_changing’-f_35-data-fusion-debunked.html
No difference between F-35 and Rafale when it comes to data fusion.

 

[Gessler]

Calling DAS a glorified MAWS is stupidity to say the least. It is a system based on IR sensors, IRST is the the standard term for such a sensor. Ability to detect rockets from far is a good thing in a war. Many conventional militaries like China and Pak can deploy plenty of rocket artillery,cruise missiles, MRLS etc. While depending on heat signatures, size, trajectory, many smaller rockets etc won't be detected at a 1000km range, but even if detected at ranges of upto 300 km with precise geolocation of such targets, it becomes easy to take out targets of opportunity.

Finding & tracking (shoot and scoot concept) mobile Cruise missile launchers, rocket artillery, tracked howitzers etc. is always a challenge. Searching & Taking out such targets becomes easy for the F-35, even if the aircraft isn't the one taking out the threat, knowledge of such a threat instanly allows the pilot to share this info, the general target area can be alerted, casualties avoided. The F-35 in turn can using one of it's ground weapons to prosecute it or if it's doesn't have the appropriate weapons for it would allow for another asset in the ground, air or sea to counter it. A standard MRLS can lauch around 12 rockets in quick succession, while WLR and radars can detect them, the F-35 can detect, track them, track the source of the fire, allow for early warning on expected target zone and would allow for quick counter action.

Better information leads to better ability to conduct a respectable war.

You may find it ridiculous to believe it's long range sensory ability, I would rather take the word of a respectable AF that attests to the F-35s sensory ability.

http://www.thetower.org/israel-declares-its-squadron-of-f-35s-operational/

In a farewell interview with Haaretz in August, Major-General Amir Eshel, the former Commander of the IAF, discussed the potential of the F-35, saying “Not everything is perfect […] There are some things you only learn on your feet. This happens with every plane that we add. But when you take off in this jet from Nevatim [IAF base], you can’t believe it. When you ascend to around 5,000 feet, the entire Middle East is yours at the cockpit. It is unbelievable what you can see. The American pilots that come to us didn’t experience that because they fly there, in Arizona, in Florida. Here they suddenly see the Middle East as a fighting zone. The threats, the various players, are in short range as well as in long range. Only then do you grasp the tremendous potential this machine has. We already see it with our own eyes”.

The rest about how a DDM-NG is the same as the DAS is also non sense. The secret sause isn't even DAS or it's 6 IR cameras really, it's the brain, the software behind it that is able to refine what it detects into context.

The videos released of detection of rocket launches prove ranges over 1300km for very large emitting ballistic missiles is possible. For a Rafale turning away, it would probably be in 100-200 km range or more. Keep in mind DAS not only detects & classifies rockets or missiles, but also tank rounds, AA guns etc. Such information in an active battle zone is priceless. In the Indian context it would be invaluable in detecting cruise missile launches for example , the Babur. Detecting such missiles at launch would be ideal since in a Lo-Lo mode and clever way points, they could evade some areas where radar coverage at low altitude isn't adequate. Moreso, combined with the APG-81, the launcher would be spotted, tracked and neutralized as well.


The helmet was overweight, but it's the only one of it's kind in operational use and as far as we know no one else has deployed it. Having DAS, AESA, a large panel seamless cockpit, high levels of sensor fusion, autonomous detection, classification, prioritization and tracking of targets and that helmet is a revolution in air combat.

https://defensesystems.com/articles/2017/05/18/f35.aspx

From Block 3F onwards most of the Helmet issues were solved and the helmet lost weight.

The program had indeed very ambitious goals but it pushes the envelope in most areas. Once issues are stabilized and the US and it's key allies end up operating between 2000-4000 aircraft over it's life time, it will be a giant commercial success. There are way too many powerful interests in it.

It would serve for you to realize that Rafale's DDM-NG aka WSO is basically the same as the FSO IRST. The fish-eye lens is capable of producing a lot more data than a typical MAWS like AAR-57 CMWS.

I'm telling this again...what F-35 DAS does is performed to more or less similar effect by WSO/DDM-NG.

You think this can't detect rocket artillery?

Granted F-35 has more apertures of the DAS around its body than Rafale - but that's because F35 was planned to incorporate them from the start unlike most 4.5 gen types.

Only stupidity here is thinking DDM-NG is a typical MAWS as found on US 4.5 gen jets.

And acting like F-35 is only plane in the world with sensor fusion is nothing but completely buying into Lockheed buggery. Spectra suite has sensor fusion built in - it's capable of locating targets within +/- 1* accuracy upto range of 278km by combining & correlating inputs by Passive sensors alone (FSO/WSO/TV/RWR). That's sensor fusion for you.

And based on these inputs, it's capable of passively engaging targets out to BVR range.

 

[Steven Rogers]

1) When it comes to RCS, yes. But in IR signature, Rafale should not - at least - be much worse than F-35, and may in fact be better.
2) True. But how long until even F-35 has to fly below radar horizon? And radar stealth is primarily dependant on shaping, so F-35 would still be vulnerable to detection by radars which are outside its optimal areas - which means that in deep strike missions, it may well have to fly at low altitude as well, or else trust to EW/ECM measures.
3) Wrong. AESA has hundreds of elements (largest radars have up to 2000-2500), but that does not mean it can emit on hundreds of different frequencies simultaneously. Beam scanning is done via signal interference between various T/R elements, which means that you have to have several elements transmitting on each frequency. I do not know the exact minimum number of elements required to produce the scanning effect, but if I remember it right, F-22s radar can simultaneously produce four beams. And yes, AESA can be used for jamming, but if you use your own radar for jamming, you make your radar frequencies predictable and thus vulnerable to anti-radiation missiles. Plus it also precludes you from using those elements for detecting targets.
4) Doesn't change the fact that EO DAS is still not a "proper" IRST, nor it can be one. RE: your second post, DDM NG can easily detect missiles, though I admit I am unsure on its ability to recognize aircraft - but that is a question of software (recognition programme), not hardware.
5) Details?
6) Details? Because this does not appear to be any different from what you are claiming for the F-35:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/


Also:
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/feature/5/197892/claims-of-‘game_changing’-f_35-data-fusion-debunked.html
No difference between F-35 and Rafale when it comes to data fusion.

1. Actually in ir signatures rafale is no good as the f35 simply because rafale is twin engine with wider area of heat signature and secondly because rafale with weapons on board will face more drag than the f35 which should gain in the heat signatures.
2. No amount of radar will be able to detect the f35 initially ,a system could do so with various radars in a network and integration at best ,but again rafale will detected lot earlier than the f35 ,and due to stealth f35 should fly lesser in terrain masking mode ,not the case with the rafale.
3. Never claimed ,infact significant radar gain is important that depends upon the area of aperture ,so in any frequency not the individual transmitter receiver does the job of detection but multiple at the same time. F35 AESA is used or can be used for standoff jamming ,which means increment of enemy side lobes so that a noisy picture is made in the display and it can't paint any radar lock, for the defence it has 10 other antennas which do defensive deception jamming.
4. EODAS is meant to detect aircrafts if not it should be changed coz its brochure says so.
6. I have presented the picture earlier and have made several explanation why Rafale sensor fusion is different and inferior to the f35's sensor fusion .

 

[Picard]

1. Actually in ir signatures rafale is no good as the f35 simply because rafale is twin engine with wider area of heat signature and secondly because rafale with weapons on board will face more drag than the f35 which should gain in the heat signatures.
2. No amount of radar will be able to detect the f35 initially ,a system could do so with various radars in a network and integration at best ,but again rafale will detected lot earlier than the f35 ,and due to stealth f35 should fly lesser in terrain masking mode ,not the case with the rafale.
3. Never claimed ,infact significant radar gain is important that depends upon the area of aperture ,so in any frequency not the individual transmitter receiver does the job of detection but multiple at the same time. F35 AESA is used or can be used for standoff jamming ,which means increment of enemy side lobes so that a noisy picture is made in the display and it can't paint any radar lock, for the defence it has 10 other antennas which do defensive deception jamming.
4. EODAS is meant to detect aircrafts if not it should be changed coz its brochure says so.
6. I have presented the picture earlier and have made several explanation why Rafale sensor fusion is different and inferior to the f35's sensor fusion .

1) In theory. In practice, Rafale can cruise at Mach 1,4 in AtA configuration whereas F-35, if it can supercruise at all, cannot go above Mach 1,2 or so. Even with Rafale's somewhat higher TWR (which is not true necessarily, depending on model and configuration), it still means Rafale has less drag, at least in supersonic regimes. Further, F-35 is not smaller than Rafale at all. The only advantage it does have in terms of IR signature is its higher engine bypass ratio, but then again M88 has additional cooling channel and external nozzle.
2) True, but point is, both will rely on heavy ECM/EW/ECCM/SIGINT support to be truly effective. F-35 will merely have somewhat easier time in offensive operations.
3) You said "AESA has thousands of transmitting and receiving elements, so they can function and can jam various targets at once". At any rate, any AESA can be used for jamming, not just F-35s, though compared to Rafale F-35 does have advantage due to larger antenna and more T/R elements.
4) Any IR MAWS can be used to detect aircraft, it is only a question of software integration. My point here was that such MAWS by nature has wider FoV than mechanical scan IRST, as well as (usually) different operating frequencies (due to missile detection requirement), which means that their detection range will be lower.
6) You have explained how F-35s sensor fusion works. You have not mentioned Rafale's sensor fusion at all, nor explained differences.

 

[Steven Rogers]

1) In theory. In practice, Rafale can cruise at Mach 1,4 in AtA configuration whereas F-35, if it can supercruise at all, cannot go above Mach 1,2 or so. Even with Rafale's somewhat higher TWR (which is not true necessarily, depending on model and configuration), it still means Rafale has less drag, at least in supersonic regimes. Further, F-35 is not smaller than Rafale at all. The only advantage it does have in terms of IR signature is its higher engine bypass ratio, but then again M88 has additional cooling channel and external nozzle.
2) True, but point is, both will rely on heavy ECM/EW/ECCM/SIGINT support to be truly effective. F-35 will merely have somewhat easier time in offensive operations.
3) You said "AESA has thousands of transmitting and receiving elements, so they can function and can jam various targets at once". At any rate, any AESA can be used for jamming, not just F-35s, though compared to Rafale F-35 does have advantage due to larger antenna and more T/R elements.
4) Any IR MAWS can be used to detect aircraft, it is only a question of software integration. My point here was that such MAWS by nature has wider FoV than mechanical scan IRST, as well as (usually) different operating frequencies (due to missile detection requirement), which means that their detection range will be lower.
6) You have explained how F-35s sensor fusion works. You have not mentioned Rafale's sensor fusion at all, nor explained differences.

1. In practical Rafale can't supercruise or accelerate as fast as f35 in a bombing mission when f35 while keeping weapon inside than rafale. Rafale can super cruise by this this configuration and all is only effective at altitudes and that's too at the cost of more fuel by highly compromising the mission itself when it is require to maintain surprise you have to fly low,so rafales supercruise will only work and to some extent at certain missions. For IR supersession Rafale twin nozzles offer greater area of heat than the single noodle of the f35 ,cooling channels are also available in the f135.
2. Sorry against AESA ,passive stealth is only option ,you can't use rafales deception techniques on an AESA radar.
3. Rafales AESA has no algorithms of doing so ,infact it is not a part of ECM package .
4. The front two cameras are more powerful than an IR maws.
6. Already done for both,rafale sensor fusion works after a track ,where weapon level accuracy is not required ,all sensors are used to collect only the best data to fuse in and provide accurate data,f35 does it from scratch that means it does with the beginning,thus provide a tactical page which represents all the threat from the start ,and it can do so for many threats like AAA batteries,Sam ,enemy aircraft friendly aircraft friendly troops etc(however this can also be obtained in rafale but after a considerable time delay compared to the f35).

 

[gryphus-scarface]

1. In practical Rafale can't supercruise or accelerate as fast as f35 in a bombing mission when f35 while keeping weapon inside than rafale. Rafale can super cruise by this this configuration and all is only effective at altitudes and that's too at the cost of more fuel by highly compromising the mission itself when it is require to maintain surprise you have to fly low,so rafales supercruise will only work and to some extent at certain missions. For IR supersession Rafale twin nozzles offer greater area of heat than the single noodle of the f35 ,cooling channels are also available in the f135.
2. Sorry against AESA ,passive stealth is only option ,you can't use rafales deception techniques on an AESA radar.
3. Rafales AESA has no algorithms of doing so ,infact it is not a part of ECM package .
4. The front two cameras are more powerful than an IR maws.
6. Already done for both,rafale sensor fusion works after a track ,where weapon level accuracy is not required ,all sensors are used to collect only the best data to fuse in and provide accurate data,f35 does it from scratch that means it does with the beginning,thus provide a tactical page which represents all the threat from the start ,and it can do so for many threats like AAA batteries,Sam ,enemy aircraft friendly aircraft friendly troops etc(however this can also be obtained in rafale but after a considerable time delay compared to the f35).

1. The F-35 can't supercruise so it loses out on speed. However how useful is supercruise for its mission? It is a strike fighter after all.
2. AESA isn't black magic. EW will be effective, even if not against the AESA, then against the datalinks. There was a recent war game, where the aggressor squadron successfully jammed the US forces.
   
3. .
4. Agreed.
5. To explain in a different way, the Rafale simply sees the sensors as data inputs. The F-35 sees the sensors as tools that can be used to gain aditional info. e.g. if a F-35 sees something on IR, it could ask a datalinked F-22 that is using its radar to check the same on radar, then send this data to a nearby F-16 to strike the target.

 

[Steven Rogers]

1. The F-35 can't supercruise so it loses out on speed. However how useful is supercruise for its mission? It is a strike fighter after all.
2. AESA isn't black magic. EW will be effective, even if not against the AESA, then against the datalinks. There was a recent war game, where the aggressor squadron successfully jammed the US forces.
   
3. .
4. Agreed.
5. To explain in a different way, the Rafale simply sees the sensors as data inputs. The F-35 sees the sensors as tools that can be used to gain aditional info. e.g. if a F-35 sees something on IR, it could ask a datalinked F-22 that is using its radar to check the same on radar, then send this data to a nearby F-16 to strike the target.

1. F35 can supercruise at 1.2M with its payload for 150miles(sounds small but still tactically good)though I didn't debated for that . Speed has nothing to do with accelerations,with weapons lurking outside the Rafale is more draggy than the f35 with weapons in the bay for the mission to mission basis ,for example for bombing Rafale has to carry bombs and drop tanks externally ,while f35 being stealth has to carry bombs up to 2 tons internally and possible has not to carry drop tanks or should drop those drop tanks at safer distance before the enemy's radar could detect and then fly at altitudes and still maintains the surprise.
2. AESA can only be jammed with the noise jamming technique,jamming requires much higher power because the jamming power has to be spread over the entire bandwidth ,Self-protection jammers on normal Fighters don’t have that kind of power to effectively jam an entire band.
3. Rafale's AESA is not the part of the ECM suite spectra .
5. What you said is correct ,and infact correct for the Rafale too(datalink and sensor fusion of data obtained from different aircraft)how ever it still doesn't contradict me.

 

[Picard]

1. In practical Rafale can't supercruise or accelerate as fast as f35 in a bombing mission when f35 while keeping weapon inside than rafale. Rafale can super cruise by this this configuration and all is only effective at altitudes and that's too at the cost of more fuel by highly compromising the mission itself when it is require to maintain surprise you have to fly low,so rafales supercruise will only work and to some extent at certain missions. For IR supersession Rafale twin nozzles offer greater area of heat than the single noodle of the f35 ,cooling channels are also available in the f135.
2. Sorry against AESA ,passive stealth is only option ,you can't use rafales deception techniques on an AESA radar.
3. Rafales AESA has no algorithms of doing so ,infact it is not a part of ECM package .
4. The front two cameras are more powerful than an IR maws.
6. Already done for both,rafale sensor fusion works after a track ,where weapon level accuracy is not required ,all sensors are used to collect only the best data to fuse in and provide accurate data,f35 does it from scratch that means it does with the beginning,thus provide a tactical page which represents all the threat from the start ,and it can do so for many threats like AAA batteries,Sam ,enemy aircraft friendly aircraft friendly troops etc(however this can also be obtained in rafale but after a considerable time delay compared to the f35).

1. I was writing about air-to-air mission. For bombing mission what you wrote is correct. As for IR, all engines have one cooling channel, but if my memory serves me right, M88 has two. And important point in M88 is nozzle: you have internal and external nozzle, and external nozzle is configured in such a way to hide internal nozzle from IR sensors, as well as the hottest part of the plume, from frontal aspect.

2. Active cancellation maybe, but normal jamming will still be effective.
4. Details? I know that EOTS is more powerful than IR MAWS.
5. Right.

 

[Snowcat]

1. The F-35 can't supercruise so it loses out on speed. However how useful is supercruise for its mission? It is a strike fighter after all.
2. AESA isn't black magic. EW will be effective, even if not against the AESA, then against the datalinks. There was a recent war game, where the aggressor squadron successfully jammed the US forces.
   
3. .
4. Agreed.
5. To explain in a different way, the Rafale simply sees the sensors as data inputs. The F-35 sees the sensors as tools that can be used to gain aditional info. e.g. if a F-35 sees something on IR, it could ask a datalinked F-22 that is using its radar to check the same on radar, then send this data to a nearby F-16 to strike the target.

I thought its public knowledge that f-22 can only interact with other f-22 only , so certainly not with f-35.

 

[gryphus-scarface]

I thought its public knowledge that f-22 can only interact with other f-22 only , so certainly not with f-35.

Yes it seems the upgrade to MADL was cancelled.

 

[Steven Rogers]

1. I was writing about air-to-air mission. For bombing mission what you wrote is correct. As for IR, all engines have one cooling channel, but if my memory serves me right, M88 has two. And important point in M88 is nozzle: you have internal and external nozzle, and external nozzle is configured in such a way to hide internal nozzle from IR sensors, as well as the hottest part of the plume, from frontal aspect.

2. Active cancellation maybe, but normal jamming will still be effective.
4. Details? I know that EOTS is more powerful than IR MAWS.
5. Right.

1. Will return some time with details on f135
2. Active cancellation is nothing but a kind of lo defensive jamming in which signals are sent of the same wavelength but opposite phase to is emitted enemy radar which is operating in a frequency . It works on the principle of superposition of wave(destructive interference),modern AESA overcome these by frequency hopping.
3. https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/missionsystems

 

[Picard]

1. Will return some time with details on f135
2. Active cancellation is nothing but a kind of lo defensive jamming in which signals are sent of the same wavelength but opposite phase to is emitted enemy radar which is operating in a frequency . It works on the principle of superposition of wave(destructive interference),modern AESA overcome these by frequency hopping.
3. https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/missionsystems

2. Which is precisely why I wrote what I wrote.
3. OK.

 

[FONCK]

2. Active cancellation is nothing but a kind of lo defensive jamming in which signals are sent of the same wavelength but opposite phase to is emitted enemy radar which is operating in a frequency . It works on the principle of superposition of wave(destructive interference),modern AESA overcome these by frequency hopping.

Yes for the first part but frequency hopping has ni influence in itself. Only if the frequency is higher than X band. But the lower the frequency the better active cancellation work.

 

[Steven Rogers]

Yes for the first part but frequency hopping has ni influence in itself. Only if the frequency is higher than X band. But the lower the frequency the better active cancellation work.

Lower the frequencies longer their wavelength,longer the detection range, effective the jamming but requires plenty amount of onboard power to do so. Better solution is by launching the ARM on the target(low frequency radar is a bigger target with significantly big Electro magnetic signature),jamming those systems require huge amount of power which a fighter aircraft don't carry.

 

[FONCK]

Lower the frequencies longer their wavelength,longer the detection range, effective the jamming but requires plenty amount of onboard power to do so. Better solution is by launching the ARM on the target(low frequency radar is a bigger target with significantly big Electro magnetic signature),jamming those systems require huge amount of power which a fighter aircraft don't carry.

Amount of power needed depend mainly of the distance to the emitter.

 

[BON PLAN]

That's how rafale sensor fusion works.View attachment 34490

And that's how F35's fusion work
View attachment 34491

All the so called 4.5 gen fighters don't work in the same manner. There is not a common supplier or common technology to built a sensor fusion. EF2000 sensor fusion is less potent and robust than Rafale one for exemple (2011 Swiss eval).

About the so called 5th gen F35 (which failed to the "affordable" and "super cruise" own LM criterias), it is not FOC, so explaining it has a marvellous sensor fusion is a wet dream as the plane is again and again on test.