Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions

[Bon Plan]

The limitation we have faced will be faced by even French AF Rafale and they will be shot down in droves by R-37s and will not be able to escape. The present radar on Rafale is actually incapable of even exploiting the full potential of Meteror missile. The french have followed the philosophy of keeping the aircraft design in 10:1 ratio. Which means that the max thickness of the fuselage should be just 10% of the length of the fuselage. These are design considerations to keep the drag low. You all will be shocked to know that not just the reynolds number of the airfoil of Rafale and M2k is same but even the fuselage length of them both is same. Rafale is very badly handicapped as a result of its small size of Radar. Besides what I had already talked about. The Radar size of Rafale and M2k is same and so is the size of their nose.

AESA AsGa RBE2 is said to have a 200km range on a fighter target.
Meteor range NEZ is >60km.
Max range of Meteor > 180km. But this range is only usefull against a slow moving target, as an AWACS or a Tanker. And an Awacs or a Tanker has another RCS than a fighter, so kept by the RBE2 at greater range than the 200km.

RBE2 XG will have a greater range.

 

[Rajput Lion]

I am still shaking

As you and your brethren should be.

The limitation we have faced will be faced by even French AF Rafale and they will be shot down in droves by R-37s and will not be able to escape. The present radar on Rafale is actually incapable of even exploiting the full potential of Meteror missile. The french have followed the philosophy of keeping the aircraft design in 10:1 ratio. Which means that the max thickness of the fuselage should be just 10% of the length of the fuselage. These are design considerations to keep the drag low. You all will be shocked to know that not just the reynolds number of the airfoil of Rafale and M2k is same but even the fuselage length of them both is same. Rafale is very badly handicapped as a result of its small size of Radar. Besides what I had already talked about. The Radar size of Rafale and M2k is same and so is the size of their nose.

Small radar is Rafale's biggest achilles heel. With GaN radar, maybe it could be sorted!

 

[Bon Plan]

As you and your brethren should be.

Small radar is Rafale's biggest achilles heel. With GaN radar, maybe it could be sorted!

Your mother didn't explained you that size doesn't matter ?

Radar size is one thing,
Quality of T/R in an AESA one another (the US T/R used on the RBE2 AA prototyp (AA for active antenna) was of a medium quality : only 25% range improvement over PESA. With the european T/R the range was +100% )
Dimension of T/R also another (european T/R are smaller than the US delivered for RBE2 AA).
Quality signal treatment are not the same between all.

 

[vstol Jockey]

As you and your brethren should be.

Small radar is Rafale's biggest achilles heel. With GaN radar, maybe it could be sorted!

No. IMHO, the biggest problem with Rafale is the very limited weapons availability. It needs more longer ranged and cheaper weapons. on 7th Early morning strikes, Su-30MKI providing top cover had to go to the rescue of Rafales which went inside Pak airspace due to very limited strike range of Hammer. Jags did better job than them.

 

[Optimist]

You are both on the right track
The Indian Chief of air time, when the Super hornet and F-16 were kicked out of the comp. Paraphrased." The US has better radar and missiles, but someone had to go" It obviously wasn't his choice.

It has a small radar and GAN won't fix it. Other radars will/have GAN too. The USMC old legacy hornet has GAN now.

French weapons are in need of development. Will it happen? The French have relied on NATO to carry the weapon burden.

 

[Zarion]

French weapons are in need of development. Will it happen? The French have relied on NATO to carry the weapon burden.

It's the French government to blame tbh, a country shouldn't be relying on others for the supply of important missiles be it NATO or any other Organization. We can see what's happening to Ukraine when they have to depend on other nations for supply of their missile, those nations are dictating Ukraine can or cannot do. They should've initiated missile programs long back.

 

[Zarion]

Good news for the French

https://twitter.com/x/status/1927710838200152320

 

[Rajput Lion]

Your mother didn't explained you that size doesn't matter ?

This is completely uncalled for. I respect French for their art and civility. But using such analogy leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.

Radar size is one thing,
Quality of T/R in an AESA one another (the US T/R used on the RBE2 AA prototyp (AA for active antenna) was of a medium quality : only 25% range improvement over PESA. With the european T/R the range was +100% )
Dimension of T/R also another (european T/R are smaller than the US delivered for RBE2 AA).
Quality signal treatment are not the same between all.

We have to simply accept that if the tech base is same or similar then aperture size plays a massive difference in radar power and range. Physics remains the same for French as for others.

No. IMHO, the biggest problem with Rafale is the very limited weapons availability. It needs more longer ranged and cheaper weapons. on 7th Early morning strikes, Su-30MKI providing top cover had to go to the rescue of Rafales which went inside Pak airspace due to very limited strike range of Hammer. Jags did better job than them.

Of course, I myself have highlighted it before multiple times. But small radar can be an impediment in Air Superiority missions, IMO.

 

[randomradio]

Rafale is very badly handicapped as a result of its small size of Radar.

The radar's size doesn't matter as much as the TRM tech level and how densely packed it will be.

If the French have achieved peak performance with their new TRM for F5, then the radar will have way more than 1600 TRMs. It will have a physical receiver with each TRM and theoretically will be able to engage as many targets as it has active TRMs. When using wide area TWS, it will be able to scan 90 deg of the airspace in a single sweep, detect 1000+ targets and track all 1000 theoretically. With each TRM containing its own processor, it will have sufficient computational resources to track a more practical hundred plus targets.

Practically, when divided into 16 subarrays, with 16 beams it can easily track 10+ 0.1m2 targets each at 300 km away, for a total of 160+ targets. This even exceeds the capabilities of what's necessary from BMD radars. The ability of a single radar to resolve dozens of targets will be a core requirement for dealing with MUMT threats.

With advanced techniques like subarray partitioning, super-resolution algorithms like MUSIC, and monopulse, we can get angular resolution well below 1 deg for 1m2 targets at ranges exceeding 300 km. WB performance will give it a range resolution below 1 m.

And if we combine all sorts of techniques like coherent integration, frequency diversity, adaptive beamforming, and doppler processing along with pulse compression, we can improve even the regular TWS scan range to 350 km against a 0.1m2 target by improving SNR to around 25-30 dB.

Using multistatic techniques, the radar will be able to detect VLO (0.0001m2) from well beyond BVR ranges, 200+ km.

Such a radar already exceeds the tactical requirements of a fighter jet by a wide margin irrespective of its small size. The only radars better than this will not only require similar TRM tech but also impractical levels of power supply for limited benefit. It would explain why the French decided to go back on the earlier plan of removing the radar from the nose. New digital TRMs make it pointless to change the basic design, so they could even retain the existing airframe for F5.

The old radar definitely falls short, but it's pretty decent for today's non-MUMT environment.

 

[Optimist]

So the same fairy story I've heard for 20 years. "It's the best" . When a piece of reality comes to the top, the story changes. "Just you wait till tomorrow." The current radar is old mirage technology that they put an AESA antenna on, It lacks a lot of things

 

[randomradio]

So the same fairy story I've heard for 20 years. "It's the best" . When a piece of reality comes to the top, the story changes. "Just you wait till tomorrow." The current radar is old mirage technology that they put an AESA antenna on, It lacks a lot of things

First of all, I was explaining the current trends among AESA tech. It's nothing experts do not know about. Nor am I saying anything that's out of the ordinary. You can consider the numbers subjective, I used underestimated numbers to calculate them, but it doesn't change the fact that the radar is sufficient to have as much tactical relevance as any large radar.

Secondly, in the West today, there isn't a better AESA radar than the RBE2 AESA, and in 5 years all other AESAs will have to match the RBE2-XG to remain relevant.

With the same TRMs, a larger radar will naturally perform better than the RBE2-XG.

Now the question is if other competing radars are at the same level or not. Radars typically have a centralized signal processor. Now the minimum baseline is a signal processor at the element level.

To put things in perspective, multiple generations of AESAs.
1. Analog AESA with GaAs
a. Early - APG-80, APG-63v3
b. Mid - APG-77/81, RBE2 AA
c. Late - RBE2 AESA, later blocks of APG-81 (doesn't work properly)
2. Digital with GaAs - RBE2 for F4, Uttam
3. Digital with GaN-on-SiC - APG-79v4, later blocks of Uttam, Virupaksha, some Chinese radars
4. Digital with GaN-on-Diamond - APG-85, RBE2-XG, ECRS Mk2, upcoming radars for NGAD and GCAP
5. Digital with GaN-on-Diamond with STAR antennas - Nothing yet... Could end up on NGAD/GCAP.

All these digital radars can also be subdivided into generations based on how the subarrays are partitioned and how many receiver channels are available. And of course, element level signal processing, which means each TRM is basically a radar on its own.

As for the importance of receiver channels, the APG-81 likely has 4 receiver channels, so it can track 8 targets at the minimum. It also means you can perform 4 functions simultaneously, like TWS, spotlight tracking, ECCM, adaptive beamforming, SAR etc. But here we are talking about hundreds of channels on XG, BMD-class hardware.

Note that all of this is just baseline hardware. Beyond this, you can gain incremental advantages depending on system characteristics and product quality; little more power, little less noise, little more cooling, better clutter rejection etc; stuff that allowed RBE2 AESA to deliver better performance than the significantly larger APG-81. Ultimately, this is the stuff air forces evaluate and what determines victory or defeat among peer powers.

 

[RationalGuy]

The radar's size doesn't matter as much as the TRM tech level and how densely packed it will be.

If the French have achieved peak performance with their new TRM for F5, then the radar will have way more than 1600 TRMs. It will have a physical receiver with each TRM and theoretically will be able to engage as many targets as it has active TRMs. When using wide area TWS, it will be able to scan 90 deg of the airspace in a single sweep, detect 1000+ targets and track all 1000 theoretically. With each TRM containing its own processor, it will have sufficient computational resources to track a more practical hundred plus targets.

Practically, when divided into 16 subarrays, with 16 beams it can easily track 10+ 0.1m2 targets each at 300 km away, for a total of 160+ targets. This even exceeds the capabilities of what's necessary from BMD radars. The ability of a single radar to resolve dozens of targets will be a core requirement for dealing with MUMT threats.

With advanced techniques like subarray partitioning, super-resolution algorithms like MUSIC, and monopulse, we can get angular resolution well below 1 deg for 1m2 targets at ranges exceeding 300 km. WB performance will give it a range resolution below 1 m.

And if we combine all sorts of techniques like coherent integration, frequency diversity, adaptive beamforming, and doppler processing along with pulse compression, we can improve even the regular TWS scan range to 350 km against a 0.1m2 target by improving SNR to around 25-30 dB.

Using multistatic techniques, the radar will be able to detect VLO (0.0001m2) from well beyond BVR ranges, 200+ km.

Such a radar already exceeds the tactical requirements of a fighter jet by a wide margin irrespective of its small size. The only radars better than this will not only require similar TRM tech but also impractical levels of power supply for limited benefit. It would explain why the French decided to go back on the earlier plan of removing the radar from the nose. New digital TRMs make it pointless to change the basic design, so they could even retain the existing airframe for F5.

The old radar definitely falls short, but it's pretty decent for today's non-MUMT environment.

Can our Virupaksha with 2,400 GaN TRM modules achieve some of the capabilities you listed (specifically the VLO detection capability?)

 

[Lolwa]

No. IMHO, the biggest problem with Rafale is the very limited weapons availability. It needs more longer ranged and cheaper weapons. on 7th Early morning strikes, Su-30MKI providing top cover had to go to the rescue of Rafales which went inside Pak airspace due to very limited strike range of Hammer. Jags did better job than them.

That's why I kept harping about the typhoon and f-15EX. They have a much bigger arsenal of offensive options. The rafale has a lot of expensive silver bullets.
The rafale is entirely dependent on hammer for strike roles while the typhoon can use brimstone, agm-88 HARM, jdam, paveway and the spice series alongwith the Scalp-eg and Kepd-350.
They are not entirely dependent on the meteor for a2a and have the amraam for medium range combat on top of the bigger aesa radar. Hardware trumps software always. You just can't beat brute power with with software optimisation. Sure the reliability might be superior but power just outdoes everything.

 

[Optimist]

in the West today, there isn't a better AESA radar than the RBE2 AESA

Saying silly things like this, Is why no one takes you seriously

 

[LX1111]

First of all, I was explaining the current trends among AESA tech. It's nothing experts do not know about. Nor am I saying anything that's out of the ordinary. You can consider the numbers subjective, I used underestimated numbers to calculate them, but it doesn't change the fact that the radar is sufficient to have as much tactical relevance as any large radar.

Secondly, in the West today, there isn't a better AESA radar than the RBE2 AESA, and in 5 years all other AESAs will have to match the RBE2-XG to remain relevant.

With the same TRMs, a larger radar will naturally perform better than the RBE2-XG.

Now the question is if other competing radars are at the same level or not. Radars typically have a centralized signal processor. Now the minimum baseline is a signal processor at the element level.

To put things in perspective, multiple generations of AESAs.
1. Analog AESA with GaAs
a. Early - APG-80, APG-63v3
b. Mid - APG-77/81, RBE2 AA
c. Late - RBE2 AESA, later blocks of APG-81 (doesn't work properly)
2. Digital with GaAs - RBE2 for F4, Uttam
3. Digital with GaN-on-SiC - APG-79v4, later blocks of Uttam, Virupaksha, some Chinese radars
4. Digital with GaN-on-Diamond - APG-85, RBE2-XG, ECRS Mk2, upcoming radars for NGAD and GCAP
5. Digital with GaN-on-Diamond with STAR antennas - Nothing yet... Could end up on NGAD/GCAP.

All these digital radars can also be subdivided into generations based on how the subarrays are partitioned and how many receiver channels are available. And of course, element level signal processing, which means each TRM is basically a radar on its own.

As for the importance of receiver channels, the APG-81 likely has 4 receiver channels, so it can track 8 targets at the minimum. It also means you can perform 4 functions simultaneously, like TWS, spotlight tracking, ECCM, adaptive beamforming, SAR etc. But here we are talking about hundreds of channels on XG, BMD-class hardware.

Note that all of this is just baseline hardware. Beyond this, you can gain incremental advantages depending on system characteristics and product quality; little more power, little less noise, little more cooling, better clutter rejection etc; stuff that allowed RBE2 AESA to deliver better performance than the significantly larger APG-81. Ultimately, this is the stuff air forces evaluate and what determines victory or defeat among peer powers.

RBE2 radar still uses a stick-type layout rather than a tile-type layout. It employs a sub-array architecture rather than a unit-level architecture. Overall, it is a relatively old AESA. The APG-81 uses a tile-type layout and unit-level structure, which is one generation ahead of the radar on the Rafale fighter.

 

[LX1111]

. Digital with GaN-on-Diamond - APG-85, RBE2-XG, ECRS Mk2, upcoming radars for NGAD and GCAP

Regarding the diamond-substrate GAN microwave power components in China, the current public reports indicate that they were first prepared in the laboratory in 2017, with a power density of 5.5W/mm, which is 2.1 times that of conventional SiC components. In 2022, the power density was further increased to 16W/mm.

 

[RASALGHUL]

He doesn't need to ask his mother if size doesn't matter he could also look at the performance of the French Army against a similarly sized enemy during the summer of 1940 .

Let's be civil.....There is no need for it.

 

[Optimist]

I see we lost our chinese guy, The Sindoor thread would have been a good one to stay away from, Emotions are running high,

 

[randomradio]

Can our Virupaksha with 2,400 GaN TRM modules achieve some of the capabilities you listed (specifically the VLO detection capability?)

Software-wise, yes. Hardware-wise, no, or at least not yet.

If we perform subarray partitioning of the APG-81 today, if a target with a single beam is detectable at 300 km, with 4 subarrays, ie, 4 beams, the range against the same target will decrease to 100-110 km due to non-coherence because those subarrays act as 4 different radars but with significantly lower gain. But with processing at the element level, all your subarrays can detect the same target at max range of the radar due to coherence. RBE2 AESA suffers the same issue that's fixed on XG.

As for Virupaksha, it's not carrying sufficient TRMs for GaN. If we assume the dimensions of the square are 900 mm each for X band, since some space is taken by L band, and say it has 2500 TRMs, then each element is 3 cm2. In comparison APG-81 is already 25 years old and at 3 cm2, and RBE2 is at 2.5 cm2, 15 years old. So we are not using the space at max efficiency.

Even with GaN, our element is using the same space as the APG-81's GaAs. So it's not at the peak of what GaN offers. RBE2 AESA offers 2.5 cm2, and switching to GaN can go down to as much as 1.5 cm2. If we use Virupaksha with RBE2-XG's 1.5 cm2 TRMs, then we get 5400 TRMs. Even if we used the GaAs ones, we will get 3200+. Using full 960 mm, we can get around 3800 TRMs with GaAs and 6000+ with GaN. In comparison, with APG-81's TRMs, we get 3000 TRMs, and on Virupaksha we only have 2500 but with Indian GaN.

I suppose our objective is to induct the minimum capabilities necessary to stay in the fight via Uttam and Virupaksha for the 5th gen fight. And real tech augmentation for the 6th gen fight will come through MRFA and later AMCA. While LCA's objectives are modest, the MKI should get better radar tech in P2 P3 of the MLU program.

A few years back, Picdel said France offered RBE2 TRMs for Bars upgrade for MKI MLU, it came with 4000 TRMs. But the IAF chose lesser capabilities even if via GaN to develop India's standards. I guess 'cause they plan on getting top-end via imports anyway. We see they made the same decision on engines.

 

[randomradio]

Saying silly things like this, Is why no one takes you seriously

It's pearls before swine. People simply do not understand technology.

For you a CD and a DVD look the same. For me, they don't. That's the difference. The question is do you wanna face the reality of your ignorance or just stare all day at the reflection of your face on the disc.

And what I said is proven. My previous post is unlikely to dumb things down any further than that.