RWJ is a DRDO marketing term, nobody else uses this. This technology has been around since the 70s, only more recently on fighters. And when I say recently, I'm talking about 25+ years.
Mig-29 was the first aircraft to get a DRDO-designed RWJ in India. Mirage 2000 comes with RWJ. So does Jaguar.
What a crock of sh!t. All those planes have distinctly separate antennas for separate functions.
What they call it doesn't matter, what matters is the hardware. As shown, the Swedes call their arrangement QRT.
But it does the same thing as what we've planned for Tejas Mk2.
What you suggested is the RWR and jammer are combined on a single array. But that's not how they typically design arrays because you then have to put physical divisions on the array which reduce aperture. If aperture reduces, the range at which it detects signals reduces. So an RWR and jammer are instead separated into two arrays.
Or, you simply make the array bigger. Genius idea, I know.
Of course you cannot do this on an existing plane without significantly changing the internal layout (or worse, the external aerodynamics), which all add cost & complexity. So it's easier to continue with the existing arrangement. This is what Rafale does.
But when you're designing a plane anew with brand new avionics from the start, you can take this into account. That's what Tejas Mk2 & F35 does (and Gripen E as well...though it does this with a pod, the pod is actually integrated into the airframe. The plane never flies without it, and it doesn't cost a hardpoint).
This is your first lesson, do you stand corrected?
So the Rafale's frontal RWR is in the inlet while the jammer is in the canard root, it is still RWJ. That's how the separation happens. And when you maintain a physical separation, the two arrays do not interfere with each other. So interference has nothing to do with OFC either, it has to do with radar frequencies in the same band reducing the signal to noise ratio at the receiver, thereby reducing detection range or accuracy or both.
Again, you show your lack of understanding on digital signal processing. Explained below.
Have you noticed that sometimes your loudspeaker start crackling when your phone rings? But if you move the phone away from speakers, it stops.
That's the interference you wanna stop, and that requires physical separation.
There are other examples too, like you see white dots on your TV when you operate a vacuum cleaner. Or your car radio buzzes when you are close to a large power line.
So the answers are available in your real life already. But you are so clueless that you cannot relate one thing with another because you have zero foundational knowledge on this subject.
I've never seen a worse display of a lack of knowledge.
So you think advanced avionics suites are made with budget-tier consumer components or back-end processing?
When an AESA transmits in X-band, it's not transmitting on a single frequency like Radio Mirchi on 98.3 Mhz, it's transmitting across a wide range of frequencies, at least a dozen different ones, each managed by a cluster of TRMs. What's more, this frequency is dynamically adjustable unlike older radars.
Gripen E's Active Electronically Scanned Array (AESA) radar has many antennas that help in jamming and other mechanical errors and failures.
www.saab.com
"The AESA radar can drastically reduce the enemy’s jamming capability. This is done by a radar technique called “frequency-hopping” where the frequency at which the radar is transmitting can be changed with every pulse. In addition to that, the radar also has the ability to distribute frequencies across a wide band even within individual pulses, this radar technique is called “chirping,” also known as “pulse compression.”
When your jammer is transmitting in a different frequency, there's no problem. But when it's operating in the same frequency, that's when interference used to happen. But not if your EW suite is properly integrated, like modern ones are. The FCR is now able to shift its transceiver function to a different, neighbouring frequency in order to accommodate the jammer's business. This is done on the fly, made possible with modern digital signal processing.
The FCR is always going to have a larger number of TRMs so even if the jammer is simultaneously jamming across the X-band to it's maximum capability, there will still be room for the FCR to operate its radar function by exploiting gaps in the band that the jammer couldn't cover due to limited no. of simultaneous transmitters. But the frequency of these gaps is constantly changing, so you need the jammer to tell the FCR in advance where the gaps are going to be for the next pulse. This is what 'integration' on an EW suite means.
This is your second lesson. Now do you stand corrected?
So how the fvk are you gonna use OFC to stop the interference between the cellphone and speakers? What's 1553 go to do with this? Do you see how you do not make sense at all.
Cuz the jammer & the radar need to be talking with each other on a high-speed channel, in order to simultaneously operate without interference. Otherwise the FCR won't know in time to switch its frequency to avoid interference. The modulation happens almost instantaneously in real time, it cannot be managed manually by the pilot.
It's quite surprising that you can't comprehend such a simple concept.
Now do you understand what role a high-bandwidth databus plays in this internal communication between different transmitters on the aircraft or do I need to explain again like I'm talking to a five-year old?
Now you want a single array performing both receiver and jammer functions? Yeah, you can.
That line in of itself renders most of your argument null & void.
But typically you wanna give up one for the other so you are 100% dedicated to just one function so you have the best possible sensitivity with maximum gain. Or you have to trade-off some functions in order to reduce interference if you wanna perform both activities. Or every time your phone rings, you have to deal with that loud annoying sound.
As if Lockheed & DRDO engineers don't know to accommodate for that.
You're hilarious.
You do realize that F-35's embedded antennas pretty much span the length of the main wing? While Rafale's apertures are a tiny speck in comparison?
The other problem is those arrays are very small. But you can circumvent that problem on large arrays 'cause you have sufficient separation. That's why radar can perform multiple functions at the same time. That's also why the NGAD with multiple arrays will be able to act simultaneously.
So this was your first lesson. So do you stand corrected?
No, I stand vindicated. You just demonstrated that you know nothing of modern avionics.
Btw, what you quoted for NGAD, that's the plan for Rafale F5 too. So you see why pods are insufficient, and why you need embedded antennas instead.
Of course, what was apparently impossible due to physics is now possible as soon as it gets applied to Rafale.
Never expected you to say anything different.
The F-35 is being integrated with non-stealth short/medium range ARM that destroys its ability to remain hidden when conducting SEAD, while the Rafale plans to use 1000-1500 km range hypersonic ARM, but still retains its stealth and you think there's an equivalence there.
Again a crock of sh!t. According to Picdel the ARM is actually going to have similar/lesser range than AGM88. It may not even be powered.
But the integration of the F-35's main MC to the new MC, the Israeli EW suite to the MC, and the MC to the Indian network have to all be developed independently.
The first two have already been done for F-35I. The last is done through BNET - which in turn has already been done for Mk-1A & MKI.
The same codes go on BNET on F-35. It's just gonna be a software patch as the BNET antennas & LRUs themselves are already integrated on the F-35I.
The only new thing we'll have to add is the IFF/CIT. But that's a straightforward addition. Was done with relative ease on the P-8I. Don't see why we need to wait till 2029 for something like that. Or what about it is going to make this a non-starter.
You made a good point. But too bad nobody cares about that.
A consultancy contract gives you nothing. They only tell you if a solution you thought of works or not, and they can lie too.
We're not idiots. And there's multiple vendors available who can consult.
And even this is just because we haven't yet set up all of the testing infrastructure in-house. Once we do that, we won't even need any consultancy.
Some time back, we couldn't even test RCS properly cuz we didn't have ORANGE. Now we do.
Yes. The F-35 with external ARM loses stealth, but the Rafale with external weapons still maintains stealth.
And the ARM planned for Rafale does not need stealth 'cause it's meant to be fired from beyond the horizon.
Nope, read above. In fact Rudram-2 (let alone 3) is far superior to anything the French have planned for Rafale.
Unfortunately, they might not let us integrate it. Which is why an MKI or even Tejas Mk2 with Rudram-2/3 is actually a better SEAD solution than Rafale for the IAF.
Wow. Look at how you cannot relate anything.
Yes, there is an internal ARM called AARGM-ER. If the F-35 carries it, it remains stealthy. But due to advancements in IADS, the US has decided to "urgently" integrate non-stealth ARMs.
So it's a stop-gap. Obviously we won't use it in an environment where stealth is paramount. We can rely on MKI with the 550-km ARM from standoff to pepper the long-wavelength nodes of IADS, after which F35 can sneak in close & lay the hurt on the target as the shorter-wavelength AD-FCRs won't be able to catch it.
Besides AARGM-ER will be more than ready by the time we induct F35 anyway. So it's a moot point.
Rafale on the other hand will always remain unstealthy, and unless it integrates a new podded jammer, it won't ever be able to enter IADS, even after it has been degraded by standoff strikes.
What this means is the urgency is so severe that the USAF is willing to forgo stealth for a basic SEAD capability that the F-35 was not designed for from the start. This is like the F-4 and gun incident all over again. They are doing this 'cause they think the internal version will arrive too slowly and in insufficient numbers. Why this urgency?
When you brought up the beast mode example, this mode is meant to be used when stealth is no longer required. Wouldn't you say stealth is required when the enemy still has IADS around? So why is the US willing to give up on stealth for an interim SEAD capability?
Cuz they're scrambling to actually attain new fighting capabilities. A bird in hand is worth two in the bush kinda deal.
The French are in no hurry cuz they don't actually expect to fight anyone.
What the heck are you talking about?
Comparing a P5 nuclear power with advanced technologies with Vietnam? Philippines?
Is this once again a demonstration of your inability to relate one thing to another?
If they were serious about fighting in the Pacific independently, their Naval buildup would have to be 4X of what it is now. The fact is, Europe doesn't have the bandwidth for the Pacific fight. They barely had enough for Russia.
If Trump ends up leaving NATO (I don't think he will, but let's say he does), that about draws the shutters on any vague hope EU/UK may have about getting involved in the INDOPAC.
Erm... You are quite literally arguing my point.
The IAF's interim arrangement is MRFA. There is no plan B. Any new stealth jet is for a different plan that does not interfere with MRFA. That's why 2030+.
Have said what needs to be said on MRFA multiple times. We'll talk about it when & if it actually gets an AoN.
Until then, it's just hot air.
As for the F-35.
Did the Joe Biden Administration deliberately delay deliveries of six Boeing AH-64E Apache attack helicopters to the Indian Army as a diplomatic pressure tactic against India amidst the latter’s proximity to Russia and neutral stance over the Russia-Ukraine war? As Prime Minister Narendra Modi...
www.livefistdefence.com
You can see why the IAF will be apprehensive about relying on the US for critical capabilities, especially one that's not ready and also requires stopgap weapons just to stay relevant.
Yes - and this is why it's important to get this done before 2029, we should actually seek to get at least a couple planes in hand before then. Even if we have to arrange for favours to divert production slots meant for other countries. Otherwise we could end up like Turkey. If we have planes in hand, it'll be very difficult for them to pull out of the contract afterwards. Cuz we can threaten to let the Russians take a look.
This is why I keep saying it's foolish to sit around waiting for a future variant.
If we've already made the determination that we need a 5th gen stop gap, then waiting makes no sense. It doesn't really add any value because the platform as it exists is superior to Chinese tech at least for the foreseeable future. Beyond that, we'll have AMCA so no need to worry.
This is your third lesson, now do you stand corrected?
Btw, here, a USAF General basically explaining why the Rafale + Neuron route is where the real capabilities are.
To prepare for a future war against an adversary like China or Russia, reinventing the Air Force isn't the key to victory, a top officer said.
www.yahoo.com
But just upgrading to next-generation aircraft isn't enough to prepare the US Air Force and larger Joint Force for future warfare. "When we do the analysis," Kunkel said, "what we find is just reinventing the Air Force doesn't win."
Instead, he said, combat success is more about integrating capabilities and systems together, using autonomy and all-domain sensing, for example. "Those are things that we're finding as game-changers," Kunkel said, because they address specific challenges to the force.
Kunkel said the Air Force's focus is on something it hadn't really done before: tailoring attributes for capabilities based on the threat. The first step, he said, is to define the threat and how it's impacting US Air Force operations.
And that's the basic philosophy behind the Rafale.
This is literally what everyone on Earth is doing. Even FCAS & NGAD are not singular aircraft but a system of systems that consists of new CCAs, offboard sensors, new datalinking capabilities & so much more.
This is exactly like your problem with ACT. You take something that others have been using since 90s and make it seem like a French wunderwaffe that nobody else could have conceivably thought of.
www.strategicfront.org
www.edrmagazine.eu
