No, no, no.
You ridiculously claimed the F-35 has jammers by linking an image of an F-35 showing off its RWR in post 163. This one:
View attachment 41246
When it clearly says RWR, ie, radar warning "receiver."
Then you made an equally ridiculous assertion:
It's also interesting that they show the embedded antennas emitting a similar cone as what's used to illustrate the radar's EW functions:
The image clearly says "emitter locating" and "electronic support measures," which are both passive measures. Jamming is called "electronic countermeasures."
Emitter locating is a localization system which any RWR/ESM system has. Old ESMs could localize signals over a 10-15 deg swath, but new ones can localize to less than 1 deg, which is what they refer to as passive targeting because that level of accuracy is enough to direct a weapon at the target.
The antenna positions on the airframe also check out to be receivers, not jammers.
My primary (and first) source was the BAE product sheet for ASQ-239 that lists jamming as an ability of the suite. The APG-81 & ALE-70 are separate systems (not to mention ALE-70 relies on ASQ-239 to generate the jamming signal, which means the suite already has the requisite back-end hardware for active transmission).
The slide conveys certain things with graphics & certain things with text. If you only pay attention to the text, it would mean even the radar has no EA/ECM capability - cause that too isn't written - but we know for a fact that it does.
So we need to take all available sources to corroborate information otherwise you're always left with an incomplete picture even if you rely on official sources like the ones I posted.
Then you claimed pods are amazing, but also countered your own argument talking about NGAD's conformal arrays.
What did I contradict? NGAD is a newly-designed airframe and therefore has the space to accommodate this capability internally. Smaller aircraft or those that don't want to go with re-engineered airframes (therefore limited scope for moving LRUs around) go with pods. Like the Gripen or Typhoon.
Simple.
Then you claimed transmitters and receivers can be on a single array due to the development of different bus standards, which is... that statement doesn't even make sense actually.
Then you claimed interference at the receivers can be eliminated using OFC due to the development of a new bus standard.
That was wrt interference management. On older databus hardware the various RWRs around the airframe (or even the FCR) couldn't be synchronized in time to ignore signals coming from your own jammer. By creating physical separation (mostly coming down to ensuring the receiver FoV isn't covered by the jammer's active lobes) this was mitigated to an extent. Though in most cases, even that wasn't enough and the safe bet to eliminate false alarms was to NOT operate jammer & RWR/radar simultaneously.
But due to OFC-based buses, the signal processor is now able to operate receivers & transmitters without interference. The OFC is necessary cuz the processing of signals doesn't happen at the array but at the modular LRU in the avionics bay (behind the nose, on the spine, wherever there is space). Older buses had lag so the array couldn't know in time which frequency is going to be free.
So now the location of RWR & jammer no longer matters. You can separate them, put them right next to each other, or even on the same array. It all depends on the shape of your aircraft, the FoV you want to cover & how much space you have. Interference determining the spacing is no longer a factor because of improvement in signal processing - which in turn is only possible due to FOC-based internal networking.
This is why aircraft like F-35 (even F-15EX) advertise their ability to jam simultaneously without interfering with other sensors such a central point of marketing. This wasn't possible on older aircraft.
What's so difficult to understand about this?
And then, you did not even try to explain how you plan on connecting OFC between your jet and the enemy target. That's how low your foundational knowledge is.
Why would you need to connect OFC to an enemy target to remove interference between your own sensors? This question is just a result of not understanding what I'm saying.
Then you provided ridiculous reasons by giving Arexis as example without knowing anything about it.
Here:
View attachment 41247
Here, the main transmitters are on the fin. Then there are these things called QRT on the wingtips, which you claim are a single array.
The ones on the fin are low-band transmitters. The QRTs on wingtips are for mid-band.

MFS-EW – O poderoso sistema de guerra eletrônica do Saab JAS 39E/F Gripen - Poder Aéreo – Aviação, Forças Aéreas, Indústria Aeroespacial e de Defesa
Recentemente foi anunciado aqui no Poder Aéreo que a Força Aérea da Alemanha, a Luftwaffe, selecionou a suíte modular de guerra eletrônica Saab Arexis para equipar 15 exemplares dos seus caças Eurofighter.
www.aereo.jor.br
No, both those arrays perform both functions (receive/transmit). One is biased toward targets in the airspace above & one below in order to extend the FoV. That's why it's called a Quadrant Receiver-Transmitter. Each covers a half-hemisphere (with some overlap in between) while the 2 behind cover the back. But the airframe is in the way so the other wingtip takes care of the other side for 360*
possibly even 3 arrays.
Nah, the thing on the side isn't an array - just some shroud or something, it's removable:

They are all physically separated.
Dude there's no separation, they're right next to each other. The wingtip is actually tiny, the assembly is shorter vertically than Rafale's canard-root emitter or ELT-568 are side-to-side:
Even if we assume they're performing separate functions, this type of co-location isn't going to remove any interference. One is basically inside the other's lobe! You only put them that close if interference isn't a problem due to your system.
Mounting them on the same array makes no practical difference vs an assembly like this if you're putting them that close anyway. Each TRM is individually programmable, you just tell half of them to transmit and the other half to receive.
None of this is related to different bus standards or OFC. This is all just basic physics. You would have known this if only you had even the most basic foundational knowledge.
Explained above. Still not sure what's so difficult to understand.
Read post 42.
Rafale without GaN is almost useless to India. The Chinese have been operating GaN radars on their fighters since 2016.
And we need the F5's MUMT as well. But if it's coming after 2035, it won't be part of MRFA.
A better option is to just buy Rafales in batches for a split between F4 and F5. I doubt that's possible with MRFA though.
You have a lot of misconceptions about the RBE2 XG: the end result will be a radar with a new architecture, GaN technology, a multi-channel receiver, multiple antennas (including side antennas) all around the aircraft that will be used for radar and...
Huh, I thought they were still in the process of defining the capabilities of F5. So they're past that stage. Good to know. Thanks for that.
So F5 will indeed have arrays with simultaneous transmit/receive functions. And there'll be no interference there either.
Ah, yes, "modern jets" means water is no longer wet.
No, it just means capabilities have evolved.
Ah, so the F-35 will carry an old missiles externally and still maintain stealth for SEAD. Wonderful.
The missiles are for standoff engagement. You still need to be survivable after the missile is spent even if you want to stay back & control CCAs while other F-35s in the package (without external weapons) go in to finish the job after the long-wavelength radars are destroyed by your standoff ARM.
The level of comprehension you have.
Picdel said:
The equivalent of a Harm, if we make one, will be derived from the FMAN/FMC programme, but if we do, it will certainly be for the British.
FMAN/FMC program is a cruise missile program. The version being developed for the French is a high speed ramjet version.
![]()
Euronaval 2024 - MBDA details its deep strike current and future capabilities - EDR Magazine
At Euronaval 2024 MBDA exhibited its available systems, as well as its future developments in the deep strike field.www.edrmagazine.eu
It's funny you accuse me of not having comprehension but then put on a display of actual inability to comprehend.
Picdel said:
"The AASF is not a classic American-style anti radar weapon, it's a smart glider!"
Then he shows a pic of the MBDA SmartGlider, which is presumably what the AASF is going to be based on - just with a different seeker head than what is shown.
The bit about FMAN/FMC is a hypothetical - that's not what AASF (meant for French use) is supposed to be. He only mentioned that because you erroneously assumed in your post that AASF must be a HARM-type weapon. He never said they were going for a ramjet-based ARM, he said IF at all they were to go for a HARM-type weapon i.e. a missile instead of a glider, then it would be ramjet-based.
And when he says "it will certainly be for the British," he's trying to say the Rafale doesn't need a SEAD weapon.
The AASF is a SEAD weapon. It's clearly mentioned in the article I posted:

France to develop anti-radiation munition for Rafale from 2025, finally!
Following the withdrawal of the last Jaguars equipped with the AS37 Martel anti-radiation munition at the end of the 90s, the French air force no longer has

But the article doesn't mention what type of delivery system is used. Picdel clarified that to be a glider instead of a solid rocket motor. He never denied that AASF was a thing or that it was meant to be used against radars. Ask him yourself if you want.
In any case, this new weapon is expected in 2035. And it will be high speed + long range. Far away from the urgency they are showing for the F-35.
That's not an indication of anything - the French are not urgent regarding even SCAF (expected late 2040s) even though they admit the capabilities it brings (stealthy airframe, internal weapons) would be necessary going ahead.
I already told you why they aren't urgent - they don't need to be cuz they don't plan on fighting any advanced enemy in the foreseeable future. At least not without the US by their side.
That outlook could change under Trump 2.0 - if it does, we'll see the results.
I'd like them to double their naval spending and build a second carrier. But if they have decided that expanding the navy is not an option and the Rafale will have to meet their requirements in the South Pacific, that means they will spend more money on the Rafale to make it as capable as possible to meet said threat. I'm not surprised you cannot come to that conclusion.
Even we who are a resident power in the INDOPAC (and have well-positioned land assets like A&N islands to conduct halfway resupply between IOR & SCS) have determined that we need minimum 3 carriers to maintain the status quo with China & Pak and up to 5-6 (most of them CATOBAR) in future if we want to go toe to toe with China.
If you think the French can manage both Russia & China with just 1 carrier, go right ahead & live in that delusion.
Trump is irrelevant if the Democrats don't want to have decent defense relations with India. The assumption that F404 deliveries were delayed due to maliciousness has been proven true, so that closes the window for strategic deals until they decide to come on the same page as the Republicans.
We need leverage to make that happen. Talk & niceties aren't enough. There's no better leverage than getting even a couple F-35s in hand already by the time they come into office. That'll put cards in our hand.
Last edited: