Interesting, not sure why they’d waste their time making 2 GaN AESA radars, but it does seem to be the case here.
That being said, still doesnt change the fact that there is no actual claim the RBE2-XG will provide 70%+ uplift in performance.
Thales arent the ones claiming 70% uplift for the RBE2-XG, and very clearly do state “more than 50%” in the source you’ve provided.
Not at all embarrassed that I mistook what is presumably 2 seperate radars for a single one, seeing as no source I can find actually explicitly mention an “RBE2-GaN”, they all refer to an RBE2 radar with GaN, so the assumption they are speaking of the RBE2-XG, the ONLY RBE2 radar I’ve seen with an actual publicly stated name that is known to use GaN T/R modules is a pretty understandable mistake to make lmao.
Maybe one is meant for mostly iff/ecm?
The GaN aesa arrays on the su-57 are primarily meant for iff/ecm, and acting as a radar secondarily.
Or for example the multiple versions of eurofighter aesa radar, with some being gaas, gan or a combo of both and then export customers can choose which one to use
Could be, not entirely sure. There’s not a whole lot of info on the XG at all, and Thales themselves never seem to mention anything about an “RBE2-GaN”, which leaves me on the fence regarding if it really is referring to the RBE2-XG, or if there was an effort to develop an earlier GaN radar for the Rafale that failed horrifically.
Its also possible my article was wrong and there wasnt any plans for an RBE2 with GaN T/R modules other than the RBE2-XG, but in that case, I’d be curious as to where they got their numbers from and why they made such a significant mistake.
If the article is to be believed (it claims there was a report put out in June 2025, by who I’m not sure but I assume the indians?), the French have been working on/testing an RBE2-GaN radar since 2014, but industrial limits have lead Thales to focus on modernization of French jets, and test variants of this radar did not make it to export until 2024.
Seeing as the Thales press release from Oct 2024 mentions “the second tranche of the development of the future RBE2 XG radar”, its possible that whatever were referring to as the “RBE2-GaN” was either the predecessor, or the “first tranche” of the RBE2-XG development, but its pretty hard to tell atm.
Either way though, if the claim for 20-30% uplift for the RBE2-GaN over the RBE2-AA is to be believed, then the earlier statement
Is still false, since the performance uplift of the RBE2-XG isnt solely due to the introduction of GaN modules, and the 70%+ claim remains bogus, since Thales themselves have said squat about the actual performance uplift, and the “up to 70%” number (never mind the fictional 70%+ that was attempted to be claimed) was never actually referring to the RBE2-XG in the first place.
RBE2 PESA to RBE2 AESA has been said to be 50% increase in radar range, further clarifying sources state “more than 50%”. More clarifying sources state that some radar modes see an increase of 100% in radar range. (Primary/secondary sources)
RBE2 AESA GaN is said to be for Rafale F4.2, but no sufficient primary or secondary sources state what radar range increases will exist.
RBE2-XG is said to be for Rafale F5 which will feature 70% increase in radar range according to official presentation documented by Air and Cosmos (secondary source).
There won’t be any mutual understanding unless you abandon news articles and instead look at what proper primary/secondary sources.
A bug report has been made on AASM bombs not being counted as guided bombs and thus not contributing to the completion of the new guided bombs victory mark decal completion tasks.
This involves both the Rafale, and the RMV.
please support it.
thank you. https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/lZU61m2H4KK3
I already told you you’re flagrantly misreading the air and cosmos source, repeating a lie doesn’t make it any more true.
I’ve already that the news article I cited could be wrong
You aren’t even properly citing your own sources
I have no need for “mutual understanding” with someone who continues to lie openly despite being corrected. I’ve posted the corrected reading of your secondary source, and pointed out that the Rafale fan website itself understood the secondary source better than you, so I see no reason why I’d waste any more time discussing this with you when you show such open disregard for the truth.
This isn’t even the first time you’ve done this, and I’m sure it wont be the last either. The fact anyone gives any actual weight to your statements anymore considering your history is quite frankly staggering.
Ngl, I know the AASM is “called” a bomb, but it really isnt. It falls 100% into the definition of a missile…
Its basically just a bomb to missile conversion kit, and I have absolutely no idea why they continue to call it a bomb irl…
If you take the french definition for a bomb, literally all explosives are a bomb, so it becomes a bit of a case of “all missiles are bombs, but not all bombs are missiles” I guess?
Larousse definition of "bombe":
AASM definitely falls under the french definition of a missile though.
I have to agree with Mythic on this one. As far as I can tell the text in the image says:
Les communications des concurrents de Thales, comme Raytheon, Northrop, ou Saab dans le domaine des radars aéroportér dotés de modules GaN et d’une architecture numérique, évoquent des performances accrues (distance et résolution multipliées de 70%, volume covert par cinq) pour permettre aux appareils non furtifs d’accroitre leur capacite de tir.
Which according to DeepL translates to:
Communications from Thales’ competitors, such as Raytheon, Northrop, and Saab, in the field of airborne radars equipped with GaN modules and digital architecture, refer to increased performance (distance and resolution multiplied by 70%, coverage volume multiplied by five) to enable non-stealth aircraft to increase their firing capacity.
So the passage doesn’t say anything about RBE2-XG’s performance. It just says that according to Thales’s competitors they managed to achieve a 70% increase in performance in their own next-generation radars (which incorporate GaN modules and digital architecture).
Simply replying to this last comment because it’s the last one in the thread about the RBE2
RBE2-XG started development in 2023. The roadmap officially is for ground testing in 2025, air testing in 2028, and integration of F5 in the 2030s. If the RBE2 GaN is stated to be able to enter service before, then it can only means those are 2 different radars.
Yes but on the other hand the Skipper bomb that is fired by say the A6E is quite similar in principal and it does count towards progression of this task. Also, I havent tested them, but do Mavericks and Brimstones count towards the task or not ?
So I revisited a channel where some sources are kept, and the radar went from 9.6kw peak power to 14kw peak power when using GaN. RBE2 doesn’t have ECM, atleast not until RBE2-XG allegedly. I’m not sure how this would translate when looking at range increase though, but like I said, there’s nothing I’ve seen credibly stating what the range performance difference would be.
Continuing on Hearsay, I believe there have been talks about (somewhat significant) structural changes to Rafale F5, which could potentially also include an increase in the size of the nose to install a larger radar
1 at a time vs dropping 8 and RTB straight away. Not worth the effort. Especially with killfeeds telling the world where you are and what you are doing. FnF is always just better for this kind of thing in ARB/ASB
