@quartas121 I should note that these antenna are not the electronic scanning antenna. They are too small, too thin, they would not have the sufficient T/R modules to do proper electronic scanning imo. These also predate the APX-111 and later systems as they belonged originally to the APX-109 which is not known to have that kind of ability. I think that is mostly referring to an IFF interrogator built into the radar or something else for those systems.
@DirectSupport The F3R standard in particular has enhanced Link16 capabilities and better connectivity;
In fact, let me post the entirety of the section I referenced before in the last post so people can see just how relevant the multifunction antenna are on the Rafale.
The Radar, ESM, ECM, and IFF share many antenna or sensors as they also share functions. This is crucial towards the sensor fusion that the Rafale enjoys and takes advantage of over other aircraft. The document states quite clearly;
the use of common radioelectric scanning axes (in surveillance areas will, operationally, lead to a better association of the tracks provided by these different sensors
Also, in the case of the radar function, the fact of distributing several (conformal) antennas over a greater aircraft surface than in current practice, will provide for lowering the working frequency (> = L band) and thus, improve the detection of stealthy targets and enhance anti-jammer protection, both currently inexistant in such frequency domains.
Really interesting, these are more sources I’ll have to sift through and make use of. I believe they can be additional sources to one or two existing reports.
Thanks, really interesting. Was smart of Rafale to use same antenna for multiple jobs, though I do wonder how effective it is when it has to do 2 or more of those jobs at once
has anybody the problem that you dont get any launch warnings in the rafale in sim?
i got the rafale and played like 3 sim games and in two of them i didnt got any launch warnings from missiles.
ontop of that I neither get sounds or a smoke trail when firing my own missiles
has anybody else that problem or is it just me?
Update:
I think i found the problem, it is that when you have WT downloaded though steam
it still uses EAC instead of battleeye which causes problems in gamemodes that need you to have
anticheat turned on to play them
the fix is to rename the Battle Eye executable (“aces_BE.exe”) to the EAC one (“eac_wt_mlauncher.exe”) and delete the EAC one
Edit 2:
made a bug reort on the Anticheat problem mentioned above would be nice if you could press
“i have the same issue”
It’s probably not just one antenna and when it is using an antenna for more than one purpose does it really need to sit there for more than a split second to send an interrogation signal and then go back to whatever else it was doing?
Thank you for your response and thank you for all the time spent improving the game content for French planes. In fact, the speed indicated on the Dassault Aviation website is that to preserve the Ram coating of the plane. Furthermore knowing that the Rafale is capable of carrying 1.5 its weight in payload and that it can carry 5 heavy loads and in particular 4 under its wings. Even if I understand that aerodynamic friction and load transport are not correlated, it is not normal that it has a lower tear speed than planes which are not capable of the same transport load.
I would not expect much on the AESA until everyone else gets them. As for signature reduction, I would not expect anything anytime soon as they have to make sense of the reports for both the Rafale/Eurofighter, see how they can implement it especially with different stores, and etc. And even when they understand how to implement it, they may want to delay it until everyone else has their Gen 4.5 with AESA/PESA that can counter the reduced RCS features.
If the initial IFF interrogation is being made to the Rafale, and then everything afterwards is being done via MIDS/Link-16;
IFF is not constantly providing ally location since its the ally making the interrogation, so you arent receiving any info regarding ally location in that way.
You’re just asking for datalink info and pretending its the IFF system thats providing it since you know the bug report will otherwise be denied.
@Gunjob can this bug report be looked over again? The bug report itself is clearly stating the system being requested is completely unrelated to datalink, but the creator is arguing that the IFF system would not be used for constant ally position sharing and it would actually be datalink, suggesting the creator knows his bug report is faulty in reasoning but is fishing for an advantage the aircraft should not have in-game due to gaijins specification of tactical datalinks not being in-game yet.
First off, you can’t expect Gunjob to do something about the discussions we’re having on how things would be in reality, and expect it to translate into the game. We’ve talked about and gone over how things are in reality.
What Gaijin could simply do is say that because tactical datalink is not in-game yet, the Rafale aircraft would be forced to constantly use its standalone IFF. Then you might argue that the emissions of the IFF should constantly be emitted, but I would argue that’s pointless as the Rafale F3R had revised antennas which combined them into one L-band antenna on the spine. And no top-tier RWR to my understanding in-game would even detect L-band.
Feel free to make a counter bug-report anytime but I’ll insist on having my sources included as well out of fairness.
Why not fixate on the A-10C and its datalink instead of being fixated on solely the Rafale? Point to devs that unlike the Rafale, the A-10C does not have its own standalone IFF and must rely on tactical datalink only.
I can expect Gunjob to look over a bug report and move it to “info requested” or otherwise now that new information and discussion on the topic has been provided, seeing as that is his job as a technical moderator and Id like to think the majority of people know him to be a good and unbiased technical moderator. I would’ve provided all this in the bug report, but comments are closed, and I figured that you might be a reasonable person who could admit to being wrong when new information was presented, but here we are.
In which case it should be on D-band RWR at all times due to constant D-band radio emissions.
D-band (NATO) is L-band (IEEE) in a different notations. We already know the Rafales IFF system works in L-band (1090MHz specifically), its literally on the brochure I already provided. I converted it to D-band, since the game uses NATO radio notation.
Because the HMD IFF is already a lost cause seeing as the devs believe it to work via the power of friendship and pixie dust, since as they initially shot down a report for the F-16C to acquire SADL in-game (the datalink bound system that allows permanent HMD IFF to the A-10C). https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/vgZoidxjgwWM
You, on the other hand are making a request for the IFF system to perform a function it could not possibly do without constant emission of IFF interrogation signals, which, as I’ve already covered, would compromise the aircrafts stealth irl and in-game if that’s how it worked.
This point you wont even concede to, instead arguing that stealth would not be compromised since the function of constant position updates of allies (what you are asking for in your bug report) would be done by datalink, which is true for irl, but is inapplicable in-game due to the devs response on the above linked SADL bug report.
I owned up to my mistaken assumption that the IFF system functioned directly through the RBE2-AA radar, apologized, and provided new info as to why that would not matter in-game and/or would compromise the aircrafts ability to remain hidden. You’ve done nothing but grasp at straws and compromise the credibility and position of your own bug report simply to cling to the hope you can gain an unwarranted advantage in-game.
It’s LPI just like the radar, something NATO was very familiar with and why Russian EW aircraft like to try and approach NATO planes as much as possible - to try and see if they can get examples of emissions to potentially crack it.
Your nonsense take that it should show up on any RWR is based on a lack of foundational understanding of these systems. The cryptography of NATO IFF is not solely to prevent people from sending and receiving false replies.
I wouldn’t say it’s a lost cause. I’ve gone ahead and made a report asking why the A-10C has HMD IFF and the F-16C doesn’t. Hopefully we’ll see what Gaijin says.
Obviously it is. Insinuating that IFF, datalink, and GPS connection would show up on RWR doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. But he’ll be free to make a bug report if he wishes to. Every aircraft in-game with GPS weapons/bombs attached should be having emissions at all times as well I suppose.
