Dassault Rafale - Variants, Characteristics, Armament and Performance

[sudo_su1]

@k_stepanovich First off, sorry if I tag you too often, but considering that you are present and active on the forums, I assume you are willing to engage in discussions.

I had posted this in F-16 thread:

@sudo_su1

While this document is for APG-83, I think it would make sense to make all PESA and AESA radars in the game behave similarly unless there are documents to prove otherwise for that specific radar set. (Since this capability is a result of the electronic beam steering which is inherently much quicker than mechanical steering).

According to this brochure from Lockheed Martin, APG-83 can keep tracking and updating the TWS tracks, even after they leave the designated scan pattern (as long as they stay within the reach of the electronic beam steering):

https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/F-16V.pdf

RBE2 AESA brochures also list and illustrate a similar capability:

Brochure 1

https://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/pubs/aesa_rbe2_5_juin_val_def_bat_ok.pdf

Brochure 2

https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/aesa-rbe2-product-brochure-june2006.pdf

Which @DirectSupport has bug reported here.

And even the older RBE2 PESA brochure lists a similar capability:

RBE2 PESA Brochure

https://mega.nz/file/0h5XUBhT#XbcgjgGmEVGijxsm7rHQgwKgtd40KNoQCEsEVDB80Oo

And this magazine by Dassault and partners clarifies that this is one of the inherent advantages of the electronically scanned radars over mechanical radars:

Fox Three N14 page 10

https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Fox-3-14.pdf

Considering that multiple AESA and PESA radars are shown to have this capability (which results from the inherent high speed of electronic beam steering), don’t you think it’s reasonable to give this capability to all AESA and PESA radars unless proven otherwise?

To the best of my understanding the way this works is that because electronic beam steering (both PESA and AESA) allows you to steer and move the beam to an arbitrary position very rapidly (unlike a mechanical antenna which takes time to move due to its mass), you can essentially “pause” your regular scan pattern briefly, move the beam outside the scan volume to update a track, and then return and resume your scan pattern.

In fact, even sufficiently advanced mechanical radars seem to have a "discount version’ of this capability:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/P8Gb6ip55srm

Of course on a mechanical radar it doesn’t work as good and for as many tracks, since it takes more time to take the mechanical antenna outside of the scan pattern and then return it again, compared to an AESA or PESA which can steer the beam electronically, very rapidly.

[MiG_23M]

@sudo_su1

Considering that multiple AESA radars shown to have this capability (which results from the inherent high speed of electronic beam steering)

It is a result of the ability to split and use multiple separate beams I’d think, not the speed alone… or am I not understanding how this works?

PESA would be unable to split the beam into multiple directions I’d think, or at least not in the same way the AESA could as it has individual transmit and receive modules.

[WreckingAres283]

That’s pretty much what I’ve been thinking as well.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M

It is a result of the ability to split and use multiple separate beams I’d think, not the speed alone… or am I not understanding how this works?

You don’t need beam splitting for that, and from what I heard beam splitting is not always that desirable or doable IRL anyways (since it splits your radar’s power output, reducing its range against a target of a given RCS).

To the best of my understanding the way this works is that because electronic beam steering (both PESA and AESA) allows you to steer and move the beam to an arbitrary position very rapidly (unlike a mechanical antenna which takes time to move due to its mass), you can essentially “pause” your regular scan pattern briefly, move the beam outside the scan volume to update a track, and then return and resume your scan pattern.

[sudo_su1]

@MiG_23M @WreckingAres283 In fact, even sufficiently advanced mechanical radars seem to have a "discount version’ of this capability:

https://community.gaijin.net/issues/p/warthunder/i/P8Gb6ip55srm

Of course on a mechanical radar it doesn’t work as good and for as many tracks, since it takes more time to take the mechanical antenna outside of the scan pattern and then return it again, compared to an AESA or PESA which can steer the beam electronically, very rapidly.

[tripod2008]

@MiG_23M

PESA would be unable to split the beam into multiple directions I’d think

Assuming that a 1:1 ratio between T/R modules & antenna, and a module count greater than one defines the boundary between an AESA and PESA radar, fixed zoning (grouping) of modules together would allow for multiple (PESA) “beams” to be formed. Though of course it would less flexible then true AESA solutions.

Something else to take into account is that commanding the radar to perform multiple tasks simultaneously may not always be possible (e.g. long range priority track + TWS etc.) even with an AESA, as improper division of tasks or due to Reduced effective Duty cycle / the reduced radiated power’s impact on maximum range detection range may cause dropped targets, or insufficient returns to be generated.

[DirectSupport]

@sudo_su1 heres what RBE2 PESA brochure says

Provides target tracking independently from that of the search volume.

[sudo_su1]

Can you please share the the whole brochure?

[DirectSupport]

1.92 MB file on MEGA

Hopefully link works, if not, you just need to create a mega account

[vizender]

Indeed. The spine antenna is a F4 standard thing, and some F3R/F4 prototypes did carry it

[sudo_su1]

This magazine by Dassault and partners clarifies that this is one of the inherent advantages of the electronically scanned radars over mechanical radars:

https://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/Fox-3-14.pdf

[WreckingAres283]

Its not, these Antenna were already used starting with F.2 or F.3.

[vizender]

The antenna sticking out on the back specifically is something I only see on F4s and F3R
I am not talking about the recessed electronics here

[WreckingAres283]

@vizender

The antenna sticking out on the back specifically is something I only see on F4s and F3R

Its what I am talking about too, it has been in use long before F.4.

[vizender]

I see.
Do you happen to have a picture of an F2 using it ? (Since it’s easier to differentiate it compared to an F3 to the others).
Personally all of the F2 I see on google image don’t feature this antenna

[WreckingAres283]

Not an F.2 (i.e. the “or”) but F.3 (non -R), as well as standard and exported F.3Rs.

Summary

It was added some at some point between F.2/.3 and F.3-4+ /-R as far as I can tell, however its absolutely not something that just came with F.4.

[DirectSupport]

That magazine could be misconstrued by devs or tech mods to be talking about the AESA specifically. I got something better. A textbook authored by engineers who worked on the RBE2 PESA radar discussing the benefits of PESA. Book was published before the existence of the AESA variant.

Spoiler

[MiG_23M]

Maybe it’s a stretch but for tanks we use separate antenna and systems for training vs war time.

[Celestia]

To be more concise, you would have operational level equipment and Training equipment.

For the majority of air forces, your training equipment is completely separate to your operational equipment with minimal cross over. We typically don’t go swapping out parts at a whim because the aircraft may need recertification from a regulatory standpoint depending on the part you are changing.

[_OceanFish]

Rafale/Mirage 2000D should eventually have this new bomb .