Dassault Rafale - Variants, Characteristics, Armament and Performance

[Morvran]

Knowing his track record. He’d try to use that source to remove the radar MAWS from the EFT. Hes been trying to use obscure sources like that to nerf anything and everything British. Hes trying to nerf the CR2 for example

[vizender]

@Morvran_

Knowing his track record. He’d try to use that source to remove the radar MAWS from the EFT.

I think you should stop putting that much brainpower in thinking about him. You clearly have a toxic relationship here. You are at least as much guilty of twisting his word as you claim he is of doing that to EFT reports. He clearly wishes to nerf the EFT, but « trying to remove the radar MAW » is stupid

[Das_Jukes]

@Mulatu_Astatke

the issue with IR MAWS (which is faced by planes such as the Eurofighter)

Can you please point to me on the typhoon where the Infra Red Sensors are for the MAWS thank you

(the wing root MAWS on the typhoon literally have warning stickers on them to say they transmit radiation)

edit - typo and photo added

[Jaga997]

WT Live // Camouflage by PAF_ACE_Nouman

I tried making a suggestion for this but it got denied,im not sure if im doing it wrong or if im missing something

[MademoiselleSXXI]

They’re not saying the Typhoon uses IR, but that there’s an issue with IR MAWS that the Eurofighter had faced and thus decided not to use

[MythicPi]

Its unlikely the MAWS could provide the full 360° coverage or the multiple simultaneous target handleing capability it provides without it being an ESA, particularly since there arent any obvious moving components. As ppl have stated, the tech was clearly there already, seeing as they had ESA jammers, its not exactly a leap to assume the MAWS were also ESA’s.

That being said, there is no definitive proof for or against the MAWS antennas being ESA’s or not.

An interesting thing I did read up on (to try to stear this back on topic) is that the Praetorian EVo is looking into incorporating both IIR and radar MAWS simulataneously for the Eurofighter P4E. Any idea if the Rafale F5’s MAWS are heading in a similar direction?

[_OceanFish]

@MythicPi

Rafale F5’s MAWS are heading in a similar direction?

As far as i understand, there will be no change at all to the MAWS.

[MythicPi]

1. You’re misrepresenting what that actually states. It states that additional computing power would allow to ADD IIR MAWS all around the aircraft (i.e: to the existing sensor suite), not replace the current MAWS system.
2. The EFT did get additional computing power in its upgrade packages, so you’re just using an outdated source to lie about its capabilities.

Spoiler

3. Not sure why were not in the EFT thread if were gonna discuss the Typhoon this extensively.

@_OceanFish_

As far as i understand, there will be no change at all to the MAWS.

Thata unfortunate.

[DirectSupport]

@MythicPi

An interesting thing I did read up on (to try to stear this back on topic) is that the Praetorian EVo is looking into incorporating both IIR and radar MAWS simulataneously for the Eurofighter P4E.

There were actually plans to move to IIR and away from radar MAWs according to Eurofighter consortium

Spoiler

[DirectSupport]

@MythicPi

Its unlikely the MAWS could provide the full 360° coverage or the multiple simultaneous target handleing capability it provides without it being an ESA

Full coverage is based on number of antennas, wouldn’t really have anything to do with whether or not it is ESA.

[MythicPi]

1. Once again, this source does not state plans for removal of the current MAWS, it simply states passive MAWS are a planed addition (which a hybrid IR/Radar system would cover).
2. Old source (once again). This source from 2020 touches on the proposal for the hybrid system for Praetorian eVo:

Spoiler

@DirectSupport

Full coverage is based on number of antennas, wouldn’t really have anything to do with whether or not it is ESA.

There are 3 antennas, each would need to cover a minimum of 60 deg in azimuth, likely more to remove the risk of missing a missile at the extremities of each search angle, which would be pretty hard to do without an ESA, seeing as they don’t appear to have any moving components. Each antenna would also need to be able to track multiple targets accurately enough to provide TTI for potential incoming missiles. I could be wrong but I find it somewhat dubious that all that’s being done with a regular non-ESA radar, particularly since, once again, ESA antennas were already being used for the jammers.

In the end, theres no definitive proof for either sides, with arguments for both camps, but I’m not exactly sure why you guys care SO much about what exact kind of antenna is used on the EFT, particularly since your original point was that the EFT’s makers did not have the tech to miniaturize ESA’s in the first place, which has already been proven wrong.

I’ll also add that there is a really nasty habit of misrepresenting sources in this threads community for some reason, both to the detriment of competitor aircrafts, and the benefit of your own, which seriously puts into question your credibility/integrity at this point in my eyes.

[Flame2512]

@DirectSupport

and away from radar MAWs

That doesn’t say the radar MAWS is going away, it could mean a passive MAWS would be added in addition to the radar one.

[DirectSupport]

@MythicPi

Old source (once again). This source from 2020 touches on the proposal for the hybrid system for Praetorian eVo:

Consider me corrected on that front.

@MythicPi

There are 3 antennas, each would need to cover a minimum of 60 deg in azimuth, likely more to remove the risk of missing a missile at the extremities of each search angle, which would be pretty hard to do without an ESA, seeing as they don’t appear to have any moving components. Each antenna would also need to be able to track multiple targets accurately enough to provide TTI for potential incoming missiles. I could be wrong but I find it somewhat dubious that all that’s being done with a regular non-ESA radar, particularly since, once again, ESA antennas were already being used for the jammers.

TTI seems to be provided by the Harrier GR.7’s MAWS as well no? What is the coverage of Harrier GR.7’s MAWS?

@MythicPi

particularly since your original point was that the EFT’s makers did not have the tech to miniaturize ESA’s in the first place, which has already been proven wrong.

I didn’t dispute the jammers being AESA, only that I wanted some sources for it. Didn’t find it dubious as the jammer pods were quite large and on the wingtips as opposed to conformal antennas which are harder to do. The MAWS on the EFT are conformal and that is harder to achieve for AESA antennas and that is what I had disputed.

[Gunjob]

@MythicPi

Spoiler

Oooo using the LWR mounts for a hybrid LWR/PMAW is a interesting idea.

[MythicPi]

I think its more speaking of removing the current LWR and replacing them with IR MAWS sensors tbh.

@DirectSupport

Also, it would be weird for EFT to have AESA maws before it has an AESA main radar. It is typically far easier to make and produce larger AESA radars than miniaturized AESA radars fitted across the airframe, especially doing this all in the early 90’s when practically no one had AESA radars at all yet.

@DirectSupport

But it is not feasible for any nation to have had AESA maws in the 90’s. It’s just not possible. Keep in mind AESA radars didn’t exist on fighters at the time either, with F-2 and F-15 being the first application of fighter aircraft’s.

It is harder to make smaller AESA antennas than bigger ones, similar to how older technologies were much bigger to newer technologies.

@DirectSupport

If the technology of main AESA aircraft radars required more maturation, then miniaturized smaller AESAs would definitely need more maturation.

It is why every country has AESA radars on their aircrafts before they can even miniaturize it and mount AESA radars on their missiles.

Your point before it was mentioned the jammers were definitely ESA’s was that no other aircrafts had ESA’s at the time, much less miniaturized ESA’s.

You then asked for a source on the claim for the jammers, and changed your tune on the jammers, but remain convinced the MAWS arent ESA’s due to size constraints, which you could’ve checked isnt an issue, seeing as the wing root (where the MAWS are located) are of similar thickness as the wingtip pods.

Spoiler

This is also just ignoring the fact that the size of the wingtip pods clearly isn’t dictated by the antenna size, but by the boxy ESM computer components, which in the pic of the MAWS components, can clearly be seen not to be directly attached to the MAWS antennas, instead seemingly using wired connections.

Spoiler

@DirectSupport

TTI seems to be provided by the Harrier GR.7’s MAWS as well no? What is the coverage of Harrier GR.7’s MAWS?

Idk anything about the Harrier’s MAWS system barring that its an older PD MAWS system, so I can’t comment on it.

[DirectSupport]

@MythicPi

Your point before it was mentioned the jammers were definitely ESA’s was that no other aircrafts had ESA’s at the time, much less miniaturized ESA’s.

I should note it was said specifically AESA. PESA had already been on the Mig-31 and Rafale in the 90’s for example, so saying ESA wouldn’t have been right. I don’t even know if Rafale had PESA jammers or not at the time as well, just knew it was not AESA. Just to make a distinction since you had been stating ESA and not AESA which is important to clarify.

@MythicPi

You then asked for a source on the claim for the jammers, and changed your tune on the jammers, but remain convinced the MAWS arent ESA’s due to size constraints, which you could’ve checked isnt an issue, seeing as the wing root (where the MAWS are located) are of similar thickness as the wingtip pods.

Asking for a source on the claim of the jammers doesn’t necessarily mean I cast doubt on the jammers FYI. Anyone asking for a source on a claim doesn’t mean they’re on a particular side. I was already vocal about my doubts of AESA maws.

@MythicPi

This is also just ignoring the fact that the size of the wingtip pods clearly isn’t dictated by the antenna size, but by the boxy ESM computer components, which in the pic of the MAWS components, can clearly be seen not to be directly attached to the MAWS antennas, instead seemingly using wired connections.

I’ll have to look more into this.

[Flame2512]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[MythicPi]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[quartas121]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.

[Mulatu_Astatke]

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.