The French air force had tested the Rafael X-Guard, although it isn’t used in service.
And you get this from where again? Your consideration?
You wanna tell us next that angular shapes are worse for RCS then round ones?
1 Like
I’m not sure about the Eurofighter, but the Rafale’s jamming transmitters consist of AESA transmitters installed in a 360 degree configuration. To my knowledge, the jamming transmitters on the Eurofighter are not AESA.
SPECTRA is the EW suit, that includes the sensors and internal Jammers etc.
X-Guard towed decoys are mounted on the SP3 pylon that came with F.3R standard, which are serially used on F.4.1, no modifications are required to mount (iirc I saw a french Rafale with it to).
This in relation to latest model Typhoon and Rafale?
It is and was, unless you’re referring to the F-15’s AESA radar which came in 1999, so the tail-end of the 90’s.
This is akin to having the best handgun in a room full of people with assault rifles. The world had regarded mechanical radars as insufficient by then.
6 Likes
AESA were prototyped twice for Eurofighter, first AMSAR around 1995 and then CAESAR in the early 2000s. CAESAR was mounted on DA5
Considering the final CAPTOR-E, it seems the angle losses of ESAs were unsatisfactory for the Typhoons users.
CAPTOR-Es mechanical repositioner offers a huge advantage compared to every other AESA (excluding Gripen Es which uses the same repositioner)
5 Likes
Yes sir.
1 Like
Is that what you’re saying right now?
Simply put, the Rafale’s intakes are better suited for reducing RCS than the Eurofighters. Little effort was put forth on the Eurofighter in comparison.
I would consider the inability to notch to be quite a disadvantage for a fighter that isn’t low observable. I can see why they failed to just install side-facing AESA… seeing as it took them two decades to realize mechanical scan was obsolete.
1 Like
Goes straight for insulting multiple nations as he thinks he knows best guys
They found AESA wasn’t worth it then now it is
1 Like
I don’t understand how this is an insult? It is like discussing the carousel autoloader on T-series tanks… you are not insulting them by pointing out a massive flaw in their weaponry and design decisions.
no where near the same
yeah it what i have gathered from him
Eurofighter uses 3 AESA jammers. Two in the left wingtip pod, one forward and one aft with a third in the forward right pod, with the rear being taken up by two towed jammers. And some more additional side firing spiral antennae in the center of both pods.
Ah, my bad for assuming towed decoys would become part of Spectra when integrated. Still F.4.1 is so much later than the EFT which had them from the beginning
1 Like
What does that say about Rafale which still only has a forward facing ESA?
And no, Rafale isnt any more low observable than Eurofighter, even if there would be slight advantages in structure (which you have nowhere reliably proved) they still both carry their weapons externally, especially Meteor and its exposed air intakes
Oh, while at it. What about F/A-18E or the Block 60 F-16? Why do none of those have side facing AESAs?
Is the US just too technologically incompetent as well?
6 Likes
Fair enough, I’m curious to see how Gaijin will handle the European Eurofighters and the fact that they haven’t mounted any AESA radar or that the German Eurofighters went without IRST for a long while. If they’re a bit unrealistic, then both the Rafale and Eurofighter would be competitive with each other. If they remain realistic and unbudging, then the Rafale should be the clear winner. But it all depends on what Gaijin wants to do.
3 Likes
in what way because flight performance i don’t see it wining
I meant in that they wouldn’t have their AESA radar while the Rafale does, or that Germany wouldn’t get their IRST for a long while since they opted to not mount them, and the same for their LWS, correct me if I’m wrong.
ah ok fair
If we even live long enough to see Rafale & EFT w/AESA, I don’t think having or not having LWS would make much of a difference.