How it has the same motor
The only way it will improve purely aerodynamics
It is said that it has a derivative of the AIM-9M motor. Not same motor, even though the official US navy website does say it has same motor. That is mistaken, but I have no proof otherwise. Even if they give it same motor, AIM-9X would have better acceleration because it has less drag iirc. Look at the canards of AIM-9X and AIM-9M.
From what ive seen the motor is practically with difference in some components thaf increase the life of the missile
But yeah it would have less drag
But to get back on the topic of the Eurofighter, does anybody here know if it can carry BOL rails?
Excluding the permanently mounted outermost pylons ofc
Should be able too, otherwise this wouldn’t make sense
1 Like
Well the EF has 320 flares/chaff standard wich is already pretty good.
These are for the ones located in the outermost pylon (i think)
Spoiler
Can someone explain the ECM system on the Typhoon and how it compares to the Rafale? ECM is my weak spot.
Bol rails are removable. Basically anything that fits on a CRL or LAU-7 can also have a BOL-rail in between.
At least as far as I’ve seen the Rafale"s offensive ECM suite is a little better than the eurofighters (ASEA radars make a better platform for jamming etc), but defensively the eurofighters are better (Eurofighters have towed decoys where the Rafale does not for example)
Yes i know that though the articel linked just talks about the BOL 510 dispenser system not BOL rails.
wich would be this
Spoiler
Wich is integrated in thelast EF pylon on each side
I know the Rafale is capable of ELINT with sub 1° accuracy lateral wise and around 1° heigh wise.
Do you have any info regarding ELINT capabilty for the Eurofigther?
Also the SPECTRA on the rafale is capable of defensive jaming to send false signal to ennely radar (be it a figther or a FOX3).
Any defensive jamming suite on the Eurofigther?
It’s also true that the RAFALE indeed lack a towed decoy on the french version. The Indian rafale are equipped with a rafael towed decoy iirc.
But modern missile know how to differentiate decoy (same as chaff ect).
It’s a plus for sure but it doesn’t make the aircraft invulnarable (and you only have a couple of them per aircraft).
EuroDASS also has sub 1° accuracy in azimuth, but its somewhat unknown how the capabilities are for elevation as it doesnt have any apparent antenna in the tailfin.
For jamming there are three AESA jammers, two facing forward and one facing aft
The towed decoys arent decoys in the traditional sense, but jammers away from the aircraft to counter home-on-jam
My question would more be if they EFTs electronics could handle the additional rails. More flares/chaff is never bad
1 Like
To be honest, in the EW system, I would like to raise the hand of Rafale’s SPECTRA.
It’s not much publicity at EF. However, Rafale’s SPECTRA is an important selling point.
1 Like
electronics most likely can. its a standardised bus system. the software wont display it though
Some bits on PIRATE that I’ve found from various sources:
Brief History:
Spoiler
It’s based on the ADAD (Air Defence Alerting Device) IRST before that but improves on it in every way. This system already had good performance.
Which has an unclassified report here.
It is almost entirely software limited, with exceptional range and I think the best of any IRST with comparable range to CAPTOR-M.
It took 15 years to develop the first production model and it first entered service on Italian Tranche 1 block 5 EF’s, but since it first appeared it has still been developed. The most recent major upgrade was a 2013 software update which made it truly comparable to CAPTOR-M in range and utility.
Upgrades continue to this day and the Gripen E’s SKYWARD-G is based on the same design but downsized with naturally worse performance.
Utility:
Spoiler
It functions usually in a TWS mode and uses kinematic ranging which is entirely passive with an overall higher angular resolution that CAPTOR-M but a worse distance resolution. Bounds are around 150 x 60 but I haven’t found a number anywhere but wikipedia which is an estimate.
The system is fully capable of identifying, tracking and targeting ground targets.
It functions as a UV MAWS from frontal aspect across its entire FoV and is fully anf flawlessly able to differentiate between missiles, clutter, flares (as clutter) and aircraft.
It will not track things it does not consider to be ‘aircraft-like’ unless slaved, which raises the question of helicopters, however as ADAD flawlessly identified helicopters vs clutter this is a non-issue. It functions independently in conjunction with the radar and MAWS to aid determination of type, range, speed, vector etc.
Its range should be somewhere around 150km at optimum, many have seen the Austrian source I posted saying 150km at optimum is possible, this was from 2008, in 2013 the aforementioned software upgrade went through which allowed it to perform at optimum, as the main limitation has been processing and software as the system is so sensitive (0.01 degree kelvin).
Also the range has always been touted as ‘comparable to that of weapons carried’, which would include AIM-120C based on the introduction dates.
That said in-game we should get at least 80km in all-weather though 93km is indicated by RAND for the same conditions and 150km at optimum.
The system displays an image of what it is tracking to the pilot on their HMS/HMD, in-game I would hope this would allow that to be put onto an MFD as it functions similarly to an ultra-long range camera in addition to increasing detection distance, all aircraft detected should be ‘spotted’ as they would in visual range, alternatively it should allow the player to see the loadout of an aircraft from ~50km.
The system immediately classifies everything it detects (sub-1 second) into several threat bands based on threat level, this is done from a bank of known characteristics (E.G RCS, thermal signature, radiation emission), as well as independent ones IR signature, speed, vector etcetera.
Anti-Stealth performance:
Spoiler
A big priority in PIRATE’s (can’t believe i made that typo) development, in-fact the only priority was its optimisation against future stealth aircraft expected to be fielded by the soviets. This can be seen based on the way it searches for radiation and why it took 15 years to develop just the hardware. Many IRST systems search simply for high thermal signatures, this can be seen in-game on aircraft which can for example lock-onto flares, which PIRATE will ignore.
PIRATE however, searches for minute differences (as mentioned up to 0.01 degree kelvin) in background radiation. This was done for fear of Soviet aircraft becoming undetectable via radar.
As a result the system is optimised against stealth aircraft as their coating creates more friction (particularly for fear of the soviets but F-22’s are also indicated as being able to be detected at ‘significant distance’ though I have no idea if their coating also creates skin-friction).
Due to the way it searches thermal shielding actually worsens the overall IR signature for PIRATE’s purposes as the software finds it easier to see the ‘black hole’ created by thermal shielding making it easier to identify targets.
I would put money on this being the best IRST system we will see in-game until the F-22 receives an IRST and figures are released for said IRST system.
Firstly due to absolute range, secondly due to sensititvity and its classification performance which is known, and thirdly due to being a passive system it will not alert what few fighters that do have LWS will.
It will provide extensive utility vs the 5th gens the EF will inevitably be shoehorned into fighting.
8 Likes
Was looking through my docs for PIRATE references.
Returned a good number of hits;
But obviously a keyword search will return more than just the PIRATE sensor, as was made clear in this doc hahah;
2 Likes
That looks like fun to sift through…
Though I have no idea what that second document is about
If you find anything to add from those that would be interesting.
I’m just going off of public stuff but I may consider an archives trip next time i’m down that way to see if there’s anything else I can find.
It’s clear from what I have found why the German pilots were quoted as saying they’d prefer PIRATE to ECRS.
I mean;
I hope for your sake, your cataloguing system is good.