This is not bias...it is based on reality.
First of all...here u r going all over the place. By saying counter electronics tech is available r u again talking about EMP systems? Or jamming?
By using terms such as that u r referring to a broad spectrum. It basically revolves around incapacitating an enemy's electronic equipment either temporarily or permanently. Jamming being the temporary approach and EMP being the latter.
If u r referring to jamming...then that's not even an argument. It is used by every fighter jet(in some more than others). Rafales are expected to have some top notch jamming capabilities. In order to jam a radar...the enemy jet(let's say Rafale) listens in to the radio waves being emitted by a radar(assume JF17) and after determining the location(JF17) and the frequency at which the radar is operating...shoots bursts of microwaves(of that frequency) towards it(JF17) in order to confuse that radar...this is radar jamming simplified.
One of the best ways currently to minimize this is having an AESA radar bcuz it has a lot of TR(transmitter/receiver) modules, which allows it to radiate multiple beams of radio waves at multiple frequencies simultaneously in contrast to PESAs(in which all the antenna elements are connected to a single transmitter and/or receiver) that can only emit a single beam of radio waves at a single frequency at a time. This makes it a lot harder for the enemy to jam ur radar.
Another popular and effective approach is to incorporate an IRST sensor. This allows a jet to have the radar turned off while still being able to search/track/engage enemy jets based on their infrared signature.
As for the EMP part of counter electronics approach...it was already established that it is currently not operationalized...and no I never said that if US doesn't have it then no one else can. The French are indeed capable of developing it. But again let's come back to reality. In the real world a country/company must pursue a technology in order to have it. It doesn't just spawn out of thin air. The reason I said that it will be even later for Indian Rafales to have such a thing is bcuz US is actively pursuing this...and even then the US will have it around 2020s...Dassault or its partners in the Rafale program do not have any such program(EMP) going on currently. Logically it follows that the country who made headway into it first is going to get it first. Do u see the difference between bias and reality now?
Since we have been talking about CHAMP -> Counter Electronics High Power Advanced Microwave Project, I don't think 'counter-electronics' should cause any ambiguity.
Now, this is a sensitive technology, and details are pretty hard to come by. It's not like we are going to find a page on Raytheon's website, informing us what level of capability they have. So we need to follow the trail of information available to us. Let us bring together the available evidence.
First of all, the following Scientific American article, dated Sep 12, 2012, casts very serious doubts on HMP weapons in general, including CHAMP.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/high-power-microwave-weapons-start-to-look-like-dead-end/
Now, let us look at the history of technology development here. In 2009, Ktech is awarded a grant to develop an explosive power source for microwave systems. The aims are:
1. Minimize metal used.
2. Minimize kinetic energy.
3. Minimize quantity of explosives.
4. Minimize debris.
https://www.sbir.gov/sbirsearch/detail/212080
The same firm is awarded another grant in 2010. The aims:
1. Power an HPM source.
2. Compactness.
3. Low mass.
4. Little to no debris.
Notice the design aims have evolved within a year.
https://sbirsource.com/sbir/awards/60399-compact-high-power-microwave-payloads
On June 14, 2011, Raytheon announces the acquisition of Ktech. This is actual $$$ being spent by a major defence corporation. Notice the glowing words in which it notes KTech's achievements in microwave power.
http://raytheon.mediaroom.com/index.php?item=1835
Meanwhile, on Sep 22, 2011, Boeing announces progress on the actual cruise missile that will carry the eventual payload
http://boeing.mediaroom.com/2011-09-22-Boeing-CHAMP-Missile-Completes-1st-Flight-Test
On October 22, 2012 about a month after the SciAm article, Boeing announces a successful test of CHAMP
http://www.boeing.com/features/2012/10/bds-champ-10-22-12.page
On May 24, 2015, investment site The Motley Fool has the following to say. But first, this is extremely interesting
This article was updated on Dec. 14, 2016, and originally published May 24, 2015.
Now, note the part in bold
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/05/24/boeing-unveils-electromagnetic-pulse-weapon.aspx
To date, Military Embedded Systems notes that the Air Force Research Laboratory has contracted Boeing to build only five CHAMP devices. But the trend in Pentagon acquisitions projects suggests the Air Force could soon be building these weapons en masse. From MALD-J radar-jamming drones to Switchblade kamikaze guided rockets and now CHAMP mini-electromagnetic-pulse weapons, the Air Force seems intent on fighting its next war more or less entirely by remote control.
On 23 March, 2016
This article proves beyond a shadow of doubt that USAF has the capability today, albeit in limited numbers. Note again the part in bold.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/a...h-nabs-contract-for-counter-electroni-423454/
Raytheon's Ktech nabs contract for counter-electronics missile
- 23 March, 2016
- SOURCE: FlightGlobal.com
- BY: James Drew
- Washington DC
Raytheon’s acquisition of directed energy firm Ktech in 2011 is paying dividends following the US Defense Department’s award of a $4.8 million contract to repackage two conventional air-launched cruise missiles (CALCM) as high-power microwave weapons.
Ktech produced the pulsing electronics kit that Boeing proved could knock out banks of computers in an October 2012 flight demonstration, overseen by the US Air Force Research Laboratory's (AFRL).
The award to Raytheon is the first significant movement on the so-called Counter-electronics High-power microwave Advanced Missile Project (CHAMP) since that 2012 demonstration.
The announcement is a blow to Boeing, which no longer leads the effort. Boeing, as the CALCM’s original manufacturer, will support Raytheon as a subcontractor, the company confirms. It could also offer up alternative missile or platform options to carry the payload, since CALCM is being removed from service because of its age and limited inventory.
In an interview with Flightglobal, Donald Sullivan and Peter Duselis of Raytheon Missile Systems Ktech explained that the counter-electronics system inside the refurbished conventional, subsonic AGM-86 air-launched missiles have been improved since the 2012 tests.
“There have been a number of components and subsystems within the payload that have had their performance parameters increased in terms of the output specifications of the system as well as its environmental capability,” says Sullivan, Ktech’s technical director. That translates to the latest version having improved operational effects and more stability across the missile’s flight envelope.
Raytheon “cannot confirm or deny” many aspects of the project, and directed specific questions to AFRL.
Laboratory officials have confirmed that the CHAMP system demonstrated in 2012 was capable of firing up to “100 shots per sortie” to fry military and commercial electronics in a very predictable way.
The US Air Force has been under pressure from Congress to make use of the technology and has even received extra funding to make a handful of missile available for operational use.
US Air Force/Boeing
The air force is moving slower than some wish, but it is pursuing integration with Lockheed Martin's extended-range AGM-158B Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) and reusable unmanned aircraft – since CHAMP can keep pulsing as long it has enough power input.
Speaking to Flightglobal at the Air Warfare Symposium in Florida last month, Air Combat Command chief Gen Herbert “Hawk” Carlisle confirmed that the operational force wants the counter-electronics capability and that some units are being kept as “weapons to use in a contingency”.
“Our real goal is to take what we learnt in CHAMP and apply it to the next weapon,” he says. “We have kept some, it’s a very small number, so we have some capability with it now. Our intent is to move that to the next weapon, a more advanced weapon, and continue to modernise it.”
A Boeing B-52 launched CHAMP in the 2012 demonstration at the Utah Test and Training Range, however, it's employment from a Northrop Grumman B-2 in an animated promotional video.
“We’re looking forward to and expecting that high-powered microwaves will be an inherent part of third offset strategy along with other forms of directed energy,” says Sullivan.
Update: This story has been updated to note that Boeing will support Raytheon on the project.
And finally, on 3rd October, 2016, Jane's 360 reports
http://www.janes.com/article/64267/raytheon-on-target-with-champ
At this point, you simply cannot deny the fact that this technology is available today. And we have no reason to believe that the French cannot get access to it. They aren't going to put this on a website. The Indians are spending big money on Rafale, to get access to the very best technology out there. It is a traitorous, ostrich like mentality to show optimism here and think the threat is too far away. This is negligence in National Security. When will we wake up and realize the threats that we face?
Indeed the changes can be made but this doesn't mean that the cost doesn't increase. The cost per jet increases as well. What is considered here is the costs/benefit analysis. The sweptback tail/enlarged wings/larger nose are not that big of a change and these have been made to incorporate subsystems such as AESA radar(and maybe an IRST pod in block III), more fuel, etc.
Those subsystems are necessary in order to gain modern capabilities making block III a 4th Gen plus jet from a 4th Gen...just by making a few minor tweaks to an existing design...it holds way more benefit at a relatively little cost.
These changes have nothing to do with AESA radar, or IRST. The AESA radar requires a bigger nose cone, and IRST fits into the front canopy. And to say that these a 'few minor tweaks to an existing design' shows total lack of aerodynamics knowledge.
The position and shape of the vertical stabilizer controls the aircraft's trim around the vertical axis. The swept back tail increases the moment arm, and completely changes the aircraft's aerodynamic characteristics. The longer moment arm also increases stresses on the airframe, and thus changes the mechanical characteristics as well. The result needs to be taken through rigorous tests from scratch to prove the aircraft's continued effectiveness. This was a major investment of time and money. Again, you want to ignore all this because it suits your purpose. Don't keep making this mistake over and over again.
Diamond nose and radar dispersive angular surfaces changes the entire body of the plane...it is not something as simple as enlarging the wings or enlarging the nose. F35/F22/etc. were designed for this from the start...their whole body is designed to be low observable by shaping it to deflect most of the radar waves away from the source. JF17 was not shaped as such and therefore it would require a change to the entire airframe...moreover to create such a precise frame on PAC's production lines would probably require a major technological upgrade.
Notice your own use of the word 'probably'. You, yourself aren't sure about this. And yet you keep arguing with me? The point is, if the need is high enough, it justifies the investment as well. The Rafale threat is extremely potent. The investment is certainly justified.
But there is another angle to it. PAF is planning for a fifth generation plane next. Here is the rub: you don't wake up one fine morning and make a fifth generation aircraft. You need to work consistently towards it. An stealth based airframe is a very good stepping stone for PAF to progress towards its ultimate goal. It makes very good long term sense.
In addition to having a specially shaped airframe F22 and F35 rely on composite materials(baked in stealth) and RAM coatings. Even if the frame of JF17 was redesigned to give it that angular shape then it would still require the use of these composites and RAM coatings to achieve stealthiness...bcuz without this second step why bother with the first...no fighter jet exists in this world that is a half-assed effort at being stealth. There is no fighter jet that relies on shaping alone and doesn't use composites and RAM coatings to keep the cost low. Why would u even suggest such a proposal? It either is stealth(shape/composites/RAM coatings/etc[the whole package]) or it is not.
So in conclusion if going for stealth the JF17 would require a specially designed(redesigned) airframe(the whole airframe) which would probably require a major upgrade to the production lines at PAC(in order to make it extremely precise). Moreover it would require extensive use of composite materials and RAM coatings...all so it can somehow counter EW capabilities of Rafale?
This already sounds like a whole new project...and even if JF17 was for some odd reason converted into this stealth fighter then that will only help it in becoming harder to detect. Once detected though...the shaping of its airframe/composites/RAM coatings/diamond nose, none of that would help it counter the jamming of its systems. The only thing that would help is upgrading the subsystems(radar/communications/etc.) to make them less prone to jamming.
Now let me enlighten you. If you follow the senior poster messiach, you will realize that already stealth based features have been implemented on the Thunder. An example is modified intake cowls that avoid increasing the temperature, thus increasing the jet's IR signature. This already helps in head to head BVR engagements. Yes, there is such a thing as partial stealth. It can be selectively applied to increase bang for buck.
) does exactly that...stealth was not set as a goal in the development of JF17 and trying to add it now makes it unnecessarily costly with very few gains.
