Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 25 of 38 FirstFirst ... 1521222324252627282935 ... LastLast
Results 721 to 750 of 1117

Thread: MMRCA News and Discussion 8

  1. #721
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,687
    Quote Originally Posted by bloodshot View Post
    Oh and at the risk of repeating myself, the Typhoon's intake's appear larger because they are essentially one intake split into two ducts, if you take both of the Rafale's intakes and combine them the area (proportionally) is quite similar. This comparison matters little though as in terms of RCS it's the geometry of the intake and not the size which is important .
    Any difference in combined capture area between the two will be due the higher airflow requirements of the more powerful EJ200 anyway.

  2. #722
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    3,582
    So in a way you are suggesting that the proposed uprated M-88 will force changes to the Rafale's intakes ?
    Love Planes, Live Planes

  3. #723
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    So in a way you are suggesting that the proposed uprated M-88 will force changes to the Rafale's intakes ?
    The upgraded M88-3 should change the size of the rafale air's intakes. I read so on an article about the modifications for the UAE sale, but I can't find the article right now.

  4. #724
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,687
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    So in a way you are suggesting that the proposed uprated M-88 will force changes to the Rafale's intakes ?
    Pretty much. Alternatively they could just run it hotter, but the M88 already has a rather high turbine inlet temperature, so there isn't going to be a lot of margin before engine life suffers unacceptably.

  5. #725
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,237
    The shape of the F16's air intake has little to do with the landing gear, but was designed in order to reduce the RCS of the a/c. Many other a/c using underbelly intake have adopted similar design since.
    The S shape is one of the most effective and popular with western fighters and it's no wonder that the rafale and typhoon were design with.
    One of the main raison I read about the rafale having the intake on the sides is in order to have better crash resistent aircraft (underbelly intake been quite fragile), less structural stress from heavy load...

    The size of the antena is only critical for mechanically scanned array radar which needs to orientated the antena in the direction of what you want to scan. The bigger the better because you can scan a greater portion of sky with one sweep.
    ESA use static modules to scan whatever portion of sky you want to scan, so the number of modules determine the number of operation, and the power of the modules the range.
    In a A2A engagement a very few modules (100 or so) are more than enough to detect any a/c.
    Today's ESA radars have between 800 to 2000(raptor) because they are expected to perform multiple function at once, and have low maintenance issue (a few hundrey malfunctionning modules should not prevent the radar from working).
    The raison the captor-E is going to have about 1400 modules is to improve the internal EW capabilities of the typhoon.
    The RBE AESA with about 1000 modules + Spectra are more than enough.
    The Elta's Elta EL/M-2052 aesa radar is considered as one of the best AESA radar to be operational and yet is similar in size with the RBE or the F18's AESA radar.
    Both RBE and Captor-E are based on the same research technology (AMSAR) and so are going to be quite similar. Now if you want a radar >300km you should by an AWAC which is going to be far more effective to operate for target discrimination than a fighter. Not only greater range mean more energy (and the risk of interference with the a/c electromagnetic), but it also mean greater risk to be detected far outside the range of effective weapons.

  6. #726
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    3,687
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    The size of the antena is only critical for mechanically scanned array radar which needs to orientated the antena in the direction of what you want to scan.
    Wrong - all other things equal the bigger antenna wins, whether it's an AESA or not.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    The bigger the better because you can scan a greater portion of sky with one sweep.
    Wrong again, the bigger the antenna is, the narrower its beam becomes (all other things equal once more).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    ESA use static modules to scan whatever portion of sky you want to scan, so the number of modules determine the number of operation, and the power of the modules the range. In a A2A engagement a very few modules (100 or so) are more than enough to detect any a/c.
    Nope, that'll give you very poor gain and hence poor range and ECCM (sidelobes).

    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    The Elta's Elta EL/M-2052 aesa radar is considered as one of the best AESA radar to be operational and yet is similar in size with the RBE or the F18's AESA radar.
    By whom (according to published photos it lacks certain features found on US and Western European designs)? Elta? It isn't operational anywhere yet either.

  7. #727
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,116
    The Elta's Elta EL/M-2052 aesa radar is considered as one of the best AESA radar to be operational and yet is similar in size with the RBE or the F18's AESA radar.
    Operational ? On which aircraft is it operational ?

  8. #728
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,475
    @Mildave,
    wrong on almost all accounts. Take a look at the F-16's intake, the compressor face is hardly hidden!

    Antenna size does matter for the gain alone, next to possible power output. 100 TRMs might be enough to detect an aircraft, but not at very long range. The power output of the modules is a critical factor here. For very long ranges you need more modules, one question is whether cooling and power supply are sufficient enough to allow all TRMs to transmit at full power at the same time.
    The number of TRMs on most radars is largely dictated by the available space on the antenna itself, cooling, weight and power consumption considerations.

    AMSAR itself formed just a base for further development, the RBE2AA and Captor-E both benefit from this programme, but neither of them is a knock off of it!

  9. #729
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,384
    Quote Originally Posted by quadbike View Post
    So in a way you are suggesting that the proposed uprated M-88 will force changes to the Rafale's intakes ?
    I've read here that the intakes would indeed have to be replaced, and that it has already been done, and for a lower RCS than the current ones despite the size increase.

    I'm pretty sure I've read it here in one of the various Rafale threads, but I can't remember what the source was, so take it with a pich of salt.

    Nic

  10. #730
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,475
    Yes it's said thatDassault has designed new intakes, but never fitted them to the Rafale as the original M88-3 was never approved in the end, albeit prototypes were bench tested. At least the front end of the intakes appears to be removable so that it can be replaced with a new one.

  11. #731
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Taygibay View Post
    ...but also :
    Looks like I wasn't the only one with the idea...







    Sorry about the southamerican markings in the indian threas, but I made those drawings while debating the future growth of a Rafale F5 for the Brazilian and Argentine forces.

  12. #732
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    4,475
    Nice graphics nonetheless. I suppose that the stealthy containers should be the weapon containers as they have been proposed by Dassault as a potential measure to further reduce the RCS with external weapons.

  13. #733
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by Scorpion82 View Post
    Nice graphics nonetheless. I suppose that the stealthy containers should be the weapon containers as they have been proposed by Dassault as a potential measure to further reduce the RCS with external weapons.
    Sure. I actually made those containers for the "Silent Hornet" model, but just fooling around with a Rafale I made, I thought I could throw them in. The whole idea is to produce very low drag, and lift creating fuel tanks and external weapons bays, just as in the suppossed F-18E Blk III.

    A Rafale equiped with 3x FT and 2x weapons bays, could carry 8x AAM for very long air defense missions, or a couple of heavy ASM in stealthy anti ship interdiction. Each external weapon bay fits as much as 8x SDB, so there is a lot of different configurations possible.

    I also broke down the main rudder into 2 smaller canted ones, that despite their smaller size, actualy increase the area due to being fully movable. The SPECTRA gear from the rudder had to be split in two, and moved to the wingtips to give 360º cover.

    Another thing (that's not represented in the model) was a pair of CFT. I'm not certain if they make sense, for the ridge on the fuselaje is quite low, and a clean dessigned, very low drag CFT would only carry around 900 kg of extra fuel.

    The F5 iteraction of the Rafale, could surely use extra power. Maybe those ~90kN M-88 for the F4 are enough, but given the similarity in weight and size, I would consider switching to F-414-400 EPE, but that's only a personal choice and nothing else. Maybe with engines in the 120kN range, true SC performance could become a reality. I kept the inlets as they are right now, but I am sure they will need to be changed a bit.

    Saludos

  14. #734
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    France
    Posts
    373
    One of the main raison I read about the rafale having the intake on the sides is in order to have better crash resistent aircraft (underbelly intake been quite fragile), less structural stress from heavy load...
    The air intake as well as the wing attachement and the cockpit form one single very strong box.

    The air vein participate at the structural strenth of the plane.

    you can see it here
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=douzAeXkjo4

    That's one of the reason actually why it can carry so much relativally to it's hempty weight (a kind of reccord which usually show good design).
    However the front end of the air intake arte not a part of this "box" and are removable.

    For a future change in the frame design, i can't help to imagine to shift each engines a bit right and left, and put a bay in the between.

    When we see the Rafale from the bottom, it look like it's "just do it" so much it looks obvious (probably not )



    it seems ok too with the landing gear.

    Buitreaux: if you still have you Cad model available and the "shift" function available in it...
    Last edited by c-seven; 17th May 2011 at 20:56.

  15. #735
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    568
    Quote Originally Posted by Buitreaux View Post
    Sure. I actually made those containers for the "Silent Hornet" model, but just fooling around with a Rafale I made, I thought I could throw them in. The whole idea is to produce very low drag, and lift creating fuel tanks and external weapons bays, just as in the suppossed F-18E Blk III.

    A Rafale equiped with 3x FT and 2x weapons bays, could carry 8x AAM for very long air defense missions, or a couple of heavy ASM in stealthy anti ship interdiction. Each external weapon bay fits as much as 8x SDB, so there is a lot of different configurations possible.

    I also broke down the main rudder into 2 smaller canted ones, that despite their smaller size, actualy increase the area due to being fully movable. The SPECTRA gear from the rudder had to be split in two, and moved to the wingtips to give 360º cover.

    Another thing (that's not represented in the model) was a pair of CFT. I'm not certain if they make sense, for the ridge on the fuselaje is quite low, and a clean dessigned, very low drag CFT would only carry around 900 kg of extra fuel.

    The F5 iteraction of the Rafale, could surely use extra power. Maybe those ~90kN M-88 for the F4 are enough, but given the similarity in weight and size, I would consider switching to F-414-400 EPE, but that's only a personal choice and nothing else. Maybe with engines in the 120kN range, true SC performance could become a reality. I kept the inlets as they are right now, but I am sure they will need to be changed a bit.

    Saludos
    Dassault originally proposed fitting the Rafale with the Kaveri engine for the Indian competition. Given that SNECMA is now involved in the program, I think the Kaveri + M88 HPT/Burner/HPC engine that they are working on would be a good fit- I've heard 90-100 kN for thrust, and it is a variable cycle engine rated for flat thrust at all altitudes. This would surely give prodigious supercruise ability.

  16. #736
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,055
    Going from F404 to F414, some 20% increase in thrust,
    Gripen increased intakes 1 inch.
    So expect something similar with Rafale
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  17. #737
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    196
    Quote Originally Posted by Buitreaux View Post
    Looks like I wasn't the only one with the idea...
    Great work Buitreaux !

    I'm working on concept models based on some of the proposed Typhoon variants so it's good to see somebody here had a similar idea, albeit with the Rafale as a basis.

    As a suggestion, could you model angular low RCS intakes, or the sharply canted forward fuselage to match the original Dassault concept model. Besides the weapons pods the intakes would seem to be the most obvious modification to further reduce RCS of the Rafale without resorting to any major structural changes.



    Does anybody have any other info this concept image or the 'cocooned' weapons concept proposed by Dassault ?

  18. #738
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    300
    I cant help myself, but I see no way to make Rafale a true VLO plane. Too many round surfaces. And having to carry missiles on external mounts is not helping either even if they are in pods.

    Looking at the pictures posted here I can imagine an RCS reduction of a few percent at a price tag of a hundred million - per aircraft. And still its radar is tiny and its RCS is huge compared to a Raptor. What is the point? If even the US can't afford such ridiculous programs anymore who else could?! That's not the future of aviation.

  19. #739
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,055
    Any re-design of Rafale should start with a larger nose,
    anything else is waste
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  20. #740
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Argentina
    Posts
    172
    Quote Originally Posted by c-seven View Post
    Buitreaux: if you still have you Cad model available and the "shift" function available in it...
    That would be almost like a whole new plane. A program in the lines of the F-18E vs the F-18C. I don't really think it is doable, or necessary. A belly bay, really doesn't fit. I mean, it doesn't fit easly, or cheap. We would be talking of a Rafale II instead of a Rafale F5.

    Quote Originally Posted by Erkokite View Post
    think the Kaveri + M88 HPT/Burner/HPC engine that they are working on would be a good fit- I've heard 90-100 kN for thrust, and it is a variable cycle engine rated for flat thrust at all altitudes. This would surely give prodigious supercruise ability.
    If the M-88-X can pull 90 kN, it is possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by bloodshot View Post
    As a suggestion, could you model angular low RCS intakes, or the sharply canted forward fuselage to match the original Dassault concept model.
    Sure, but again, this is a model I made in something like 10 minutes from an earlier F4 Rafale, just to check the double tail/SPECTRA wingtips and stealthy undercarriage. I wouldn't really know if a DSI or Diamond shaped inlet is the best way to go, or even if they make sense at all when considering the RCS reduction on a LO plane.

    Quote Originally Posted by Wilde View Post
    I cant help myself, but I see no way to make Rafale a true VLO plane. Too many round surfaces. And having to carry missiles on external mounts is not helping either even if they are in pods.
    Maybe the idea is not to make it VLO. That should be impossible. Perhaps the Indians, or southamericans, would like a more "discrete" design growth. That's all.

    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    Any re-design of Rafale should start with a larger nose, anything else is waste
    Why? A plate of 70cm wide fits, and many more TR modules can be scattered through the plane.

  21. #741
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Cataclysm
    Posts
    8,641
    Quote Originally Posted by mack8 View Post
    Operational ? On which aircraft is it operational ?
    None as we speak.

  22. #742
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Dijon , France
    Posts
    1,038
    Quite a nice work Buitreaux .
    Give me one from the front if possible , thanks .

    bloodshot :
    As a suggestion, could you model angular low RCS intakes
    This is puzzling me .
    I don 't understand why some people think that angular shaped intakes (or anything angular for that matter) is the only way (or the best way) to get a low RCS .
    From where I stand , it seems that anything which is not angular shaped can 't possibly be low observable , which is outright wrong .
    So , because the USA , Russia and China are showing angular shaped intakes on their stealth fighters , it must be the only way .
    It is not .
    I am NOT comparing the overall RCS of these fighters to the overall RCS of Rafale , obviously . What I want to say is , there are ways to use curves to archive the same result . The "faceted" F-117A is long gone , one just have to look at the fuselage body of the F-22 Raptor and the B-2A to understand the point I am making .
    Well designed curves can be used to deflect radar waves away from the emitter as well as limiting the "bouncing" effect .

    The problem Dassault faced during the Rafale ' making is crystal clear from a French point of view . If we leave aside the money factor , Dassault 's bet was to make to best delta-canard fighter they could with outstanding flying characteristics while keeping the RCS as low as possible . The end product fits the bill .
    Personaly , I believe that the Rafale 's RCS is underated by many . This is something I find rather strange because we have various reports about various encounters in between top fighters like Typhoons vs SU-30s , SU-30s vs Eagles , Eagles vs Typhoons , etc ... We have some clues about who 's having a good radar , we have some clues about who 's having (in general) the first look and who can make the most out of it .
    We also have some clues about Rafales vs Eagles , Rafales vs Typhoons , etc ...
    It seems that the Rafale is detectng its targets first most of the time if not all the time , while the opponent is having difficulties to fire back .
    Then , the actual Pesa RBE2 can ' t be seen as a "long range radar" . So ...

    Dassault 's design is an outstanding mix in between air flow (lift) and low RCS . Again , look at the picture below a minute or two (or more) and try to be in the radar waves 's shoes and in the air flow 's shoes :



    Notice where the air flow is driven (forced) , like in between the air intakes and the fore-body . Notice the wings-body blending .
    Notice the wings leading-edges , starting from the air intakes .
    The overall very curvy design has been designed for very good lift as well as for low RCS . Also , RAM has been applies where it counts .
    The air intakes obeys to the same rules and they are nothing but simple . They archive 3 goals : excellent airflow at both low and high altitude , excellent airflow at both high speed and low speed , excellent RCS due to curves , S-Ducts and inside RAM coating .
    Without moving parts .

    Spend a couples of minutes looking at the pic with a critical eye . You 'll know what I mean .
    This kind of design is miles ahead of the Typhoon 's design . It doesn 't come as a surprise since the Eurofighter 's people were behind Dassault in aircraft making and by quite a way . I know that what I 'm saying can shock some but it is the truth .
    I am not saying that no RCS work has been done on the Typhoon but the knowledge behind the overall design is ... questionable at best .

    Cheers .
    Last edited by Bluewings; 18th May 2011 at 01:37.
    I say what I mean and I do what I say .

  23. #743
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    662
    Thanks for showing those, Buitreaux, nice work.
    Had seen one or two in E-Brazil but did not remember
    where!

    The intakes re-shaping would go with 90kN
    which is the value from Snecma but how much...

    Thanks C-Seven for finding that vid :
    Attached Images Attached Images  
    Last edited by Taygibay; 18th May 2011 at 01:28.

  24. #744
    Join Date
    Dec 1999
    Location
    Eastern Switzerland
    Posts
    1,989
    Quote Originally Posted by Mildave View Post
    One of the main raison I read about the rafale having the intake on the sides is in order to have better crash resistent aircraft (underbelly intake been quite fragile), less structural stress from heavy load...
    IIRC, the stronger nose gear required for carrier ops is one reason why Dassault went with side intakes... but thats basically the same as crash resistance.
    That plus space. A solution à la F-16 or Typhoon would have been less than perfect: where to fit that bulky gear?
    How can less be more? It's impossible. More is more.
    Yngwie Malmsteen

  25. #745
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    France
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    Any re-design of Rafale should start with a larger nose,
    anything else is waste
    That's amazing this nose size story. I has it's own life now

    It's like the Dassault designers suddenly realized that the nose was too small once the plane was finished and they screemed: "holy sh!t, we've forgot the radar! Oh my god, and now it's too late, what have we done my god, oh noooooooo".

    That's ridiculous.

    No, the noze is of an appropriate size, they could even have made it bigger by shifting the OSF elsewhere (like the Pirate) and pull the radar further rear.

    The size of the radome is appropriate for emiting the right amount of waves without being detected 500km away.
    And for receiving: the Rafale has the radar and several other AESA antennas in Spectra.
    In very short that's like a small radar for emiting and a BIG ONE for receiving.

    Some Spectra AESA antenas are each side of the plane, near the canards juction. Some Rafale experts here would confirm this point.

    Edit: thanks Tay, that's exactly that.
    Last edited by c-seven; 18th May 2011 at 05:23.

  26. #746
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,327
    Any source on Spectra being able to supplement the radar's ability to analyze it's own returning radar signals?
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  27. #747
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    86
    Quote Originally Posted by c-seven View Post
    That's amazing this nose size story. I has it's own life now

    It's like the Dassault designers suddenly realized that the nose was too small once the plane was finished and they screemed: "holy sh!t, we've forgot the radar! Oh my god, and now it's too late, what have we done my god, oh noooooooo".

    That's ridiculous.

    No, the noze is of an appropriate size, they could even have made it bigger by shifting the OSF elsewhere (like the Pirate) and pull the radar further rear.

    The size of the radome is appropriate for emiting the right amount of waves without being detected 500km away.
    And for receiving: the Rafale has the radar and several other AESA antennas in Spectra.
    In very short that's like a small radar for emiting and a BIG ONE for receiving.

    Some Spectra AESA antenas are each side of the plane, near the canards juction. Some Rafale experts here would confirm this point.

    Edit: thanks Tay, that's exactly that.
    So are you saying that it's better to have a small radar (Rafale) than to have a much bigger radar (EF)? Or, let me rephrase that: Is Rafale better off with a small radar rather than a big one?

    How "big" are you claiming for receiving? AFAIK there are two small AESA antennas at the canards roots as you say, and probably one in the rear. But those aren't very big, how many modules? 20 or so each? Or more? Or are there more of these antennas, and in that case where?

  28. #748
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Bluewings View Post
    Quite a nice work Buitreaux .
    Give me one from the front if possible , thanks .

    bloodshot :


    This is puzzling me .
    I don 't understand why some people think that angular shaped intakes (or anything angular for that matter) is the only way (or the best way) to get a low RCS .
    From where I stand , it seems that anything which is not angular shaped can 't possibly be low observable , which is outright wrong .
    So , because the USA , Russia and China are showing angular shaped intakes on their stealth fighters , it must be the only way .
    It is not .
    I am NOT comparing the overall RCS of these fighters to the overall RCS of Rafale , obviously . What I want to say is , there are ways to use curves to archive the same result . The "faceted" F-117A is long gone , one just have to look at the fuselage body of the F-22 Raptor and the B-2A to understand the point I am making .
    Well designed curves can be used to deflect radar waves away from the emitter as well as limiting the "bouncing" effect .

    The problem Dassault faced during the Rafale ' making is crystal clear from a French point of view . If we leave aside the money factor , Dassault 's bet was to make to best delta-canard fighter they could with outstanding flying characteristics while keeping the RCS as low as possible . The end product fits the bill .
    Personaly , I believe that the Rafale 's RCS is underated by many . This is something I find rather strange because we have various reports about various encounters in between top fighters like Typhoons vs SU-30s , SU-30s vs Eagles , Eagles vs Typhoons , etc ... We have some clues about who 's having a good radar , we have some clues about who 's having (in general) the first look and who can make the most out of it .
    We also have some clues about Rafales vs Eagles , Rafales vs Typhoons , etc ...
    It seems that the Rafale is detectng its targets first most of the time if not all the time , while the opponent is having difficulties to fire back .
    Then , the actual Pesa RBE2 can ' t be seen as a "long range radar" . So ...

    Dassault 's design is an outstanding mix in between air flow (lift) and low RCS . Again , look at the picture below a minute or two (or more) and try to be in the radar waves 's shoes and in the air flow 's shoes :



    Notice where the air flow is driven (forced) , like in between the air intakes and the fore-body . Notice the wings-body blending .
    Notice the wings leading-edges , starting from the air intakes .
    The overall very curvy design has been designed for very good lift as well as for low RCS . Also , RAM has been applies where it counts .
    The air intakes obeys to the same rules and they are nothing but simple . They archive 3 goals : excellent airflow at both low and high altitude , excellent airflow at both high speed and low speed , excellent RCS due to curves , S-Ducts and inside RAM coating .
    Without moving parts .

    Spend a couples of minutes looking at the pic with a critical eye . You 'll know what I mean .
    This kind of design is miles ahead of the Typhoon 's design . It doesn 't come as a surprise since the Eurofighter 's people were behind Dassault in aircraft making and by quite a way . I know that what I 'm saying can shock some but it is the truth .
    I am not saying that no RCS work has been done on the Typhoon but the knowledge behind the overall design is ... questionable at best .

    Cheers .
    Bluewings, i feel your pain.

    This last post read like you are trying to convince yourself. I don't think anyone here is saying Typhoon has a small radar return other than from the frontal aspect.

    However for all the details you think you can see on Rafale that make it have a "small all aspect RCS", what about the big reflectors like the vertical tail, cockpit, canopy, non-aligned edges, bits sticking out all over the place....


    And although the fuselage is blended, i don't believe this works in the type of way required to reduce the radar return properly. It seems to be irregular rather than a continuous curve (but I'm not an expert, just an observer).

    It is hard to distinguish between aerodynamic features in both designs - which were the primary requirement, and those added in later for RCS reduction.

    Non of this detracts from the fact that:


    Rafale is an excellent aircraft
    Rafale probably has a smaller RCS than Typhoon from above
    Dassault clearly tried to reduce the fuselage RCS of the aircraft at some point in the design.

  29. #749
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    116
    Quote Originally Posted by Buitreaux View Post
    Looks like I wasn't the only one with the idea...







    Sorry about the southamerican markings in the indian threas, but I made those drawings while debating the future growth of a Rafale F5 for the Brazilian and Argentine forces.
    Interesting what-if concept. Good idea with the double front-sector electro-optical system, I notice that the big Spectra module (RF receiver, laser warning, missiles warning) has been sacrificed though

  30. #750
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    France
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by Slenke View Post
    So are you saying that it's better to have a small radar (Rafale) than to have a much bigger radar (EF)? Or, let me rephrase that: Is Rafale better off with a small radar rather than a big one?

    How "big" are you claiming for receiving? AFAIK there are two small AESA antennas at the canards roots as you say, and probably one in the rear. But those aren't very big, how many modules? 20 or so each? Or more? Or are there more of these antennas, and in that case where?
    That's it more or less.

    I don't know more than you about Spectra (and those who know don't talk because they don't want to have the men in black to visit them tomorow (early) morning to handcuff them to a radiator )

    IIRC there are 8 AESA antenas in Spectra.

    The Canard roots seems quite prominent (see Bluewing picture) and the antena there is not small IMO

    Also I don't see why Spectra would be able to analyse foe RF and won't be able to help for its own radar return. But again I'm not specialist, just a guess (about the same vein as those who guess that the bigger a nose is, the better it is)

    They haven't made the radar dome as big as they could have in the Rafale (unlike the M2000)
    Again, they could have put the OSF elswhere (in a wart somewhere) if they wanted more space. There is a reason for that, and this reason is that the radar antena is of an "appropriate" size for what they want to do. It's a fighter, not an AWACS.
    Last edited by c-seven; 18th May 2011 at 11:15.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES