MMRCA News and Discussion 8

[TMor]

@ Bluewings :

TMor , if you think what all we know about Spectra is on your site , you are mistaking .

I'm not mistaking.
I don't think "all we know about Spectra is on my site". My point on this website is to publish mainly authority information we can rely on (whoever we are), or as much as possible different PoV about some events (a matter of objectivity).

I once wanted it to be some kind of support for the "Rafale culture", something non-French people aren't accustomed to because they miss a lot of things in French "literature". But the Kovy's blog ( http://rafalenews.blogspot.com ) is better at this.

I don't want people to believe that Rafale is better than Y. I just would like people know enough about Rafale to talk about it in a dispassionate manner, with more respect than usual.
I don't claim I'm good enough at it alone, and some help would be welcome.


I don't blame you for discussing about technology, but for the methodology :

Who 's behind Praetorian and Spectra ?

This is another example : you systematically talk about both, and thus, compare both...
Why ?

[Bluewings]

TMor :

I don't blame you for discussing about technology, but for the methodology

I try to stick to the subject at hand .

This is another example : you systematically talk about both, and thus, compare both...
Why ?

This is a thread about MMRCA , so about the 2 remaining fighters , isn 't it ?
If the Indians want an air superiority fighter , both will do fine . If they want the better bomber ...

Scorpion :

In this case it doesn't. The antenna isn't going to change frequency agility as the antenna just directs the beam, the transmissions themselves are generated by the TWT-transmitter.

Re-read what I said and re-read what you said . We both agree , we have no case

Explain us how the accuracy of the beam steering itself is higher on AESA than on PESA. I was talking about the accuracy of the beam steering, maybe you refer to the beam shape and thus to possibly thinner beams owed to beam shaping, which is something different.

True BUT I am talking about a MSA and a PESA (Typhoon/Rafale) , not you ?

The discussion was actually about RWR/ESM, re-read what was written.

I know for God sake !
Just to make things clear : the Rafale is also better equipped than the Typhoon regarding RWR/ESM . It is again about design , planned goals and NOT ABOUT who 's the best , for cry out loud !

Are we still talking about RWR or are you changing th topic yet again?

I was talking about jamming and not anymore about RWRs . You didn 't see me turning left ?

If you believe that DASS could be retrofitted to any aircraft of your choice you are mistaken.

Prove it , because I can 't so far . DASS (Praetorian and the towed decoys) are generic systems .
Actually , the towed decoys could be fitted on any good ECM system .

Cheers .

[Scorpion82]

True BUT I am talking about a MSA and a PESA (Typhoon/Rafale) , not you ?

The discussion was related to the ECM antennas not the radar antennas. The discussion about the radars was wrt to frequency agility and I think we have settled this now.

I know for God sake !
Just to make things clear : the Rafale is also better equipped than the Typhoon regarding RWR/ESM . It is again about design , planned goals and NOT ABOUT who 's the best , for cry out loud !

Feel free to believe what you want, it's not my intention to convince of something else or change your mind. I just provide some info you are obviously missing and give some food for thought.

I was talking about jamming and not anymore about RWRs . You didn 't see me turning left ?

Maybe you should make it clear if you are changing the topic...

Prove it , because I can 't so far . DASS (Praetorian and the towed decoys) are generic systems .
Actually , the towed decoys could be fitted on any good ECM system .

The TRD could be used on other aircraft true, like the chaff dispensers. That doesn't equate in the DASS being retrofit able. DASS has been specifically designed for the Typhoon with all the room, power supply, cooling and locations of the different sensors being designed in. You can't just take the MAWS, LWR, ESM/ECM and retrofit it to another aircraft! It is a fully integrated system which is part of the design. If the Rafale would have a TRD it could be used on other aircraft as well, the question is about the integration with the rest of the suite. Rafale's chaff dispensers are also used on the M2k (at least newer variants) if I'm not mistaken, that doesn't make Spectra retrofitable either. Shape and size of the devices have been designed to meet the airframe and locations were well thought through, that makes it difficult if not impossible to either retrofit Spectra or DASS to another platform.

[Bluewings]

Scorpion , I have to thank you . Thank you

In the pdf you gave us :
http://www.selexgalileo.com/EN/Commo...Praetorian.pdf

it is said that Praetorian is using two DRFM , with independant resources
I have been looking for such official info for a long time .
I 'll be back on this soon .

I also note with a smile than you wrote on F.16 (I quote) :

Spectra uses DRFM, techniques generator and AESA jamming antennas and is described as offering defensive, offensive and stealthy jamming modes. It's RWR/ESM reportedly offers ranges up to 250+ km, has a bearing accuracy <1° with 3-D localisation of threats, meaning azimuth and elevation bearing and ranging. It offers ELINT capabilities and can generate targeting data for weapons such as AASM.

http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=P...topic&p=181969

Should I take you in the Team

Cheers .

[Scorpion82]

Well I'm a great admirer of the Rafale, it's a great aeroplane and I think it's one of the most advanced and capable combat aircraft in the world. It has its strengths and enjoys its advantages over other types, including the Typhoon. But nothing is perfect and it's not like other types don't offer any advantages at all. I try to look at things from a broader perspective as much as possible and don't take it the "mine is better than yours" way, which should be apparent if someone carefully reads my posts in this thread for example. You'll realise that I have never insisted any "mine is better than yours" here at all. I usually represent the side I consider as under represented, at F-16.net as you have seen I'm often representing the Rafale as there aren't many/if any other people who add some balance to the rather one sided perception of most users there. Heck I even defended the F-35 in another forum and other aircraft including various Russian and US types. And when I talk about "defending" I mean countering prejudices, false information and adding food for thought by pointing out physical/technical limitations (as far as my knowledge permits).

I encourage everyone to learn and built up his own mind, rather than adopting the view of someone else. It's a learning and maturing process one has to go through and I had to learn this as well, sometimes the hard way.

That being said, I'm happy that the two European birds did make it to the short list and wish them both the best, albeit I don't make a secret out of it that I hope the Typhoon will make the running, not necessarily because it's the better fit for the IAF, but because it will be a boost to the programme which could give it the momentum it currently lacks. My bet is nonetheless on the Rafale on this one as I believe that it's a better fit for the IAF for several reasons (could elaborate if there is the interest).

[Nicolas10]

(could elaborate if there is the interest).

Actually that's what this thread is about

Nic

[Bluewings]

Good and honest post Scorpion .

Cheers .

[bloodshot]

Well as said before I believe that the Rafale has a lower RCS as well, what I question is the margin as presented here by some.

If the RCS values presented here for either aircraft are even close to being correct then the dominant factor will be the signature contribution of external stores which are carried; regardless of which aircraft has the lower RCS as a clean airframe.

The Typhoon carries four AAM's in a conformal configuration which although not as effective as internal carriage should still offer a substantial reduction in RCS contribution over the same weapons being hung under-wing on pylons. This in itself may give the Typhoon a lower RCS than the Rafale for some AtA missions even if the Rafale has a slightly lower signature when flying clean. I would expect that for the majority of missions though the RCS of both aircraft will be quite comparable, with any difference in airframe RCS being far outweighed by the addition of weapons and fuel tanks being carried.

DA4 was tested in an anechoic chamber back in the 90s, this was related to DASS development and testing, dunno whether RCS testing was conducted as well. RCS testing and material development was conducted in Germany with EADS using a radar signature measurement system to test DA5's RCS.
There appear to have been additional tests with production aircraft.

EADS also has at least one half scale model of the Typhoon which is dedicated to signature analysis work.

The Typhoon has many features which were not present on any of the original EFA proposals such as the distinctive 'smiling' canted intakes and I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that this was in part due to lessons they learnt from RCS testing models of those same EFA designs. During development full scale anechoic testing was carried out by both EADS at their Manching facility and BAE at Warton as well as the anechoic testing used in developing materials and components such as the radome. Studies were also conducted by BAE in the 90's to assess the feasibility of a stealthy Typhoon variant as a candidate for the RAF's FOAS requirement, and EADS proposal for South Korea's original KFX requirement was supposedly also a variant of the Typhoon. So I think that their has probably been a lot of research into signature reduction going on behind closed doors that isn't necessarily publicly acknowledged, and that work would seem to be an ongoing effort.

[Nicolas10]

The Typhoon carries four AAM's in a conformal configuration which although not as effective as internal carriage should still offer a substantial reduction in RCS contribution over the same weapons being hung under-wing on pylons. This in itself may give the Typhoon a lower RCS than the Rafale for some AtA missions even if the Rafale has a slightly lower signature when flying clean. I would expect that for the majority of missions though the RCS of both aircraft will be quite comparable, with any difference in airframe RCS being far outweighed by the addition of weapons and fuel tanks being carried.

Keep in mind that two of the Rafale's missiles are on the wing tips, contrubuting not much more to the Rafales' RCS than the ECM pods on the typhoon. And two of them are pretty much hidden behind the engine intakes from the front, and not much more exposed than the Typhoon's missiles from other aspects. Honeslty I don't think that the Rafale is at a disadvantage here, quite the contrary. I would add that Mica's versatility enables carriage of less missiles, since Mica IR can combine both SRAM and BVRAM functions.

EADS also has at least one half scale model of the Typhoon which is dedicated to signature analysis work.

The Typhoon has many features which were not present on any of the original EFA proposals such as the distinctive 'smiling' canted intakes and I'm sure I remember reading somewhere that this was in part due to lessons they learnt from RCS testing models of those same EFA designs. During development full scale anechoic testing was carried out by both EADS at their Manching facility and BAE at Warton as well as the anechoic testing used in developing materials and components such as the radome. Studies were also conducted by BAE in the 90's to assess the feasibility of a stealthy Typhoon variant as a candidate for the RAF's FOAS requirement, and EADS proposal for South Korea's original KFX requirement was supposedly also a variant of the Typhoon. So I think that their has probably been a lot of research into signature reduction going on behind closed doors that isn't necessarily publicly acknowledged, and that work would seem to be an ongoing effort.

Interesting.

Nic

[Ero_Senin]

All modern aircraft have had their share of RCS testing and reduction.

On the bellow picture you can see the Solange Celar anechoic chamber that was most certainly used for the testing of the Rafale.

About the RCS difference between the loaded platforms, on the French side one could say that there isn't much that can be done to reduce more the signature of the plane without major modification to the design and effort are made on the RCS of weapon and SPECTRA modes rather than on cell design/composition/structure
Concerning the fuel tanks, it is often said that the Rafale tanks or not the 2000 ones, which is obvious but also highlights the fact that particular attention has been brought to them not to nullify efforts made on the machine.
I would assume that the same logic can be applied to the Typhoon



The Mirage 2000 is a full scale model.

[Scorpion82]

Actually that's what this thread is about

Nic

Well then lets do it.

Why I think that the Rafale might be the better fit for the IAF


Note:
This reflects my view only, I don't declare anything to be fact here!

The Mirage 2000 is one of the most important fighters in the IAF's inventory and it has a quite good reputation among Indian aviators. France appears to have been proven a reliable partner so far, which is important for the Indians who don't want to face operational restrictions as they did, with the US for example, following the nuclear weapon tests.

While the Mirage 2000 is a very different aircraft in comparison to the Rafale, thus there won't be that much the two could share, India obviously considers France to be a relative reliable supplier of arms. As the Rafale and Mirage 2000 are both from the same manufacturer the logistical chain could be adapted more easily in order to support the Rafale in comparison to introduce a type from a different manufacturer. The necessary connections between the IAF and Dassault and its partners as suppliers exist. Of course there are some synergies, particularly with regards to the weapons which are likely to be introduced with the Mirage 2000 upgrade and as the IAF wants to keep its Mirage 2000 and the French may offer some favourable conditions for the upgrade deal, if the Rafale is selected, which might be lucrative for the Indians as they could kill two birds with one stone.
Thus the IAF might save money by selecting the Rafale, both directly (due a possibly better price for the M2k upgrade) as well as using the same weapon stocks for both types.
It has to be noted that India intends to sign the M2k upgrade prior it selects a MMRCA contender, thus it's not entirely sure of how savings could be achieved afterwards.

From an operational point of view the IAFs combat aircraft fleet comprises a large number of different types, most of which are optimised for the air defence/air superiority roles. The IAF's premier strikers/attackers are the vulnerable MiG-27 and Jaguar, with the Mirage 2000 being used for AG in a secondary role, like the Su-30MKI and as the Tejas and upgraded MiG-29 will be in the future. It is predictable that the MiG-27/29, Jaguar and Mirage 2000 will be retired somewhen between 2020 and 2025, thus leaving a gap which must be filled. The AMCA which might be slatted as a possible, albeit probably just partial replacement for these types won't be available for quitre some time, thus the IAF needs an aircraft capable to perform both, air-air and air-ground missions reasonably well. The Rafale fits that bill being a versatile and capable multirole fighter (or omnirole ) and the aircraft can do this right now, thus there is no risk involved, meaning the IAF can count on that the aircraft will be able to perform the various roles from day one it will be delivered (literally spoken).

With the Tejas and Su-30MKI being primarily used for air defence/air superiority and the other major types currently operated being retired in the mid term, a medium fighter fitting in between the LCA and heavy Flanker should be ideally a platform not to close to either of the other two types wrt size/weight and complementary to their roles.

It remains yet to be seen at what price the Rafale and its competitor will be offered, how competitive their offset and ToT proposals are.

[Scorpion82]

On the bellow picture you can see the Solange Celar anechoic chamber that was most certainly used for the testing of the Rafale.
The Mirage 2000 is a full scale model.

Check out the FoxThree vol.4 issue it contains an image of the Rafale in the anechoic chamber on the last page.

@Nicolas

And two of them are pretty much hidden behind the engine intakes from the front, and not much more exposed

Hmm, I don't gonna speculate on the impact on the RCS, but those MICAs on the rear fuselage clearly stick out much more, particularly in comparison to those on the rear stations on the Typhoon's fuselage.

[OPIT]

The Typhoon carries four AAM's in a conformal configuration which although not as effective as internal carriage should still offer a substantial reduction in RCS contribution over the same weapons being hung under-wing on pylons.

True. But how much ?

This in itself may give the Typhoon a lower RCS than the Rafale for some AtA missions even if the Rafale has a slightly lower signature when flying clean.

Or it may not, depending on the overall RCS of both planes.
And once again, there exists some clues that dispute the "slightly" figure (unless 10x lower can be qualified as "slightly"). Forgetting this on purpose is not fair, even if that's not proven.

I would expect that for the majority of missions though the RCS of both aircraft will be quite comparable, with any difference in airframe RCS being far outweighed by the addition of weapons and fuel tanks being carried.

Your bet, and I'd add not a good one. It doesn't make sense to spend time and money to reduce the RCS of a naked aircraft if all this work is nullified by weapons hanging everywhere. On the contrary if that makes sense, then the RCS contribution of these weapons must be quite low compared to the overall picture (not bigger by a magnitude or two, I mean).
Keep in mind we don't talk of VLO nor LO designs, but merely on reduced RCS. You don't want to say a hanging missile has a bigger RCS than a naked aircraft, don't you ?

[bloodshot]

Keep in mind that two of the Rafale's missiles are on the wing tips, contrubuting not much more to the Rafales' RCS than the ECM pods on the typhoon. And two of them are pretty much hidden behind the engine intakes from the front, and not much more exposed than the Typhoon's missiles from other aspects. Honeslty I don't think that the Rafale is at a disadvantage here, quite the contrary. I would add that Mica's versatility enables carriage of less missiles, since Mica IR can combine both SRAM and BVRAM functions.

But unlike the DASS wing tip pods two MICA carried on the Rafale's wing tips are also mounted to a launcher, they have fins and they are also to my knowledge untreated. Looking at some photo's that are taken from directly in front of the Rafale the two outer fuselage stations seem pretty visible to me, and they are also toed out Super Hornet fashion which doesn't seem like it would be too beneficial for either RCS or drag. MICA is a versatile missile but it also suffers from being a jack of all trades and a master of none, it shouldn't be seen as a substitute for a C-5 AMRAAM let alone Meteor.

All modern aircraft have had their share of RCS testing and reduction.

On the bellow picture you can see the Solange Celar anechoic chamber that was most certainly used for the testing of the Rafale.

Yes of course, although just to clarify although the Mirage 2000 in the picture you posted is still considered by some to be a modern aircraft, aircraft of it's generation didn't actually benefit from RCS testing during their development whereas both the Typhoon and Rafale did. I think that's the point being made.

About the RCS difference between the loaded platforms, on the French side one could say that there isn't much that can be done to reduce more the signature of the plane without major modification to the design and effort are made on the RCS of weapon and SPECTRA modes rather than on cell design/composition/structure

The designs of both aircraft have addressed some of the most significant reflectors with the exception of external weapons, although this has been dealt with to an extent on the Typhoon with the recessed/conformal weapons carriage. But looking at the amount of clutter both aircraft still have in terms of antenna's and other protuberances there are some obvious areas which could be addressed to further reduce RCS without making drastic changes to the underlying structure of the airframe.

Hmm, I don't gonna speculate on the impact on the RCS, but those MICAs on the rear fuselage clearly stick out much more, particularly in comparison to those on the rear stations on the Typhoon's fuselage.

Nice picture of the Rafale but here's a prettier shot of the Typhoon for comparison.

[obligatory]

RCS is low each on their own, but combined they cause a 90* angle,
which causes an uncontrollable symphony of reflections,
that is why internal carriage is mandatory on LO a/c.
Deltas are inherently low RCS, clean that is, but the sum with weapons is greater than each rcs on their own.

[coldfire2005]

Rejected MMRCA vendors fight to return

[seahawk]

Well then lets do it.

Why I think that the Rafale might be the better fit for the IAF


Note:
This reflects my view only, I don't declare anything to be fact here!

Well here is my opinion, why Typhoon could be the better choice.

When we look at the planes that need to be replaced quickly within the IAF, the type that is in dire need of replacement is the MiG-21. he Bisons are primarily used as interceptors in the air defence role and while Tejas is coming in to replace them, it questionable if Tejas will ever be strong enough to combat modern SU-27 variants or J-10. On the strike and attack side the IAf is well equipped. Only the MiG-27 are getting old, the Jaguar has a long life ahead of it and the SU-30MKI as well as the upgraded M2000 will be able to cover all current and medium term strike needs perfectly well. This time can be used to bring the Typhoon up to full multi-role standard with AESA radar in co-operation with the other partner nations, which will also mean that a huge array of weapons will be available for Typhoon in the future. One can be sure that apart from European weapons, the RAF and the other European users will also integrate many US weapon systems into the plane, which means India has more freedom in deciding which systems to buy.Competition means lower prices.
Typhoon offers full partner status, so that India will have a big influence on future up-grades. The full transfer of know-how will be a huge gain for the aerospace industry and the off set deals could be interesting if you think about EADS and what it could offer. The British have shown to be reliable partners, which the Jaguar license production running for decades and with the Hawk trainer also doing quite well.

So based on current needs and past experience, I think Typhoon is the better plane for the IAF and the Indian aerospace industry. (*)

* well one could say so, although I have doubts about it

[Nicolas10]

After watching the pics I don't think there must be a huge difference between the placement of the four missiles on the Rafale or EF. Certainly not enough to change the RCS impact too drastically from the front anyway.

Nic

[Taygibay]

Main RCS "flashing" points on the Phoon are
certainly the huge canards although partially
transparent by materials choice and those
moving inlet lips.
( I surmise they could be used to produce
Morse code which although short -range
is darn discreet as a liaison, again equal
or superior to the Raptor. * )

If the intakes were non-moving and the canards smaller,
the Typhie would have a rather nice RCS
especially with the aforementioned recessed mounting points.

If the canards go completely off, the plane may not fly
but it would be one heck of a beaut'.

Coming back to the MMRCA, if all the rumors are true !!! ...
( Sonia Gandhi? LOL We must have paid everyone, LOL.
This deal is clinched, re-LOL. Next on the list of reveals :
Enzo Casolini and Peter Luff !! ):diablo:

Good day all, Tay.

* Not so short-ranged either if one implies sending Morse to
the incoming enemy through radar flashes and hustlin' him :
-"Get back home, mate, the wifey is about to pop and
the game is about to start!"

[Bluewings]

Bloodshot :

just to clarify although the Mirage 2000 in the picture you posted is still considered by some to be a modern aircraft, aircraft of it's generation didn't actually benefit from RCS testing during their development whereas both the Typhoon and Rafale did.

Completely wrong . What do you think that M2000 is doing in an anechoic chamber ?
Anyway , aircraft manufacturers started to care about RCS since the early sixties . Aircraft like the Lockheed A-12 Oxcart (precursor of the SR-71) or to a lower extent the Dassault Mirage III were designed to keep the RCS low .

To me , the design differences in between the Typhoon and the Rafale are more than obvious . The Typhoon looks like a pipe-tube with big canards and 2 wings stuck on it . It is why I say that they only tried to lower the average RCS with curved S-Ducts (the least they could do seing the huge and badly designed intakes --> wrt RCS) and some RAM paint here and there .

On the other hand , the Rafale 's design obeys to some very different rules . I quote :

""There are a number of basic methods of using geometry to control the way the airframe will reflect and scatters a radar wave .
One is to make the shape flat and at the same time onlique to the incoming waves , so these reflections will never go toward the likely location of a reciever . This is the principle behind the "faceted" F-117A .
Anoher trick is to shape the airframe in such a way that , instead of having the reflected energy scatter in all directions (and thus a portion of it being always picked-up by the enemy radar) , it will bounce back on a very limited number of directions , maybe only one or two .

Another method is to use a compact , smoothly blended external geometry to archive a continuously varying curvature . Most conventional aircraft have constant-radius curves for simplifying the design and manufacturing processes . However , a constant curve is an isotropic scatterer . It
reflects energy equally in all directions .
A varying curvature is similar to a sea-shell helix . The curves have an ever-changing circle radius , as though they are sections of a spiral rather than arcs of a circle , and thus do not reflect energy in the usual predictable way . Rather , they tend to absorb the energy as it scatters towards the interior of the curve itself . This carefull shaping technique can be observe in the overwing engine nacelles of the B-2 , as well as the basic fuselage cross-section of the Rafale .""

Just look again at the Rafale picture posted earlier on or at this :


The front cross-section design and the totally blended curvature design has absolutly nothing to do with the old Typhoon 's design .
On the Rafale , everything has been made to deflect the radar waves away from the emitter , especialy from up front and from high-up .
Then , the air intakes design also obeys to the same LO rules . On the Typhoon , the design is poor wrt RCS with many straigh angles , moving parts and flat surfaces :



Compare to this :


When I say that Rafale 's RCS is 10 times lower than Typhoon 's , I have a case .

Cheers .

[J-20 Hotdog]

anyone have a good close up shot of the intake? are hte fan blades visible?

[Bluewings]

Another good picture to show the overall design . We can also see some of the sawtooth RAM coating :



Cheers .

[Taygibay]

A varying curvature is similar to a sea-shell helix . The curves have an ever-changing circle radius , as though they are sections of a spiral rather than arcs of a circle , and thus do not reflect energy in the usual predictable way .

01123581321345589144 ad infinitum

[bloodshot]

True. But how much ?

Well half of the missile and the junction between the missile and fuselage is hidden, and your also taking the contribution of pylons out of the picture.

According to Cobham's own datasheet on the MEL (Missile Eject Launcher) used on the Typhoon.

Selecting the MEL allows weapon carriage on
store stations within bomb bays, conformal
stations such as those on the underside of
Eurofighter Typhoon which offer stealth
through reduced radar signature ...

Or it may not, depending on the overall RCS of both planes.
And once again, there exists some clues that dispute the "slightly" figure (unless 10x lower can be qualified as "slightly"). Forgetting this on purpose is not fair, even if that's not proven.

Dubious claims like those your referring to don't constitute proof of anything. I'm not forgetting those claims I'm simply disregarding them until I see a direct quote attributed to the pilot in question.

That is fair.

Your bet, and I'd add not a good one. It doesn't make sense to spend time and money to reduce the RCS of a naked aircraft if all this work is nullified by weapons hanging everywhere. On the contrary if that makes sense, then the RCS contribution of these weapons must be quite low compared to the overall picture (not bigger by a magnitude or two, I mean).
Keep in mind we don't talk of VLO nor LO designs, but merely on reduced RCS. You don't want to say a hanging missile has a bigger RCS than a naked aircraft, don't you ?

It only makes sense to treat the airframe if the increase in RCS in some weapons configurations is comparable to that of the clean airframe. If that's the case then reducing the RCS of part or all of that weapons load is likely to be more important than whether one aircraft uses a more conspicuous coating of RAM than another.

[Bluewings]

J-20 Hotdog :

anyone have a good close up shot of the intake? are hte fan blades visible?

The very few radar waves hitting the higher parts of the blades can 't bounce back due to the intake 's shape and coating .

bloodshot :

It only makes sense to treat the airframe if the increase in RCS in some weapons configurations is comparable to that of the clean airframe. If that's the case then reducing the RCS of part or all of that weapons load is likely to be more important than whether one aircraft uses a more conspicuous coating of RAM than another.

True . It depends on the weapon load and some work has been done in this matter too .
As an example , the reflected RCS of the Rafale below is probably around 1.5 square meter , which is 10 to 15 times less than a clean F-15 or SU-27 .



Also , a RBE2-AA equipped Rafale with an AtoA weapon load will always get the first active look on any potential threat aircraft and by a good margin .

Cheers .

[TR1]

Also , a RBE2-AA equipped Rafale with an AtoA weapon load will always get the first active look on any potential threat aircraft and by a good margin .

Cheers .

Fanboy detected.

[Slenke]

Also , a RBE2-AA equipped Rafale with an AtoA weapon load will always get the first active look on any potential threat aircraft and by a good margin .

Cheers .

No it won't, it all depends on the aircraft you're up against. It could be a more stealthy plane... Also the Rafale radar is quite small.

[Bluewings]

TR1 :

Fanboy detected.

Look at what kind of aircraft Rafale can potentialy fight . Name some , then think again .
Only the futur J-20 is having a lower RCS (looks like it anyway) .

Slenke :

Also the Rafale radar is quite small.

The actual Pesa RBE2 tracks a Fulcrum or a SU-30 at 140km and the RBE2-AA will track them at over 200km , beyond the Meteor range .

Cheers .

[TR1]

Su-35. PAK-FA. J-20.


You have no basis of comparison with J-10B either, not really Typhoon.

You are beyond biased, and draw conclusions from laughable evidence. But I forgot, the Rafale pilots said so.

[J-20 Hotdog]

TR1 :


Look at what kind of aircraft Rafale can potentialy fight . Name some , then think again .
Only the futur J-20 is having a lower RCS (looks like it anyway) .

probably the F-35 and T-50 too.