Register Free

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Clean Rafale & Gripen RCS is 5 m2 and 3 m2. Not .05 & .03

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #21
    Click image for larger version

Name:	9062f639c715.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	65.7 KB
ID:	3677376

    Worth mentioning is that this is for the JAS-39A. Every update [A->C->E] has had further signature-reduction measures taken. Why? Because A, size of airframe, B, SAAB and Sweden has had signature-dampening technelogy for a long time in many different areas [ships, missiles, masking-nets etc.] and C, because it's not Russian. Does that answer your silly question KGB?

    Oh and you're wrong. 0,1sqm. Not 0.3 for a clean Gripen 39A
    Last edited by wellerocks; 4th November 2017, 11:34.

    Comment


      #22
      What frequency ?

      Comment


        #23
        @ wellrocks

        I just seen on a China forum a claim that the JF 17 is 2.5 m2. Its a low rcs but its a small jet and its actually a clean looking plane.

        Why would the Gripen have a lower RCS than this? Look at the small wings plus ythe F-35ish intakes. your claim doesnt fit with other jets in the category. Its just too low of a number

        Comment


          #24
          Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
          @ Ozair

          thing is, it all depends on what you use as weapons... in A2A role, both will have quite discrete RCS increase from their loadout, for example an aircraft having 5m RCS won't care too much about the radar signature of its A1A missiles, pretty much insignificant when compared to the rest... an aircraft having 0.5m RCS will see the missiles become more significant compared to itself clean, but then again, what will be the RCS of an A2A loadout?

          Everybody when wanting to denigrate them put forward heavily loaded fighters for A2G, in which case it still can play a role, just as well as the electronic warfare suites and so on... but, in any case they don't fly around just like that, carelessly. The mission planning is done as to succeed, and if they can fly high, they do it, if they need to get below radar coverage, they do it.. there are pretty much always different tactical options to consider. The only ones who do not want to admit it are those who have an agenda, like trying to justify their own choices as the only ones available
          The answer to your supposition is any loadout makes the RCS greater than a clean jet, so what it is clean remains useless given neither jet can conduct ops other than using the internal gun.

          Happy to have a discussion on RCS of various loadouts but with so little public info it would be rather short...

          Comment


            #25
            any loadout makes teh RCS bigger, we agree, the thing is: how much bigger?

            if you add something that increases your RCS by, say 0.5m, if your aircraft has 5m RCS, it will increase to 5.5m.. 10% increase in RCS. Reshape the same aircraft to 0.5m, with teh same loadout your RCS will increase to 1m... you doubled your RCS.. it can look terrible, until you compare the two where the second one still has RCS representing less than 20% of the first one

            It is always about compromise and what are you willing to accept. More discretion is always better, but the real question is: how far do can you go for it to be worth it? Some consider that anything bare complete stealth is insufficient, others consider that trying to go beyond a certain level of stealth is too costly for the benefit it would bring. As far as I'm concerned, I consider that, as long as the tool does the job it is intended for, it is good enough.

            Comment


              #26
              I have no idea how the Chinese fanboy crowd came up with 2.5 m2 for the JF-17 but it sure fits well with the rest of the list.

              With better intakes and minus the canards, giving the Gripen 3 m2 is charitable but I wouldn't argue with it. Its close enough for me.

              Last edited by KGB; 4th November 2017, 15:44.

              Comment


                #27
                "You think".. ok, that's what everybody figured out by now.. thanks for passing by...

                Comment


                  #28
                  @ KGB

                  Can't tell if you're actually that slow or if you're just trolling? Either way I believe mods ought to give you the ol' friendly boot.

                  Comment


                    #29
                    Rockwell was able to reduce the 100 sq m X-band RCS of B-1A to about 1 sq m for the B-1B by liberal application of RAM, adding blockers in the inlets, coating the windscreens and canting the radar array.

                    McDonnell was able to reduce the 5 sq m X-band RCS of a clean F/A-18A to about 1 sq m for the F/A-18E/F with RAM, RAS leading edges to the wing, inlet blocker, canopy coating and RAS around the radar.

                    The bottom line is physics of shape and materials prevents a gen 3, 4 or 4+++++ (ha! ha! marketing guys are cute) from having a clean RCS much lower than 1 sq m.

                    Comment


                      #30
                      thing is, you explain the patching of an existing airframe that had no RCS reduction in mind, reduces its RCS significantly... Gripen and Rafale had the RCS reduction in their requirements when developed (the Rafale C was completely redesigned from the technology demonstrator Rafale A, when RCS reduction was added to requirements in second half of the 1980's, ending with zero common parts between the two)

                      Comment


                        #31
                        missile speed and rcs reduction more important than fighter. with increase in sensor ranges standoff missile can be launched from further safe distance.
                        I will take airforce with 100 fighter with high sortie generation and unlimited supply of standoff missiles over airforce with 1000 fighters with constrained supply of missiles.

                        Comment


                          #32
                          @wellrocks

                          Just stay out of posts that I make and never reply to be again. Thanks.

                          Comment


                            #33
                            the Rafale C was completely redesigned from the technology demonstrator Rafale A, when RCS reduction was added to requirements in second half of the 1980's, ending with zero common parts between the two
                            Do you know that there was a Rafale-D project? It was a truly subtle fighter. The Rafale that we see with you, the fighter with high maneuverability and minRCS ~ 3 m2

                            Click image for larger version

Name:	rafale-d.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	93.2 KB
ID:	3677381

                            Comment


                              #34
                              paralay, thank you for just showing you have no clue...

                              Comment


                                #35
                                I just speed read through the JAS 39 Gripen Wikipedia page and there was NOTHING on it about RSC reduction.

                                Just because a manufacturer says something is .10 m 2 doesn't mean anything.\

                                Any RCS disclosure that sounds too good to be true, probably is.
                                Last edited by KGB; 4th November 2017, 19:08.

                                Comment


                                  #36
                                  I'll republish there the last post I have made about the argument in the Russiadefencenet, where KgB publish its own under another nickname, hope everyone would take it as as a general recap of the various question pending about the definition of stealth.

                                  Let's start from the RCS figures discrepancies: the 0,000 etcetera numbers you read are the best possible ones, taken at a certain well determined narrow angle (typically around 45 / 315) against a well determined frequency hitting the surface with a predeterminated inclination: it is basically a standard of measurement used to compare concurrent designs during the development phase, not something aimed to replicate conditions you would ever meet on a battlefield.
                                  Just happened that they (the industries and the top brass involved in 5gen design) presented it instead as it were really something like so to the public in order to better sell their product.

                                  Russians (that have not to "sell" anything, given that all the parts involved are state owned) talked instead above the average values that they expect the respective planes to have in the frontal (i.e. the whole sector from + 45 to -45) and rear ( from +135 to +225 ) aspects i.e. something that has a real operative value (and without revealing what there are their best RCS values instead ).
                                  So when you see the Rafale listed at 0,3 sqm let's bet they are putting forth its best angle value, not the average one.

                                  Actually all planes after the F-22A beginning from the F-35 itself are designed to privilegiate the frontal aspect reduction instead that the average 360 one and for a very good reason.
                                  To put it simple the mission patterns according to the F-22A but also the F-117A and the B-2A were designed up i.e. penetrate deeply an enemy controlled zone and in the case of the Raptor also to stay there loitering for a consistent time are simply considered impossible to get now given the progresses that were made by AD systems, above all into developing counter stealth operative procedures than in the still notable hardware performance enhancement themselves.
                                  Stealth is still a very valuable asset as it work also today way better than any ECM based approach but also when using such planes, they are however actually expected to operate instead along the same ages old get in straight and fast, drop load and haul ass operative pattern of previous generation of planes instead of trying to stay over enemy space for a long time.
                                  Spending a lot of effort into an average high RCS from all sites is so redundant in such a type of mission (or even counter productive if it would come at the expense of max frontal one) while a radar return increased by 0,1 to 1 sqm passing from a front on to a tail on missile engagement is easily compensated by the doppler effect turning advantageous for the plane.
                                  So, the 0,000-0001 and the 0,1 to 1 are just referring to two completely different things and are with all the probability both sincere, while in the case of the numbers KGB use you don't even get to undestand if he is talking about the maximum and the average one...
                                  Last edited by Marcellogo; 4th November 2017, 20:36.

                                  Comment


                                    #37
                                    ^That explains the difference. The different value measurement used by Gripen brass.

                                    But its the Gripen and Rafele fans who are wrongly using those numbers when the subject of an RCS number comes up. Its was just easy to see that there was something wrong with the data.

                                    When the Mig 29, F-16 and JF-17 all pretty much agree that they are somewhere in the 2-6 m2 range, its pretty easy to spot the outliers.

                                    Maybe i was wrong to move the decimal point. I never claimed to know. I just knew that the Gripen and Rafele are not going to have a standard deviation better RCS than the group above

                                    Comment


                                      #38
                                      Originally posted by TooCool_12f View Post
                                      any loadout makes teh RCS bigger, we agree, the thing is: how much bigger?

                                      if you add something that increases your RCS by, say 0.5m, if your aircraft has 5m RCS, it will increase to 5.5m.. 10% increase in RCS. Reshape the same aircraft to 0.5m, with teh same loadout your RCS will increase to 1m... you doubled your RCS.. it can look terrible, until you compare the two where the second one still has RCS representing less than 20% of the first one

                                      It is always about compromise and what are you willing to accept. More discretion is always better, but the real question is: how far do can you go for it to be worth it? Some consider that anything bare complete stealth is insufficient, others consider that trying to go beyond a certain level of stealth is too costly for the benefit it would bring. As far as I'm concerned, I consider that, as long as the tool does the job it is intended for, it is good enough.
                                      RCS is not drag. You don't add a new missile/bomb/pylon to the jet and add the additional RCS value.

                                      If that was the case we would place a clean aircraft in a chamber, measure it and then place the respective missile etc in the chamber, measure it and add the two. That is not done. You place an aircraft with whole loadouts because the relationship and interaction is complex.

                                      Comment


                                        #39
                                        As I said Mercellogo, this BS has been spread far..
                                        (oh and this should show that Sputnik is not some Russian govt editorialized operation. Just another news website that curates mostly the same news except it subs in the Russian view on the Russian topics.)

                                        India's Deal for 36 Dassault Rafale Stealth Fighter Jets Reaches Final Phase

                                        https://sputniknews.com/military/201...e-fighter-jet/

                                        The Rafale fighter jet is believed to be the most dangerous warplane in the skies today combining semi-stealth capabilities with unparalleled thrust maneuvering providing air superiority.

                                        India’s quest to modernize its fighter aircraft fleet with the acquisition of 36 Rafale multirole fighter jets appears set to become a reality as the deal has been transmitted to the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) for final approval.

                                        The 36 fighter jets are to be acquired for $8.8 billion and include advanced weapon systems modified for the Rafale including the Meteor beyond visual range (BVR) missile adding substantial lethality to the warplane. Initially, the deal was projected to be for $11.2 billion before New Delhi negotiated the price down threatening to walk if the arrangement was too expensive.

                                        The 1,188 mile per hour Dassault Rafale is slower than a number of fourth generation fighter jets, but fits into the category of 4.5 generation fighter jets – with some analysts considering it a full-force fifth generation jet – due to its semi-stealth capabilities.
                                        (Lol)
                                        The Dassault is not a full-spectrum stealth aircraft, but its design reduces radar cross-section (RCS) (Lol) and it has a minimal infrared signature due to modifications of the tail-fin, fuselage (???), engine placement as well (???) as the use of composite materials and serrated patterns for construction of the wing edges.
                                        ???
                                        As a result, the fighter jet possesses many of the same stealth capabilities of the high-cost American F-35 fighter jet (Lol) at less than half the unit cost of the beleaguered Lockheed warplane making it a favored vehicle for reconnaissance and anti-ship strike missions while still possessing air superiority.

                                        Comment


                                          #40
                                          RCS is not drag. You don't add a new missile/bomb/pylon to the jet and add the additional RCS value.

                                          If that was the case we would place a clean aircraft in a chamber, measure it and then place the respective missile etc in the chamber, measure it and add the two. That is not done. You place an aircraft with whole loadouts because the relationship and interaction is complex.
                                          when somebody doesn't want to understand... fact is, if you increase your RCS by adding stuff, where you start (low or high RCS) does still play a role. If they developed the aircraft with the aim to reduce the RCS, unless they are complete idiots they probably also studied the RCS with loadouts and did what they could to get a satisfying result. There's a documentary on youtube where the people that have taken part in Rafale development explain the way it came to existence, why the french had to pull out of the common project, and, also, how they had to redesign it pretty much from scratch after the demonstrator as they were tasked to make it stealthy. The final product has nothing in common, except the wheels and the general similarity in shape with the demonstrator. Why would they bother if all that work was rendered useless by just hanging a thing or two beneath it?

                                          the documentary I talk about:

                                          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54&t=1877s

                                          around 31min in the video you have the guy who was in charge explaining that the RCS from the front of a clean Rafale is equivalent to the RCS of a sparrow... you can believe it or not, but the fact remained, the french invested heavily in electronic warfare stuff, it's not only because they were too rich and had no idea how to waste their cash
                                          Last edited by TooCool_12f; 5th November 2017, 10:14.

                                          Comment


                                           

                                          Working...
                                          X