Read the forum code of contact
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 14:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anyother dumn not uneducated BS argument or flame topic?
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 14:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Just make your case halloweene. Provide the source of the alleged .05 and .03 and explain why the number makes sense.
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 17:06 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you assert on thing about RCS, with eyeball mark one sensor. it ha no sense and IS a flametroll topic.
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 17:12 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Where did you get your numbers from, KGB?
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 17:38 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Another "RCS-eye-o-meter" topic?
Unless the chap who opened this ... topic... provides RCS charts for the two mentioned aircrafts, could someone just shut this entirely ... topic, pretty please?
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 18:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256739[/ATTACH]
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 18:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
This thread is based on hearsay RCS numbers. We accept all the BS. All the numbers that float around in the military aviation fanboy underworld.
I've seen sub .03 and .05 floating around for said aircraft for awhile now. Seen it here, Nat Interest comment section. Defense Aviation comments section.
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's a suggestion. Stop. Reading comments section of dumb sites like national interest. Most of the B.S. speculation and figures on this forum seem to come from you lately so do us all a favor and give it a rest.
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 18:54 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
We accept all the BS
Speak for yourself
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 20:03 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Everyone knows the rumored RCS numbers that go around. They pass through here too.
But hey, we wouldn't want to put to rest the nonsense about the Rafele and Gripen having the same (or lower !) RCS than the su 57 now would we..
Those rumors are just too convenient for the Raptor stronks to not have around.
BTW you are speaking for yourself. Aren't you a "Raptor RCS is a marble" guy...
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 22:43 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
News for you.
Its both.
From head on, it can be the lower figure. Indeed, both aircraft would have had a requirement for reduced frontal RCS when in gestation in the 80s.
But, viewed, say, directly from above, it could be 50 m2.
Then again, viewed from the wrong angle, the RCS of the F-22 or F-35 will be measured in tens of m2, it's just it'll occur at less angles for those two.
By: - 3rd November 2017 at 23:29 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Amiga
The military aviation underworld has established a loose and flawed set of parameters for RCS. One end of the spectrum of this set of parameters is a mish mash of hopeless confusion.
Somewhat agreed upon is the su 27's and F-15's are known to be in the 8 to 10 m2 range. Mig 29 and F-16's are somewhere in the 4-6 range.
Then it gets totally off the rails with these .3 and .5 numbers for the Gripen and Rafele. But if you move the decimal point over, the Gripen and Rafele turns into a sensible and respectable RCS for what it is. Something everyone should be able to live with.
Then there's Sukhoi who says that the Pak Fa is about .05 and they also say that the Raptor is .03. Which I think is true.
But then there's the rumor about the alleged .00004 RCS of the Raptor which people extrapolate from the fact that someone in the US said that its the RCS of a marble when forced to say something.
The alleged marble RCS of the Raptor screws the whole scale up and it gets Gripen and Rafele fans to believe that maybe the RCS of those are indeed .5 and .3. Which is why the ,5 and.3 rumor doesn't die down. Then the .5 and .3 pisses off the Pak Fa fans because its alleging that the RCS of 4th gens are almost as good as the Pak Fa.
So if we could put this one to rest, that would help clean up the scale.
By: - 4th November 2017 at 07:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
you're the one that decided to take it with your super argument "i don't believe it"...
fact is, as you say, Mig-29 and F-16 have been designed at the time where RCS reduction wasn't taken into consideration.. By the late 1980's the Rafale and Gripen had it. Now you either consider that the manufacturers just said "oh, who cares" and went on without even trying and, for example, in the Rafale's case, redesigned completely the aircraft just for fun (so to end with you 5m² RCS from up front just as the previously designed fighters), or that maybe they actually did it on purpose while applying what was known and/or discovered through research to reduce the frontal RCS...
Now, everybody knows that manufacturers just delay their developments and spend cash for fun only, don't they?
By: - 4th November 2017 at 08:31 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Rafale is definitely stealth! High surface quality, no protruding parts, no external arms suspension
Each rocket or external tank is +1 m2 RCS. In this photo, only a weapon of about 15 m2 ;)
This is also true for Gripen
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256744[/ATTACH]
By: - 4th November 2017 at 08:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
A more important question is why do we even care about a clean RCS for either jet since both are essentially useless in that configuration anyway...
By: - 4th November 2017 at 09:02 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
There are plenty of images on the net of BAE testing Typhoon with four recessed AMRAAM, wing tip ASRAAM and with and without EFTs underwing. All in the anechoic chamber. The point of the aircraft design was to have a much reduced RCS from the front in the A2A role, and these images back up the need to have an understanding of the signature.
The same would be true of the other two Euro Canards, but showing a heavily laden Rafale is disingenuous.
I can accept for example, that the Rafale is designed to also have a reduced RCS from above (from a look down position) much as the B1B was. The same design elements are evident in both, and the nuclear role was similar in terms of penetrating flight profile.
By: - 4th November 2017 at 09:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
funny.. the thread title speaks about "clean Rafale and Gripen" and paralay posts a picture showing maximum load... trolling? :p
By: - 4th November 2017 at 09:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@ 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 5m² 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 0.5m² 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
By: - 4th November 2017 at 10:23 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
So, what's the good value for it ? and in what frequency ? because as we could see RCS is different in frequency even in same aspect angle.
One example from my own concept :
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256747[/ATTACH]
So if i ever think of calculating radar range against say Rafale with following configuration :
-2x External fuel tank
-4x MICA in wingtip and outer pylon
-1x ASMP in fuselage station.
What value of RCS is should use for the radar range equation.
By: - 4th November 2017 at 10:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256746[/ATTACH]
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 :)
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 3rd November 2017 at 13:23
There's just no way that an aircraft not designed from the ground up, optimized for stealth, is under 2 m2. This is insane talk. The decimal point got put in the wrong place here.
The idea that some 4th gen jets, designed purely for aerodynamic performance, get to punch a ticket into the stealth club just because, is crazy talk.