Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 83

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,333

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

    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,640
    Anyother dumn not uneducated BS argument or flame topic?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,333
    Just make your case halloweene. Provide the source of the alleged .05 and .03 and explain why the number makes sense.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,640
    you assert on thing about RCS, with eyeball mark one sensor. it ha no sense and IS a flametroll topic.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Posts
    47
    Where did you get your numbers from, KGB?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    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?
    Last edited by Sintra; 3rd November 2017 at 18:52.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    4,904
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	J5kwacV.png 
Views:	231 
Size:	278.6 KB 
ID:	256739
    "The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,333
    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.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,917
    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.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,657
    We accept all the BS
    Speak for yourself

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,333
    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...
    Last edited by KGB; 3rd November 2017 at 21:12.

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    2,166
    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.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,333
    @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.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,249
    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 5m 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?

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,269
    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

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	92946d9293125b2a8a435aa99ec86eef.jpg 
Views:	61 
Size:	909.0 KB 
ID:	256744
    Last edited by paralay; 4th November 2017 at 09:34.

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    761
    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...

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,617
    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.
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 4th November 2017 at 10:24.

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,249
    funny.. the thread title speaks about "clean Rafale and Gripen" and paralay posts a picture showing maximum load... trolling?

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,249
    @ 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

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    714
    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 :

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	flamie_frequency_linear_by_stealthflanker-dbr9b0v.jpg 
Views:	38 
Size:	54.4 KB 
ID:	256747

    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.

  21. #21
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    76
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	9062f639c715.jpg 
Views:	146 
Size:	65.7 KB 
ID:	256746

    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 at 11:34.

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    714
    What frequency ?

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,333
    @ 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

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    761
    Quote 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...

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,249
    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.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,333
    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 at 15:44.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,249
    "You think".. ok, that's what everybody figured out by now.. thanks for passing by...

  28. #28
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    76
    @ 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.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2000
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Posts
    5,287
    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.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,249
    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)

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