Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 31 to 60 of 83

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

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    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.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @wellrocks

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

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Nizhny Novgorod, Russia
    Posts
    1,203
    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:	232 
Size:	93.2 KB 
ID:	256752

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    paralay, thank you for just showing you have no clue...

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    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 at 19:08.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,613
    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 at 20:36.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    ^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

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    741
    Quote 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.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    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.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    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 at 10:14.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    741
    Quote Originally Posted by TooCool_12f View Post
    when somebody doesn't want to understand...
    Mate, it is a simple concept. I don't care where the Rafale starts at clean because it doesn't matter. What matters is the RCS of the jet when it is loaded with the stuff it needs to do its job.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    yes, and that RCS is..? They've spent a lot of time and money to reduce it because..? If any armchair expert posting on a public board knows better, why did they spend all that? they should've just called the guys from discussion boards to explain to them what and how to do better, no?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    607
    Then how big it is when loaded ? That's the main question here. If we know the "clean" RCS would be 0.1 sqm (And someone haven't answered at what frequency) What is the RCS when we start putting say.. MICA there ? Can it still in 0.1 sqm value or if there is increase or decrease..how big it is.

    -----
    I can only do so much tho to try answer it.. one example is a 3D model of mine depicting the KFX- C-107 configuration.

    The clean without weapon frontal aspect RCS in 10 GHz would be -12dB or 0.06 sqm
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KFX-CleanLinear.jpg 
Views:	22 
Size:	53.2 KB 
ID:	256779
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	KFX-C107-Clean10Ghz.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	20.1 KB 
ID:	256780

    Now let's add 4 AMRAAM's, 2 Sidewinders and 300Galloon External fuel tank. Same frequency.
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C-107ArmedA2ALinear.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	51.8 KB 
ID:	256781
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	C-107ArmedA2A3D.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	18.3 KB 
ID:	256782

    As we see there is an increase in armed condition. Where the frontal RCS at 10 GHz would increase by 6 dB to -6 dB or 0.2 Sqm. Side and rear appears to soar quite amount due to External fuel tank and sidewinders, dangling in the wing pylons.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @Toolcool
    They've spent a lot of time and money to reduce it because..?
    Apparently they've spent a lot of time talking up the RCS of their product mostly. And sending out obscure and misleading RCS figures.

    What have they actually done to reduce the RCS... There's nothing on Wiki

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @stealthflanker
    If we know the "clean" RCS would be 0.1 sqm
    That's a discussion that can be had but what we are trying to determine is what's the generally accepted RCS of the Rafale. In the same terms as the generally accepted RCS of all the others. if a Mig 29 is 4 and a F-16 is 3 and a JF-17 is 2.5, the Rafale is not 0.1

  16. #46
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    852
    Quote Originally Posted by KGB
    oh and this should show that Sputnik is not some Russian govt editorialized operation
    Sputnik is government funded and it is one of the most bias among these tabloid new channels, up there with defense-aerospace.

  17. #47
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    980
    Does this help

  18. #48
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Posts
    1,613
    Yes but it depends about how it sits on the plane, a Meteor on the Typhoon conformal mounting probably impact less than a vanilla sidewinder on a wingtip (and is covered by plane's shadow in most cases).
    Same with payload sitting in the central tunnel of a Flanker or Fullback, although having a conventional arrangment, they can be seen only from the bottom
    Last edited by Marcellogo; 6th November 2017 at 08:39.

  19. #49
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo
    Yes but it depends about how it sits on the plane, a Meteor on the Typhoon conformal mounting probably impact less than a vanilla sidewinder on a wingtip
    Consider the diameter, Meteor is quite a bit bigger than average heat seeking missiles though. Its 2 perpendicular inlets aren't desirable either


    Quote Originally Posted by Marcellogo
    (and is covered by plane's shadow in most cases).
    Same with payload sitting in the central tunnel of a Flanker or Fullback, although having a conventional arrangment, they can be seen only from the bottom
    Missiles carried in the fuselage can only be seen from similar or lower altitude, but isn't Typhoon supposed to be a fighter/interceptor that fly at high altitude ?
    Last edited by garryA; 6th November 2017 at 10:35.

  20. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,584
    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
    IAPR Volume 4, page 60

    "In the early 1990's Dassault was describing the AdA versions of the aircraft as the Rafale D to highlight the low radar cross-section and IR signature of the type."

    In the 90´s Dassault chaps (and everybody else) commonly called prototype C0.01 (the one painted in black) has the "D" (Discrete).

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	a3679719-11-Rafale-black-LeBreuget.jpg 
Views:	54 
Size:	73.3 KB 
ID:	256806
    Last edited by Sintra; 6th November 2017 at 13:57.

  21. #51
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    Apparently they've spent a lot of time talking up the RCS of their product mostly. And sending out obscure and misleading RCS figures.

    What have they actually done to reduce the RCS... There's nothing on Wiki
    When some guys wanted to develop a simulation about the Falklands about 15 years ago, they looked for information in detail about the Sea Harrier and the Mirage... The Sea Harrier informations were abundant and easily compiled... for the Mirages, they had nothing... from France at least.. they had to ask in Argentina as, overhere, almost all the stuff was still classified while the aircraft itself was retired from french service 20 years earlier... what would one expect about the current front line fighter, and especially in the RCS department? Wiki is filled by anybody and about publishing informations about such sensitive stuff, one rule applies: "those who speak don't know and those who know don't speak"

  22. #52
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,545
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	MBDA-Meteor-BVR-AAM-1S.jpg 
Views:	14 
Size:	82.6 KB 
ID:	256807

    What is there about Meteor's intakes that makes you think that it will increase the RCS from the front in a semi-recessed position?

  23. #53
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    988
    About rafale RCS you can find a good rafale documentary which is available on YouTube :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54

    Bruno Revelin Falcoz, the father of the rafale, states directly that Rafale frontal RCS is equivalent to a smal bird which puts it in the VLO category. That would be for a "clean" rafale of course.

  24. #54
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,731
    es but it depends about how it sits on the plane, a Meteor on the Typhoon conformal mounting probably impact less than a vanilla sidewinder on a wingtip (and is covered by plane's shadow in most cases).
    Same with payload sitting in the central tunnel of a Flanker or Fullback, although having a conventional arrangment, they can be seen only from the bottom
    To a degree, but does not account for creeping waves (even if the return is far weaker). Bottom line: discontinuities are going to increase RCS. When designers are concerned about size and shape of access panels and countersunk rivets in LO aircraft: obviously a pylon, IR seeker head, or EFT will have a significant impact even from the head on aspect.

  25. #55
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,209
    About rafale RCS you can find a good rafale documentary which is available on YouTube :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54

    Bruno Revelin Falcoz, the father of the rafale, states directly that Rafale frontal RCS is equivalent to a smal bird which puts it in the VLO category. That would be for a "clean" rafale of course.

    copieur, va!

  26. #56
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Posts
    980
    Quote Originally Posted by mrmalaya
    What is there about Meteor's intakes that makes you think that it will increase the RCS from the front in a semi-recessed position?
    Cavity return and also the 2 inlets are perpendicular which make them very good corner reflectors

  27. #57
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,947
    About rafale RCS you can find a good rafale documentary which is available on YouTube :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54

    Bruno Revelin Falcoz, the father of the rafale, states directly that Rafale frontal RCS is equivalent to a smal bird which puts it in the VLO category. That would be for a "clean" rafale of course
    I don't think Rafale is in VLO category in the same way J-20, PAK-FA or F-35 are..etc.
    One can also look at the scattering chart below and say a clean F-16 has RCS of a bird from some very specific aspects, while it is technically correct, it doesn't make F-16 a stealth aircraft. Rafale, Eurofighter, Gripen are likely to have reduced RCS in the same way F-18E/F is
    Last edited by mig-31bm; 6th November 2017 at 15:14.

  28. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Posts
    1,224
    @Sintra @eagle1

    We get that. The French are proud of the alleged low frontal RCS. (although there's no technical information about why. Nothing on wiki)But that number is not what counts as the generally accepted RCS of the Rafale.

    If the F-16 is 2 or 3 m2, you are saying that the Rafale is .1 by the same score ? Highly doubtful

  29. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    Quote Originally Posted by eagle1 View Post
    About rafale RCS you can find a good rafale documentary which is available on YouTube :

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54

    Bruno Revelin Falcoz, the father of the rafale, states directly that Rafale frontal RCS is equivalent to a smal bird which puts it in the VLO category. That would be for a "clean" rafale of course.
    Su-34 as difficult to detect as fast cruise missile based on Simonov
    http://sirviper.com/index.php?page=news/full/su-34

  30. #60
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    4,698
    Quote Originally Posted by moon_light View Post
    Sputnik is government funded and it is one of the most bias among these tabloid new channels, up there with defense-aerospace.
    I find state media give more clear picture than various private.

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