I don't know where you are getting this from? I would put the F-16 block 70 and certainly the super hornet above the rafale.
Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
Who told the Rafale that the RCS value of the Gripen is smaller than that of the F16 and J10? French brochures? Or have you done anechoic chamber measurements on them?
Even su57 only dares to advertise its own RCS=0.4, France and Sweden dare to advertise their RCS=0.1? Pure word play, it is estimated that it can only be achieved in a specific frequency band and a specific angle.
When will the payload become the standard for fighter generation?
And what do you mean by sensor fusion? I don't know if you are talking about the comprehensive avionics of the precious stone platform and the comprehensive avionics of the precious column,
After J10C, F16BLOCK60, and F15EX accept J20 and F35 technology, they have already realized the sensor fusion you mentioned,
I suppose those are literal translation from Chinese.
In English it sounds more like you're describing parts of a palace or temple than parts of an aircraft.
It is possible that we will accept a part of the payment in palm oil, but it will be to make bio-fuel, not to consume it instead of olive oil.
In that case We've a lot of sugar cane to export too . It can be used to make ethanol or we can export ethanol in lieu of payments . If France / Dassault sets such precedents , the sky's the limit as far as barter trade goes. There's a larger principal involved here .
MoD recently fined Thales & Safran , I believe , for not adhering to the off set clauses.
Besides the GoI could always argue for both - barter + ToT or part barter / part payment + ToT. One of the reasons most foreign OEMs default on obligations is coz the T&C of most Indian contracts are tight & well worded leaving little scope for ambiguity .
That & the Indians are good negotiators . Chinese & Indians would make Jews look good when it comes to business negotiations. You've little idea how much they haggle.
The clean configuration of Rafale is 0.1-1 same for the Gripen E. These are publicised values. With spectra the Rafale's RCS can go as low as 0.06. Am I supposed to believe lying Chinese on their POS being actually better than the top of the line euro-american aircrafts???
The f-16 has had a RCS of 3-5 sqm and that value hasn't changed. Same for the f-15 with its massive 25 sqm RCS. The j-10 optimistically have 1-3 sqm RCS.
The su-57 is a fifth gen aircraft similar to the j-20. I never compared the Rafale with j-20 or the su-57. F-16 and F-15 are dated designs pretty much with upgraded electronics.
J-10C is a paper plane made for airshows. I have yet to see actual j-10C's being used beyond the air shows. It barely has a good aesa radar and Chinese avionics are so bad that Pakistanis try to find new European suppliers to replace them.
Actually it's SAFRAN , Thales & Dassault for 185 million Euros by revoking their BG. That way the French are somewhat trustworthy . With an Indian or Chinese firm there are chances the BG could be forged as well .
India fines French firm Dassault Aviation over offset delays
The Indian government imposed a fine on French company Dassault Aviation last month over delays in offset obligations that were part of a 2016 deal for 36 Rafale fighters, Defense News has learned.
www.defensenews.com
Super-hornet maybe. The blk-70 is inferior in every way to the Rafale. The thing is even worse than the super-hornet.
Oh my God
, the RCS of the Rafale fighter can reach 0.06, probably only in a dream
Since the so-called active stealth is so good, why does the United States not use it? Why doesn't Russia use it? Why doesn't China use it?
France has not yet produced available GaN components. China achieved the ability to mass-produce GaN components for military use in 2012. At the Zhuhai Air Show last year, all radars have popularized GaN components, and even anti-artillery radars use GaN.
The so-called electronic warfare lead, how can you be sure that you can get the lead?
Except for the fifth generation machine, no one can say that the F15 and F16 are behind,
Especially the F16, which is almost the highest level of the fourth-generation single-engine fighter design, good instant rotate ability, leading stable rotate ability, outstanding climbing ability, incredible continuous high overload ability
The masterpiece of the fighter mafia
wrong,
In 2018, J10C shot down an Indian cross-border reconnaissance balloon with a PL10 at an altitude of 20,000m
As for Pakistan, they have been using Chinese radars except in JF1block1, they can choose European products if they want
SH18 is a semi failure. The bird fall short on some initial spec. It is a 125% scale F/A 18 but without the 25% perf improvements.
Just compare export success between the two (between FA18 and SH18, and between Rafale and SH18).
Block III ? How are the conformal tanks?
far too Optimist Bro.
SH is heavier, shorter range, carry less load, less agile, slower.
But USA use it !
Whaou ! Astonishing. A slow moving balloon shooted down by a chinese fighter. I think IAF must be very afraid.
This is just like the missile range issue.
You have become confused between "average RCS" and "aspect RCS".
My estimates based on open source info.
Average RCS
F-35 = 0.15m2
F-22 = 0.3m2
Su-57 = 0.5m2... Sukhoi claims 0.1 to 1m2
Su-57M = <0.5m2
Frontal RCS
F-35, F-22, Su-57 = RCS of sparrow 麻雀 = approx 0.0003m2
B-2 = 0.0001m2 class
F-117 = 0.001m2 class
Rafale, Gripen E, LCA Mk2, Super Hornet B3 = <0.1m2
Typhoon, SH B2, LCA Mk1, Mig-35, M2000 = <1m2
F-16C/D, Mig-29M/K = 1.2m2
Mig-21, Su-35BM = 2-3m2
F-16A/B, Mig-29S = 5m2
Su-27, Su-30, F-15 = >15m2
As per a Dassault executive, Bruno Revellin-Falcoz:
Bien sur nous somme dans des domaines un peu confidentiel, mais disons que la signature vue par l'avant d'un Rafale c'est la signature d'un moineau (麻雀).
Translation:
Of course we are in areas somewhat confidential, but we can say that the front view signature of a Rafale is the signature of a sparrow (麻雀).
This is achieved with active cancellation. Normal RCS is <0.1m2.
So Gripen E, Mk-2 & SH B3 more or less in the same class & dimensions have an "aspect" RCS < 0.1m² w/o passive stealth features or stealth design or any active cancellation measures which Rafale employs to return similar "aspect" RCS but for some reason the Mk-1 which is dimensionally smaller than the Mk-2 has an "aspect" RCS <1m².
Somehow I knew I had to take that refresher course in Engineering. It's seems overdue now.
Somehow I knew I had to take that refresher course in Engineering. It's seems overdue now.
B2 is having lesser frontal RCS than f22?
And what prompt you to think a canrard version of LCA is having lesser RCS than LCA mk1?
Mk1 wasn't designed with RCS in mind. It just had a low RCS when the finished product came out. Mk2 has deliberate RCS reduction, including the use of RAM. Even stuff like radome materials and design, placement and angle of the radar antenna, cavitation within the inlets etc matter.
For example, Mk1A's AESA radar has no inclination, whereas Mk2's radar is inclined, which reduces specular reflection, meaning enemy radar signals that bounce off the LCA's radar face do not return to the source. They just bounce off into space.
For example, Mk1A's AESA radar has no inclination, whereas Mk2's radar is inclined, which reduces specular reflection, meaning enemy radar signals that bounce off the LCA's radar face do not return to the source. They just bounce off into space.
What about the canrard, IRSTs, also the dimension.Mk1 wasn't designed with RCS in mind. It just had a low RCS when the finished product came out. Mk2 has deliberate RCS reduction, including the use of RAM. Even stuff like radome materials and design, placement and angle of the radar antenna, cavitation within the inlets etc matter.
For example, Mk1A's AESA radar has no inclination, whereas Mk2's radar is inclined, which reduces specular reflection, meaning enemy radar signals that bounce off the LCA's radar face do not return to the source. They just bounce off into space.
View attachment 22737