Rafale DH/EH of Indian Air Force : News and Discussions
- Thread starter Herciv
- Start date
-
- Tags
- indian defence forum
All I can say is that, from a purely realistic diplomatic perspective, there is no conflict of interest between China and Australia, but ideologically, there is a big conflict between China and Australia.
Lol, no, it's the unit of RCS.
Since you don't believe me, along with @Optimist, then I think you should read what professional F-16 pilots believe.
View topic - Eurofighter vs F-16/F-15 • F-16.net
Military aviation forum since 2003, with high quality discussion focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters and the C-130.
www.f-16.net
It's just 4 threads, but all the information is there. Particularly page 2, third last post by "toan".
I suppose now you understand why the Koreans refer to those jets as negative dBsm.
The F15ex is not a silent eagle.
For exemple the vertical fins remain vertical, not as intended in the silent eagle.
Don't include me with your ideas. I think you are delusional. I told you what I thought the 4.5 gen are clean. When you add tanks and weapons. They would go off the chart and be beacons in the sky.
do you really think this is the RCS of a bird?
I didn't say it was. What I said was that they have done a lot of the preliminary testing. some of that could be used on the F-15ex. Starting with the inlet radar blockers.
Last edited:
toan
Forum Veteran
- Posts: 535
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14
13 May 2005, 06:20The minimal frontal RCS of the traditional fighters:
F-15, Su-27: 10~15m2
Tornado: 8 m2
MIG-29: 5 m2
F-18, MIG-21: 3 m2
F-16, M2000: 1~2 m2
Accroding to the declarations of the manufacturers of the NG fighter in the world, the minimal frontal RCS of NG fighters are:
F/A-22:
The declaration of "Marble Size" (about 0.0002~0.0005 m2) in 1999~2000. The newest estimation now is the RCS of "Fly size"
F-35:
The declaration of "Golf ball size" (about 0.0015 m2) by LM in 2000.
EF-2000:
My personal estimation is 0.05~0.1 m2, which is based on the declarations of BAES:
1. "The Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles." (2001).
2. "The RCS of EF-2000 is about 1/3 of the RCS of Rafale" (1998).
MIG-44:
"0.1 m2 class, which is about 1/10 of the RCS of MIG-29SMT", the declaration of Mikoyan in 1999~2000.
F/A-18E/F:
"0.1 m2 class", the declaration of USN in 1999~2000.
Rafale:
"1/10 of the frontal RCS of MIRAGE-2000" (about 0.1~0.2 m2), declared by Dassault in 1999.
Su-47:
"0.3 m2 class", declared by Sukhoi in 2002.
JAS-39:
"1/5 of the frontal RCS of F/A-18 C/D, 1/3 of the frontal RCS of F-16 C/D block40/42, and 1/2 of the frontal RCS of the MIRAGE-2000" (about 0.5 m2).
Is that what you said,?
It says Dassault claims
I think the credibility is the same as China's claim that the KLJ7A reaches APG81
Moreover, the gust-shaped air intake does not completely cover the blades, and its effect is not even better than the J10C air intake design.
As for active stealth, the F16 pilot of the professional i also raised doubts.
View topic - How does SPECTRA jammer work? • F-16.net
Military aviation forum since 2003, with high quality discussion focusing on the F-16, F-35 and F-22 jet fighters and the C-130.
www.f-16.net
There is no proof that any RCS improvement has been done in the f-15EX apart from some ram coatings that would be limited to the USAF.
Bruh it's funny coming from someone who is so consistently wrong when it comes to western tech. Your engine tech is worse than the Russians and you talk about competing with the French. The m-88 is a gen 4 engine and only behind the ej-200 and ge-414. Thrust is not everything.
I've seen no change in the inlets. But it's not impossible they add RAM indeed.
Read my original post and see if you disagree, I'm not saying there is proof. In fact I haven't even looked for any. I don't know what they did to the RCS on the f-15ex. I said it could be a surprise because Boeing has decent tech to use. who do you think did the composites on the f-22?
Also Toan is an old fanboy and not a pilot. I'm happy to be shown different. This is the crap that has been shown to be rubbish. The frogs are full it.
LOL.
"personal estimation" : you are one of these specialists able to estimate the RCS with just somes pics. Congrats.
EF2000 RCS 1/3 of Rafale one : so funny. The sole RCS effort made on EF2000 is the slights curve of the lower lip of the air intake.
The only reason f-15EX will lose in bvr is because Boeing never redesigned or did RCS improvements like they did for the super hornet. May be composites will reduce its RCS but not by much. The costs would have gone up even more if they wasted time on RCS improvements. Some RAM coatings might fix the issue but don't know by how much and it will be limited to the USAF.
The only thing they can add is the CFT based weapons pod but I don't think they ever developed it. I don't think it would matter because the f-15 even in clean config has a huge RCS.
Just How Stealthy Is The U.S. Air Force’s New F-15?
Nearly a decade before the U.S. Air Force, in a surprise move, tapped Boeing to build potentially hundreds of new F-15EX Eagle IIs—an upgraded version of the five-decade-old classic warplane—there was another new F-15 in the offing.
www.google.com
First of all, the m88 is not the fourth-generation engine. The standard of the fourth-generation engine is that the T/W reaches 10, the T/W of the EJ200 is 10.5, and the T/W of the F414 is 10.0. It was not until the M88-2 that the French reached 9.1.
Moreover, the core machine of the M88 comes from the general GE9, which is the same as the F404. It is also destined to have insufficient high-altitude and high-speed thrust for the F404.
Thrust is not everything, but it also causes the T/W of the Rafale to be only 1.1, which is only slightly higher than the 1.05 of the J10C
Yeah but you were comparing it to an rd-33 which is atleast a generation behind. Rest I don't care both the m-88 and Ge-404 have their origin from the cfm 56 program if I'm not wrong.
The ge-414 is it's upgrade while the ej-200 is an independent british-german design.
M-88 3 and m-88 4 both have reached 100+ kN of thrust.
Are you saying Toan and other F-16 pilots are also delusional? I suppose you are saying the USN is also delusional because they are the ones who said the RCS of the SH is 0.1m2 class.
Scroll down to the bottom and read the chart yourself.
Radar Cross Section (RCS)
Tsk, tsk, in that configuration the RCS is zero. Why, you ask? Because in that configuration the Rafale will be flying below radar horizon. With its weapons options, like the Hammer, it does not even have to be seen when it makes the attack.
Where low RCS matters for the Rafale is in air combat. And when drop tanks and weapons are expended, the RCS falls down to its clean state. But when it's still equipped, SPECTRA will ensure its RCS is low enough to not be detected.
The French use better core machines, better materials, and better control systems, but they don't perform as well as they should
RD33 uses cheap materials, backward craftsmanship, and old mechanical control, but it has reached the level of T/W=8
This is the difference in design level.
M88-3 has always been planned, but I haven't seen the Snecma yet
Announcing the success of the development
Even with SCALP or drop tanks, the rafale is protected by spectra.
Each time you want to add a weapon, the rafale is sent back to the anechoic chamber for a good reason : modeling the radar profile and fine tune the spectra responses.
Each time you want to add a weapon, the rafale is sent back to the anechoic chamber for a good reason : modeling the radar profile and fine tune the spectra responses.
You should look up the dimensions of the m-88 and compare why the performace levels are so different. The m-88 is the smallest engine in its class. The rd-33 design is not superior it has far more moving parts making it far less efficient in fact due to its performance Russian engines end up having low reliability and shorter life cycles.
toan
Forum Veteran
- Posts: 535
- Joined: 27 Nov 2004, 16:14
The minimal frontal RCS of the traditional fighters:
F-15, Su-27: 10~15m2
Tornado: 8 m2
MIG-29: 5 m2
F-18, MIG-21: 3 m2
F-16, M2000: 1~2 m2
Accroding to the declarations of the manufacturers of the NG fighter in the world, the minimal frontal RCS of NG fighters are:
F/A-22:
The declaration of "Marble Size" (about 0.0002~0.0005 m2) in 1999~2000. The newest estimation now is the RCS of "Fly size"
F-35:
The declaration of "Golf ball size" (about 0.0015 m2) by LM in 2000.
EF-2000:
My personal estimation is 0.05~0.1 m2, which is based on the declarations of BAES:
1. "The Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles." (2001).
2. "The RCS of EF-2000 is about 1/3 of the RCS of Rafale" (1998).
MIG-44:
"0.1 m2 class, which is about 1/10 of the RCS of MIG-29SMT", the declaration of Mikoyan in 1999~2000.
F/A-18E/F:
"0.1 m2 class", the declaration of USN in 1999~2000.
Rafale:
"1/10 of the frontal RCS of MIRAGE-2000" (about 0.1~0.2 m2), declared by Dassault in 1999.
Su-47:
"0.3 m2 class", declared by Sukhoi in 2002.
JAS-39:
"1/5 of the frontal RCS of F/A-18 C/D, 1/3 of the frontal RCS of F-16 C/D block40/42, and 1/2 of the frontal RCS of the MIRAGE-2000" (about 0.5 m2).
Is that what you said,?
It says Dassault claims
I think the credibility is the same as China's claim that the KLJ7A reaches APG81
Moreover, the gust-shaped air intake does not completely cover the blades, and its effect is not even better than the J10C air intake design.
View attachment 22776
View attachment 22780
It is what Dassault claims, and it is also what everybody else claims for their own jets too, and they are all similar. There is no publicly released report about RCS that vets and verifies all claims. But the fact is this is what they are claiming and we are quite sure about these figures. Your own graph in post 5381 states Rafale, EF, SH etc have an RCS of -10dBsm, but you decided to read it incorrectly.
Western jets are vetted in the Parliaments of various countries and other places, like think tanks, so information comes out into the public domain eventually. So Western claims can be taken seriously.
In China's case, you have to show off your capabilities in air shows and tenders, only then can your claims be taken seriously. Every time LCA joins an air show, the JF-17 disappears. JF-17 disappeared from the Malaysian tender as well. That doesn't show confidence in your capabilities. Once China brings the J-10, J-20 etc to the air shows in Paris, Dubai etc, then other experts can see your jets in person and decide to give their opinions about it. But the CCP is afraid of what they will say. Otoh, the minute LCA became operational, we took it to international air shows immediately. FBW restrictions were lifted in Dec 2015, and we showed it off in Bahrain in Feb 2016. We have even entered competitive tenders since then.
FYI, LCA Mk1's RCS is 3 times smaller than M2000, so it's even smaller than Gripen C's RCS. Basic math says 0.8/3 = about 0.3m2. The Rafale with its superior RCS reduction measures should be at least 5-10 times more stealthy than the LCA Mk1.
It's perfectly fine that they don't believe it. It's exotic tech.
France took an electronic method to achieve stealth, the US used shaping, both were meant for the same goal. But, as we enter 2030, we need to merge these two capabilities, so the US needs to introduce active cancellation on their jets, and France needs to introduce shaping on their jets.
This is what the Israelis think.
Israel’s ‘Special’ F-35 Stealth Fighters Have Put Iran on Notice
Israel moved to import Lockheed Martin’s fifth-generation stealth fighter in the early 2010s, but with a special arrangement: the first nineteen imported units would be standard F-35A models, but the following thirty-one will be specially modified by Israeli defense firms to better fit the IAF’s...
nationalinterest.org
Pretty soon only having shaping based stealth will become useless, it may already have become useless, we just don't know it yet. The Indian Air Chief said that aircraft like the F-22 and F-35 are not stealth aircraft, only aircraft like the B-2 and Neuron are stealth. Which is why the IAF is working on acquiring an aircraft like the Rafale, which has electronic stealth and other next gen features, but developing shaping based stealth tech on futuristic drones similar in design to the B-2. And you have to take the IAF chief's claim seriously because India is the only country that has worked with or accessed both Russia and the West on next gen tech.
There is another thing about the M88 that should be noted: there is a double air flow (one is a cold one), reducing the IR signature of the engine.