By: TooCool_12f
- 5th November 2017 at 11:36Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
By: stealthflanker
- 5th November 2017 at 12:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256779[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256780[/ATTACH]
Now let's add 4 AMRAAM's, 2 Sidewinders and 300Galloon External fuel tank. Same frequency.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256781[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256782[/ATTACH]
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.
Attachments
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 6th November 2017 at 00:14Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@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
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 6th November 2017 at 00:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@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
By: Marcellogo
- 6th November 2017 at 07:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
By: garryA
- 6th November 2017 at 09:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
(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 ?
By: Sintra
- 6th November 2017 at 12:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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).
By: TooCool_12f
- 6th November 2017 at 12:20Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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"
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.
By: FBW
- 6th November 2017 at 13:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
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.
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
New
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB
- 6th November 2017 at 14:17Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@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
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.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 5th November 2017 at 11:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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?
Posts: 906
By: stealthflanker - 5th November 2017 at 12:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256779[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256780[/ATTACH]
Now let's add 4 AMRAAM's, 2 Sidewinders and 300Galloon External fuel tank. Same frequency.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256781[/ATTACH]
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256782[/ATTACH]
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.
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 6th November 2017 at 00:14 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@Toolcool
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
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 6th November 2017 at 00:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@stealthflanker
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
Posts: 999
By: moon_light - 6th November 2017 at 02:19 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Sputnik is government funded and it is one of the most bias among these tabloid new channels, up there with defense-aerospace.
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th November 2017 at 03:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Does this help
Posts: 1,765
By: Marcellogo - 6th November 2017 at 07:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th November 2017 at 09:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Consider the diameter, Meteor is quite a bit bigger than average heat seeking missiles though. Its 2 perpendicular inlets aren't desirable either
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 ?
Posts: 3,765
By: Sintra - 6th November 2017 at 12:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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).
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256806[/ATTACH]
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 6th November 2017 at 12:20 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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"
Posts: 4,619
By: mrmalaya - 6th November 2017 at 12:36 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[ATTACH=CONFIG]256807[/ATTACH]
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?
Posts: 1,120
By: eagle1 - 6th November 2017 at 12:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 3,106
By: FBW - 6th November 2017 at 13:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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.
Posts: 3,259
By: TooCool_12f - 6th November 2017 at 13:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
copieur, va! :D
Posts: 1,081
By: garryA - 6th November 2017 at 13:47 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Cavity return and also the 2 inlets are perpendicular which make them very good corner reflectors
Posts: 2,014
By: mig-31bm - 6th November 2017 at 14:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
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
Posts: 1,168
By: KGB - 6th November 2017 at 14:17 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
@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
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 6th November 2017 at 14:22 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Su-34 as difficult to detect as fast cruise missile based on Simonov
http://sirviper.com/index.php?page=news/full/su-34
Posts: 4,731
By: JSR - 6th November 2017 at 14:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I find state media give more clear picture than various private.
Posts: 4,168
By: halloweene - 6th November 2017 at 17:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
who did that model? Do they have access to exact sizes, materials used etc.?