Know Your 'Rafale'

[Armand2REP]

And it probably can, F-15s have pulled up to 14Gs

The highest recorded G Force is 12.5G in an F-15 while the pilot lost control of the aircraft and almost died. That was on the lighter early versions, the modern ones are far heavier and incapable of pulling such G force.

 

[asianobserve]

Did the F-35 practice against SU-57 or J-20s? I didn’t think so, it’s irrelevant if the F-35 defeated legacy aircraft using NATO tactics. The F-35 would be seen by IR without problems just like the F-22 was over Syria by an SU-35 OLS-35. Fly low enough and it’s unlikely that any aircraft will pick you up on radar due to ground clutter. This is not speculation but fact and a reason why most modern air forces practice low altitude penetration missions.



As for target solution, there won’t be any targeting solution if the enemy aircraft’s RCS and IR signature is too low to engage with an AIM-120, that’s one of the reasons canons and short range missiles are installed on most “stealth” aircraft. As for the F-35 sensor suit, no one is denying its impressive the problem is the SU-57 has, more or less similar capabilities and one can argue even more capabilities when you factor in its side lobe radars and S-70 wingman forging ahead and scanning enemy air and ground targets and beaming back information.

What makes you think that USAF does not have the electronic and IR signatures of Su-57 and J-20? The US most is heavily invested in electronic based intelligence from land based, sea based, aerial and satellites. What we only know is that F-35 has the most comprehensive threat library of any aircraft in history.

Also, USAF right now is already using F-117 as Red Force to simulate LO aircraft. It was recently observed flying at low level while 4th gen aggressors at higher altitude distract Blue Force of F-15s and F-22s.

Soon USAF will put up an F-35 adversary force. And F-35 has the best stealth so far of all LO aicraft in service anywhere, even better than F-22.

F-117 Spotted Playing Stealthy Aggressor Against F-15s And F-22s Over Nellis Range
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...sor-against-f-15s-and-f-22s-over-nellis-range

F-35 Aggressor Squadron To Be Activated At Nellis Air Force Base
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...dron-to-be-activated-at-nellis-air-force-base

 

[asianobserve]

so what about AIM9X ??? I don't remember LM saying that there is a lot of space and free weight available on the flying LO Brick.

AIM9X, like its 20mm cannon, is just an insurance policy. In war, the F-35 will not play fair.

 

[asianobserve]

AIM9X was unable to lock on a old and not IR stealthy Syrian Su, so against a J31 or anything a little bit modern.....

I don't understand : how that marvellous a near AWACS F35 can be surprised ? The 360° coverage EOTS without any blind sector can't be surprised no more.

1. The AIM9X that missed the Syrian Su-22 was obviously defective. Shit happens. But ask that Russian pilot who was killed after his Su-24 was shot down by SIM9X fired from a Turkish F-16? Oh sorry, I forgot you cannot ask dead people.

2. EOTS has no 360 degree capability. Only DAS has 360 degree capability. But they are integrated together and with other F-35 sensors. The computer system in F-35 then automatically classifies a target which info goes directly into pilot's HMD (the computer also filters the info presented to pilot to avoid over load).

 

[Neptune]

What makes you think that USAF does not have the electronic and IR signatures of Su-57 and J-20? The US most is heavily invested in electronic based intelligence from land based, sea based, aerial and satellites. What we only know is that F-35 has the most comprehensive threat library of any aircraft in history.

Also, USAF right now is already using F-117 as Red Force to simulate LO aircraft. It was recently observed flying at low level while 4th gen aggressors at higher altitude distract Blue Force of F-15s and F-22s.

Soon USAF will put up an F-35 adversary force. And F-35 has the best stealth so far of all LO aicraft in service anywhere, even better than F-22.

F-117 Spotted Playing Stealthy Aggressor Against F-15s And F-22s Over Nellis Range
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...sor-against-f-15s-and-f-22s-over-nellis-range

F-35 Aggressor Squadron To Be Activated At Nellis Air Force Base
https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zo...dron-to-be-activated-at-nellis-air-force-base

And what makes you think Russia does not have an electric signature of the F-22 or have it’s IR signature which they in fact do.


As for F-117 what does that have to do with anything? The SU-57 and J-20 is not an F-117. The F-117 didn’t even have a radar, air-to-air weapons, was slow and not maneuverable and also had 1970s avionics. Actually facing modern Russian or Chinese fighters and air tactics, supported by likely AWACS while in a high electronic warfare environment with the possibility of US satellites being jammed or knocked out is different from simulated training agains 1970s US aircraft using US tactics.

 

[asianobserve]

And what makes you think Russia does not have an electric signature of the F-22 or have it’s IR signature which they in fact do.


As for F-117 what does that have to do with anything? The SU-57 and J-20 is not an F-117. The F-117 didn’t even have a radar, air-to-air weapons, was slow and not maneuverable and also had 1970s avionics. Actually facing modern Russian or Chinese fighters and air tactics, supported by likely AWACS while in a high electronic warfare environment with the possibility of US satellites being jammed or knocked out is different from simulated training agains 1970s US aircraft using US tactics.

F-117 has better LO than SU-57 and maybe even against J-20. For an aggressor the F-117 does not need radar. It just needs to slip through the Blue Force CAP. The air dominance 5th gen simulation will be carried out later by F-35 aggressors.

There are just too few SU-57 to make a difference. The greater threat to American is J-20 not as A2A platform but as strike aircraft.

 

[Neptune]

F-117 has better LO than SU-57 and maybe even against J-20. For an aggressor the F-117 does not need radar. It just needs to slip through the Blue Force CAP. The air dominance 5th gen simulation will be carried out later by F-35 aggressors.

There are just too few SU-57 to make a difference. The greater threat to American is J-20 not as A2A platform but as strike aircraft.

Sorry I forgot you were the expert in RCS that got briefed on classified radar data for both aircraft by Lockheed and Sukhoi respectively to come to that conclusion. All the faceting the F-117 uses is outdated and creates more diffraction then modern designs.


Your argument is a silly as me saying Russia and China has pitted SU-57s and J-20s against ‘stealthy’ drones therefore they can now defeat F-35s and F-22s.


The funny thing is that drones actually do have a much smaller RCS then any conventional aircraft such as F-35 or F-22 because they emit many factors that contribute to RCS such as corner reflectors between horizontal stabilizers and fuselage, corner reflecting between vertical stabilizers and fuselage, do away with vertical stabilizers and eliminate additional flight control surfaces as well as canopy and any extra intakes.

 

[asianobserve]

Sorry I forgot you were the expert in RCS that got briefed on classified radar data for both aircraft by Lockheed and Sukhoi respectively to come to that conclusion. All the faceting the F-117 uses is outdated and creates more diffraction then modern designs.


Your argument is a silly as me saying Russia and China has pitted SU-57s and J-20s against ‘stealthy’ drones therefore they can now defeat F-35s and F-22s.


The funny thing is that drones actually do have a much smaller RCS then any conventional aircraft such as F-35 or F-22 because they emit many factors that contribute to RCS such as corner reflectors between horizontal stabilizers and fuselage, corner reflecting between vertical stabilizers and fuselage, do away with vertical stabilizers and eliminate additional flight control surfaces as well as canopy and any extra intakes.

It's odd though that practically no major air force wants the Su-57. Not even Turkey which is still holding out hope that it can still have F-35s (it is looking at Su-35s instead of Su-57 in case America does not reconsider on F-35). So the only conclusion here is that Su-57 has no better stealth qualities than 4.5th gen Su-35. If so, it certainly has higher RCS than 70s era F-117., and it has.

According to Sukhoi's own patent on Su-57 design it has an average RCS of 0.1-1m2 (too big for a 5th gen!) whereas 70's era F-117 is known to have an RCS of 0.003m2.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014102...2190/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published

 

[BON PLAN]

(too big for a 5th gen!)

So what is the RCS max for a 5th gen according to you ?

 

[asianobserve]

So what is the RCS max for a 5th gen according to you ?

You mean the meanimum RCS of a 5th gen? It should be at least the same RCS of F-117.

 

[Neptune]

It's odd though that practically no major air force wants the Su-57.

Not this same nonsense again. The SU-57 is not operational yet, it’s normal that there are no buyers yet. The Rafale didn’t have customers for years besides the French, that didn’t mean it wasn’t any good. By your logic the JF-17 and Grippen must be better then the Rafale.

Not even Turkey which is still holding out hope that it can still have F-35s (it is looking at Su-35s instead of Su-57 in case America does not reconsider on F-35). So the only conclusion here is that Su-57 has no better stealth qualities than 4.5th gen Su-35. If so, it certainly has higher RCS than 70s era F-117., and it has.

More like in conclusion you’re either ignorant or trolling the SU-57 beats the snot out of the SU-35, and no, the SU-35 doesn’t have similar RCS to an SU-57 nor does any so called 4.5 gen aircraft have a RCS similar or lower to an SU-57-period.

All those 4th generation aircraft have 90 degree corner reflectors and external weapons as well as many other poor design features such as lack of faceting, no platform alignment, untreated canopies which is essentially a complex cavity causing large RCS returns, exedra.....



One of the biggest no no’s in stealth in 90 degree corners reflectors. According to you 4th generation aircraft can now defy physics:

There are many other factors that are detrimental RCS. The following diagram illustrates this. One of the obvious problem on conventional aircraft is a cylindrical fuselage. Again 4th generation aircraft, according to you, somehow defy physics, in fact physics seem to be inverted with your logic. Now faceted fuselages like in the SU-57 are now not stealthy, cylindrical fuselages are:

Notice platform alignment in the picture below. Conventional aircraft lack this. Ever wonder why the SU-57, and F-22 are trapezoid in shape? Ever wonder why there is that serrated look on the B-2? It’s to redirect radar away from the source.

A graphic demonstrating platform alignment on the SU-57:

Lastly, weapons. People that often claim X conventional fighter has a lower or similar RCS to the SU-57 are forgetful of the external weapons as well as pylons conventional aircraft carry:

According to Sukhoi's own patent on Su-57 design it has an average RCS of 0.1-1m2 (too big for a 5th gen!) whereas 70's era F-117 is known to have an RCS of 0.003m2.

https://web.archive.org/web/2014102...2190/pak-fa-stealth-features-patent-published.

Nonsense, this is average as you stated and frequency is unknown and not only that but a guesstimate or estimate from the pak-fa conceptual design in 2008 or so; moreover, range, how many points were measured, etc is not known either. Similarly the F-117 RCS is not known. It’s unverified figures floating around online. I will tell you now the average is not 0.003m2. Some of those figures such as of the F-117 and F-22 floating around online are almost certainly from the frontal hemisphere, where it’s the smallest RCS of any aircraft. The SU-57 figure is an average calculation from before the aircraft was even built.



Here is an F-22 being picked up by Rafale. It doesn’t mean the Rafale was able to track and lock onto the F-22, because it wasn’t the case but in this certain split second scenario the F-22 was locked into but only for a split second or so after it’s top fuselage was facing the Rafale which presented a large spike in RCS. The Rafale would never get this close in real life and the Rafale could not get a lock long enough to launch a missile but the point is that those RCS figures are BS.


The F-22 and F-117 RCS from the top fuselage is probably 15-25m2 but no one will ever take those figures, instead they will cite or guesstimate frontal RCS figures of 0.00000m2 or whatever, it’s always deceitful:

 

[BON PLAN]

Not this same nonsense again. The SU-57 is not operational yet, it’s normal that there are no buyers yet. The Rafale didn’t have customers for years besides the French, that didn’t mean it wasn’t any good. By your logic the JF-17 and Grippen must be better then the Rafale.

Absolutely.

F35 is saled before being FOC just for two reasons :
1) It's like to purchase a place under the US umbrella.
2) to take some shares in the industrial mecano.
Nothing more.

 

[BON PLAN]

________________________________

Lets see an F-35 do that!

they tried.
The plane is now under the sea, near the Japan coast.

 

[asianobserve]

Not this same nonsense again. The SU-57 is not operational yet, it’s normal that there are no buyers yet. The Rafale didn’t have customers for years besides the French, that didn’t mean it wasn’t any good. By your logic the JF-17 and Grippen must be better then the Rafale.








More like in conclusion you’re either ignorant or trolling the SU-57 beats the snot out of the SU-35, and no, the SU-35 doesn’t have similar RCS to an SU-57 nor does any so called 4.5 gen aircraft have a RCS similar or lower to an SU-57-period.

All those 4th generation aircraft have 90 degree corner reflectors and external weapons as well as many other poor design features such as lack of faceting, no platform alignment, untreated canopies which is essentially a complex cavity causing large RCS returns, exedra.....



One of the biggest no no’s in stealth in 90 degree corners reflectors. According to you 4th generation aircraft can now defy physics:


View attachment 40586




There are many other factors that are detrimental RCS. The following diagram illustrates this. One of the obvious problem on conventional aircraft is a cylindrical fuselage. Again 4th generation aircraft, according to you, somehow defy physics, in fact physics seem to be inverted with your logic. Now faceted fuselages like in the SU-57 are now not stealthy, cylindrical fuselages are:

View attachment 40587



Notice platform alignment in the picture below. Conventional aircraft lack this. Ever wonder why the SU-57, and F-22 are trapezoid in shape? Ever wonder why there is that serrated look on the B-2? It’s to redirect radar away from the source.


View attachment 40588



A graphic demonstrating platform alignment on the SU-57:


View attachment 40589


Lastly, weapons. People that often claim X conventional fighter has a lower or similar RCS to the SU-57 are forgetful of the external weapons as well as pylons conventional aircraft carry:

View attachment 40590










Nonsense, this is average as you stated and frequency is unknown and not only that but a guesstimate or estimate from the pak-fa conceptual design in 2008 or so; moreover, range, how many points were measured, etc is not known either. Similarly the F-117 RCS is not known. It’s unverified figures floating around online. I will tell you now the average is not 0.003m2. Some of those figures such as of the F-117 and F-22 floating around online are almost certainly from the frontal hemisphere, where it’s the smallest RCS of any aircraft. The SU-57 figure is an average calculation from before the aircraft was even built.



Here is an F-22 being picked up by Rafale. It doesn’t mean the Rafale was able to track and lock onto the F-22, because it wasn’t the case but in this certain split second scenario the F-22 was locked into but only for a split second or so after it’s top fuselage was facing the Rafale which presented a large spike in RCS. The Rafale would never get this close in real life and the Rafale could not get a lock long enough to launch a missile but the point is that those RCS figures are BS.


The F-22 and F-117 RCS from the top fuselage is probably 15-25m2 but no one will ever take those figures, instead they will cite or guesstimate frontal RCS figures of 0.00000m2 or whatever, it’s always deceitful:


View attachment 40596

Re Su-57, the RCS figure was quoted by Jane's from Sukhoi's own patent of the PAKFA design. I don't know how you could deny it it.

But re RCS of F-117, F-35, F-22, Rafale etc., I agree that the claims are not verifiable. But in the absence of concrete proof from manufacturers then I guess we have to rely on the next closest sources. Otherwise, we'll have no point of references in our discussions.

But going back to Su-57, its higher RCS figure can be seen from some of its known design features: exposed fan blades, IRST ball in front of canopy, conventional rounded engine looking from the bottom of the aircraft (which is significant since SU-57 is designed as a high altitude fighter from that start), the tunnel between the engines, etc. You do not see these features from F-22 or F-35.

SU-57

F-22

Also, the VLO design features of F-22 and F-35 are visible in the 6th gen fighter concepts from US, UK and France (often minus the tails).

If Su-57 design is promising I'm sure Turkey will be more interested in it than Su-35.

 

[abhay rajput]

Not this same nonsense again. The SU-57 is not operational yet, it’s normal that there are no buyers yet. The Rafale didn’t have customers for years besides the French, that didn’t mean it wasn’t any good. By your logic the JF-17 and Grippen must be better then the Rafale.








More like in conclusion you’re either ignorant or trolling the SU-57 beats the snot out of the SU-35, and no, the SU-35 doesn’t have similar RCS to an SU-57 nor does any so called 4.5 gen aircraft have a RCS similar or lower to an SU-57-period.

All those 4th generation aircraft have 90 degree corner reflectors and external weapons as well as many other poor design features such as lack of faceting, no platform alignment, untreated canopies which is essentially a complex cavity causing large RCS returns, exedra.....



One of the biggest no no’s in stealth in 90 degree corners reflectors. According to you 4th generation aircraft can now defy physics:


View attachment 40586




There are many other factors that are detrimental RCS. The following diagram illustrates this. One of the obvious problem on conventional aircraft is a cylindrical fuselage. Again 4th generation aircraft, according to you, somehow defy physics, in fact physics seem to be inverted with your logic. Now faceted fuselages like in the SU-57 are now not stealthy, cylindrical fuselages are:

View attachment 40587



Notice platform alignment in the picture below. Conventional aircraft lack this. Ever wonder why the SU-57, and F-22 are trapezoid in shape? Ever wonder why there is that serrated look on the B-2? It’s to redirect radar away from the source.


View attachment 40588



A graphic demonstrating platform alignment on the SU-57:


View attachment 40589


Lastly, weapons. People that often claim X conventional fighter has a lower or similar RCS to the SU-57 are forgetful of the external weapons as well as pylons conventional aircraft carry:

View attachment 40590










Nonsense, this is average as you stated and frequency is unknown and not only that but a guesstimate or estimate from the pak-fa conceptual design in 2008 or so; moreover, range, how many points were measured, etc is not known either. Similarly the F-117 RCS is not known. It’s unverified figures floating around online. I will tell you now the average is not 0.003m2. Some of those figures such as of the F-117 and F-22 floating around online are almost certainly from the frontal hemisphere, where it’s the smallest RCS of any aircraft. The SU-57 figure is an average calculation from before the aircraft was even built.



Here is an F-22 being picked up by Rafale. It doesn’t mean the Rafale was able to track and lock onto the F-22, because it wasn’t the case but in this certain split second scenario the F-22 was locked into but only for a split second or so after it’s top fuselage was facing the Rafale which presented a large spike in RCS. The Rafale would never get this close in real life and the Rafale could not get a lock long enough to launch a missile but the point is that those RCS figures are BS.


The F-22 and F-117 RCS from the top fuselage is probably 15-25m2 but no one will ever take those figures, instead they will cite or guesstimate frontal RCS figures of 0.00000m2 or whatever, it’s always deceitful:


View attachment 40596

Moreover I think that VHF , UHF and X band radars working together can track stealth jets

 

[asianobserve]

Moreover I think that VHF , UHF and X band radars working together can track stealth jets

F-35's fibermat technology is known to have full spectrum effectivity against radar bandwidths. It's stronger than earlier RAM as in fact a fybermat rag is installed in the entrance to LM factory and has been stepped on, jumped on, stomped on, for tens of thousands of times and yet everytime it is checks it still retain its VLO qualities. Aldo, F-36s figermat can be applied on field without need of climate controlled facility.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

As always we guy's used to say buying Americans weapons always come with the threat of sanctions the same threat is being used again. As I previously quoted that Americans use human rights BS to hand twist india.
Now they are going to Sanction our 2nd most important man of our country. And most probably future prime minister after modi ji retires.

The US Commission for International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) said that it was deeply troubled over the passage of the CAB in Lok Sabha.
If the CAB passes in both houses of Parliament, the US government should consider sanctions against Amit Shah, the USCIRF said.

https://m.timesofindia.com/india/ci...nister-amit-shah/amp_articleshow/72449798.cms

 

[abhay rajput]

F-35's fibermat technology is known to have full spectrum effectivity against radar bandwidths. It's stronger than earlier RAM as in fact a fybermat rag is installed in the entrance to LM factory and has been stepped on, jumped on, stomped on, for tens of thousands of times and yet everytime it is checks it still retain its VLO qualities. Aldo, F-36s figermat can be applied on field without need of climate controlled facility.

Well nothing is invisible to EM spectrum. F35 pilots themselves have said that UHF radars can easily detect them but can not provide weapons tracks due to poor accuracy. But if you combine it with VHF radars and Xband radars you can get a pretty good weapons track.

 

[Assassin 2.0]

.............................

 

[BON PLAN]

Re Su-57, the RCS figure was quoted by Jane's from Sukhoi's own patent of the PAKFA design. I don't know how you could deny it it.

Jane's has not all the information needed to do so.
If RCS was so easy to calculate, no one would use real tests chamber..... And Jane's may have a near real shape model to make some compute, but not the spec of the skin materials and RAM used.
So it's laughable.