Know Your 'Rafale'

[BON PLAN]

This is Falcon's air inlet duct. Can you see any fan blade to reflect RF signal ?
View attachment 8556


How much did you pay Brazilians to give a +ve certificate?

Photo not good enough.

As you seem a noob, engine blades are far from the intake

 

[BON PLAN]

Okay, we can excuse the Su-24 since it is not a pure fighter. But there is no excuse for the numerous Mig-29s that were show down.



Exactly my point. With Aim 9x and its analogues it is almost impossible nowadays for fighters to survive in WVR combat against an opponent that is also armed with comparable short range missile. That's why based on teh study I cited air combat has now moved to BVR.



No Flanker would have stood a chance against the AIM-9X Blk 2 that was fired at that poor Su-24.

It was not a AIM9X that was fired by Turkish F16 (have they this version of that missile? I doubt).
It was an AMRAAM fire.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Rafale don't need also to open its radar in the same condition.
And F35 is VLO only from front aspect. From rear or side.... it is very observable.

The same applies to rafLe also

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

Well. Your anglo-saxon sources clearly don't like Rafale ! My sparrow is too big at 0,1. Some french writers put it between 0,05 and 0,1 .. closer to 0,06.

Also you forget these are clean cofig figures

Once you add missiles the figure change dramatically more so for rafales which do not have internal bays
V/s f35

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

There is no official independent body in charge of running tests to calculate RCS . So we rely on data released by companies, or estimates by semi-authorized sources. Dassault has not released any figure. Seems that Lockheed and Boeing are more communicative ?

If dasault has not released any figures how come the rafale lobby is claiming sparrow RCS ?

 

[Gessler]

DIRCM is used for IR guided missiles not IRST ,they are different thing .

DIRCM can blind aircraft-based IRST in the same way as it blinds a missile's IR seeker. There is no fundamental difference.

Provided, the aircraft is within the effective range of the blinding laser. From too far away, the effect of the laser might not be strong enough.

This is what DIRCM does when seen through an infrared camera -

 

[sasum]

Photo not good enough.

As you seem a noob, engine blades are far from the intake

I know that..you didn't get my point. There can be any length and and shape of inlet ducts. Some are circuitous, some are straight. Supersonic jets need these for dampening airflow (c.f. Pitot duct), and has little to do with RCS unless the metal blades are visible to RF. Since RF travels in straight line as line of human sight, it is obvious if we can see blades, the radar can also see these. My comments were with reference to your concern about large mouth of the intake duct reflecting back lot of radar signals.

 

[Tactical Frog]

If dasault has not released any figures how come the rafale lobby is claiming sparrow RCS ?

See above : http://defenceforumindia.com/forum/threads/know-your-rafale.32861/page-175#post-1164610

Lockheed claims that F-35 has the signature of a golf ball . I have read somewhere that the difference in terms of RCS is 10 to 1 in favour of F-35. Sparrow vs golf ball .. I take the sparrow.

 

[Tactical Frog]

I know that..you didn't get my point. There can be any length and and shape of inlet ducts. Some are circuitous, some are straight. Supersonic jets need these for dampening airflow (c.f. Pitot duct), and has little to do with RCS unless the metal blades are visible to RF. Since RF travels in straight line as line of human sight, it is obvious if we can see blades, the radar can also see these. My comments were with reference to your concern about large mouth of the intake duct reflecting back lot of radar signals.

Good to see you back @Gessler ! Rafale is under attack from people claiming it is a flying Christmas tree !

 

[Tactical Frog]

DIRCM can blind aircraft-based IRST in the same way as it blinds a missile's IR seeker. There is no fundamental difference.

Provided, the aircraft is within the effective range of the blinding laser. From too far away, the effect of the laser might not be strong enough.

This is what DIRCM does when seen through an infrared camera -

Good to see you back @Gessler !

 

[Gessler]

The RCS figures being discussed on previous pages --even if we believe they are accurate-- fail to signify one thing. And in the process, make the F-22/35 seem a lot stealthier than what they actually are in an all-encompassing combat scenario.

Several Lockheed engineers/involved people have stated on record that the 0.0001m2 figure is the frontal-aspect signature - which is obviously the part where a plane is designed to be the stealthiest. The side aspect is said to have as much as 0.01m2, a considerable increase.

But what about the figures of the other planes? Are they also front-only? Or are they an average figure calculated by analyzing the signature in all aspects? Because if you change the aspect angle of the probing radar by as much as a single degree, the resulting signature is often significantly different.

As of the F-35, it has been repeatedly stated by everyone from enthusiasts to serving professionals that F-35 is not an all-aspect stealth plane like F-22. Even a visual inspection of the airframe by someone with a fair bit of radar knowledge shows that it simply does not have the kind of angular surfaces and minimal surface discontinuities as present on the F-22. Under the best possible circumstances, the side cross section isn't that lower than a Typhoon or Rafale.

Now coming to weapons, yes, I have already stated that F-35's internal weapon bays are an advantage - but how significant is that advantage? That's the question. In a multi-mission scenario, the JSF can carry at most 2 AAMs and 2 JDAMs internally. That's like the payload of a LIFT trainer converted to combat missions.

And from side-aspect, the weapon body & the fuel tanks in themselves do not give off much return owing to their cylindrical shapes. Except the the specular return (the specific part of a rounded surface that's actually flat enough to send the waveform back).

The smaller surfaces like fins etc. do give off returns as well. But the actual culprits that significantly increase the RCS are the hardpoints from which these weapons & tanks hang from.

Regardless, the adoption of enclosed weapon pods (like those seen on F/A-18ASH) should address the problem to a considerable extent. The incorporation of Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) eliminates the need to carry external drop tanks. Rafale has already been tested with them and all versions have a built-in capability to accept CFTs when needed.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/Fox_Three_nr_2.pdf

However, the incorporation of all this depends on whether or not the customer (in this case IAF) actually has a requirement for them.

This is when the whole internal carriage thing on F35 begins to sound like an awful attempt to earn brownie points.

And look at how extensively all versions of F35 are being tested with all kinds of external weapon stations. It is obvious that any F35 will HAVE to make use of external weapons if it has to remain atleast as combat-effective as 4th/4.5 gen planes. The internal-only weapons would be used in a low-risk environment (bombing ISIS and stuff), when you have overwhelming support of friendly air-superiority aircraft & support assets.

Against a competent enemy, it's like fighting with one arm tied.

 

[sasum]

IRST is access to more computing power plus it get info from other sensors plus it more it has more wider spectrum and hence is more difficult to jam.

This is your personal perception. It is not that in reality. All infrared detection/ intervention, both active and passive exploit same bands of short-medium spectrum. No. of sensors dont affect basic algorithm, only volume of signal processing increases. Qwip, however, exploits the cooler long-wave.

 

[Gessler]

Good to see you back @Gessler !

Thank you bro! Just noticed that my thread-ban had expired.

 

[WolfPack86]

AgustaWestland Graft Scandal Poised to Delay Conclusion of India-France Rafale Deal
With renewed scrutiny of defense deals awarded under India’s previous government, the India-France Rafale deal might be delayed again.
The pending $8.9 billion deal between India and France for the purchase of 36 Dassault Rafale multi-role fighters could be delayed due to a separate 2013 bribery scandal involving Italian helicopter manufacturer AgustaWestland. Speaking before India’s parliament last week, Indian Defense Minister Manohar Parrikar said that the pending talks with the French government would come under renewed scrutiny, likely due to renewed attention in India on the AgustaWestland scandal given recent verdicts handed down in the case in Italy.

“The Ministry of Law and Justice has made certain observations [regarding the ongoing Rafale talks] and the same will be taken into account while finalizing the Inter-Governmental Agreement (IGA), which is still under negotiation,” Parrikar told India’s parliament last week. As The Diplomat has reported recently, government-to-government talks between India and France over the Rafale have been stuck in protracted negotiations over offset clauses, which would require Dassault to invest at least 50 percent of the contract value of the deal within India, and, more critically in recent weeks, the per-unit price of the fighters.

The domestic politics of the AgustaWestland scandal are once again heating up, as well. India’s former government, headed by the Congress Party-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) alliance, oversaw both the AgustaWestland deal and the award of the Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) tender to Dassault, which was the precursor to the currently pending 36-jet deal. (In March 2015, India and France announced a government-to-government deal, scrapping the MMRCA process altogether.)

As Akhilesh Pillalamarri discussed in these pages recently, India’s Congress Party, now in opposition to the Bharatiya Janata Party-led government, is under scrutiny in the AgustaWestland scandal. Parrikar, for his part, has thrust himself into the ongoing domestic debate. Speaking last week, he noted that “Many people who had some links with Agusta, I am not saying illegitimate links, but some links with Agusta procurement and supply, were given good positions.”
While stopping short of levying accusations, the minister’s remarks mesh with broader accusations that opposition leaders, including Sonia Gandhi, the president of the Congress Party herself, may have been involved in the scandal. Moreover, recent reports citing Indian Defense Ministry sources note that the Modi government is probing the MMRCA process, probing for evidence of corruption in the award of the now-defunct tender to Dassault.

The deal between France and India for these 36 fighters was just weeks ago expected to be concluded in May 2016, after hard-fought negotiations over price, but the politicization of defense procurement may add more delays. Meanwhile, with 35 active fighter squadrons, the Indian Air Force (IAF) remains far short of its sanctioned squadron strength of 42. The 36 Rafale will help reduce the shortfall, but will stop far short of what’s necessary for the IAF to meet its requirements.
http://thediplomat.com/2016/05/agus...delay-conclusion-of-india-france-rafale-deal/

 

[BON PLAN]

DIRCM can blind aircraft-based IRST in the same way as it blinds a missile's IR seeker. There is no fundamental difference.

Provided, the aircraft is within the effective range of the blinding laser. From too far away, the effect of the laser might not be strong enough.

This is what DIRCM does when seen through an infrared camera -

Welcome back Bro

 

[Tactical Frog]

Agusta scam will be the last hurdle to jump !

Politically it might be an opportunity for Modi to show resolve and his ability to clinch bullet-proof gov-to-gov deal, immune to corruption allegations.

Crossing fingers ... not saying it is now or never but this is the right time.

 

[Bahamut]

This is your personal perception. It is not that in reality. All infrared detection/ intervention, both active and passive exploit same bands of short-medium spectrum. No. of sensors dont affect basic algorithm, only volume of signal processing increases. Qwip, however, exploits the cooler long-wave.

DIRCM can blind aircraft-based IRST in the same way as it blinds a missile's IR seeker. There is no fundamental difference.

Provided, the aircraft is within the effective range of the blinding laser. From too far away, the effect of the laser might not be strong enough.

This is what DIRCM does when seen through an infrared camera -

Wit coming coming of QWIP sensor IRST can see more wavelength like the heat caused by friction on aircraft surface (similar is being planned for missile )at which frequency DIRCM does not work at present .With coming of IR operating in multiple wavelength at same time jamming will be much more difficult

 

[sasum]

When Dassault submitted proposal under MMRCA, it promised to help India set up a Gallium based semiconductor chip foundry as part of offset. After Rafale was finalised and Agreement ready to be signed, MoD wanted French Govt to stand guarantee in this regard, which she didn't agree to. Dassault also declined to commit time-frame within which it would complete delivery of all aircrafts, training materials, spares and set up maintenance and overhaul facilities. Dassult's intention was never honourable from the beginning it would seem. IGA in all defence agreements should become a standard procedure.

 

[PaliwalWarrior]

There is small but important news today's

Goi does not have funds to sign any new fighter aircraft purchase deals this year

Barring all deals which are cleared


So rafale next year

 

[sasum]

There is small but important news today's

Goi does not have funds to sign any new fighter aircraft purchase deals this year

Barring all deals which are cleared


So rafale next year

Let them arrive at some sort of consensus on contentious issues. Payment schedule can be worked out later. It has to be delivery-linked. Agar pesa le ke baith gaya to?