Know Your 'Rafale'

[StealthFlanker]

read this :
http://defense-update.com/20160812_f35_thermal.html

I note :
"Critics of the F-35 claim that while its stealth design denies its detection by radars, infrared imagers can easily spot the aircraft at long range, by its heat signature."

Did you even read your own link before you posted, OMFG , this is like the funniest thing ever, let me quoted your own link for you

While the video highlights the extremely hot air exhaust during vertical hovering, it also shows the striking low thermal contrast of the skin, canopy and engine bay, against the sky, which testify to the Lightning II’s effective thermal masking

While the aircraft and exhaust are clearly visible against the sky background in the flypast, it is clear that such image is taken with maximum gain, which isn’t likely to be useful for normal operation. In other shots that are tuned to show the exhaust heat, the aircraft itself almost blends with background, as it would be, when seen in a front view that masks most of the jet exhaust. Low contrast objects would be less detectable by thermal imagers, at long range

While the F-35, like every physical object, has a thermal signature, this thermal scan shows its designers made significant effort to ‘flatten’ its thermal image, making the aircraft less detectable and trackable at long distance

next time you should pay attention to whether the link support your point or not

 

[StealthFlanker]

and where is your source for saying F15E in this AtoA test was carrying a Sniper ? It's not logical.

Just like you haven't been able to provide an official link that stated Rafale and F-16CJ joined the same exercise and Rafale survive the air defense but F-16CJ wasn't able to is that logical?

 

[StealthFlanker]

With laser pod, but no Sniper....

Did you know what you just posted? An F-15E with Litening pod, which is still a FLIR system , aka still a thermal system so you again just proved my point that you cant even find a picture of F-15E without thermal system

 

[StealthFlanker]

Not to be a supercruiser explain a lot of things between aerodynamic and TWR of F35..

Supercruise have to do with dynamic dry thrust of the engine at transonic speed which is decided mostly by the intake and engine design, high T/W doesn't always lead to high speed, low T/W doesn't always lead to low speed, Mig-25, SR-71 are some notable example , but obviously you wouldn't know that, all you know is repeated the nonsense you read on internet forum and magazines like a parrot

It is fat (you just have to look at to understand).

Here we go with the internet fanboy and their eye ball analysis

. The training loose against a F16D with external tanks emphasive the lack of energy of the wild turkey. oups... sorry... the F35.

I already explained the purpose of the test and it is also clearly written in the test log, but if you decide to play dumb then ok, no problem for me, did you forgot that Rafale lose again F-4 too and F-22 lose again T-38

 

[StealthFlanker]

When you want to impress the world, and it was the case, you don't turn at the sustained turn rate !

oh, I thought i was wrong and aircraft always lose energy when they turn? now that you know what a sustained turn mean, suddenly they dont turn like that in airshow ? . You know what funny? the F-35 block 3F is limited to 7G at the moment due to software , so it can't actually turn at it maximum instantaneous turn rate ( aka turn at 9G) so the turn at corner speed now is actually a sustained turn . But even if we considered the turn as only instantaneous, it still measured the average of 25 degrees/second ( quick at the start, slow at the end) , so where is the video of Rafale turn with much superior average turn rate to that.? where is the video of Rafale with 30-40 degrees /second turn rate..?

Don't try to change reality (and trial against F16D was the best proof)

The reality is that F-16D test was an AoA flight control laws test, the reality is that F-35 after FCS was fixed, achieving many win again F-16 in dogfight with pilot actually preferred it in dogfight over F-15E and F-16
The reality is that even F-22 lose to T-38 and Rafale lose to F-4, Typhoon also lose to F-16 before
The reality is that despite the so called much superior agility of Rafale, there isn't video evidence or EM graph evidence

in my own fantasm.
In some days or week i will be (auto) convinced Rafale is the best agile plane in the world .... self persuasion it will be.

let me fixed that for you

Sorry I have no video of Rafale turn.

So no evidence then?

But every body knows Rafale and Gripen are the most agile plane maybe except F22

By every body, i think you mean every internet fanboy who think they know , and you know what funnier, Everyone praised the F-22 for its agility but if they actually understand KPP spec of F-22 and have seen the F-15C manual then they will realized that F-22 sustained turn capabilities is actually the same as F-15 ( eventhough its post stall agility is obviously better due to TVC)

 

[StealthFlanker]

Bonus to people who still think low frequency radar are magical
Here is a RAM pattern from LM

BACKGROUND
Low observable, or stealth, technology is utilized on aircrafts, ships, submarines, and missiles, for example, to make them less visible or observable to radar, infrared, sonar and other detection methods. Various radar absorbing materials (RAMs), which absorb electromagnetic frequencies, such as in the radar range, have been developed for such low observable applications. However, the RAMs presently employed have some drawbacks. For example, many RAMs are not an integral part of the surface of a low observable structure. Instead, the RAMs are applied as coatings or paints over the surface of the low observable structure making them heavier, and prone to wear, chipping, and failure. An example of such a RAM includes iron ball paint, which contains tiny spheres coated with carbonyl iron or ferrite. Moreover, these coatings require bonding to the surface of the structure because they are not an integrated part of the structure or surface.

Another example of a RAM is urethane foam impregnated with carbon. Such RAMs are used in very thick layers. Such RAMs are inherently non-structural in nature such that they add weight and volume to structures while providing no structural support. These types of foam RAMs are frequently cut into long pyramids. For low frequency damping, the distance from base to tip of the pyramid structure is often 24 inches, while high frequency panels can be as short as 3-4 inches.

Another RAM takes the form of doped polymer tiles bonded to the surface of the low observable structure. Such tiles which include neoprene doped with carbon black or iron particles, for example, are prone to separation, particularly in extreme operating environments such as extremely high or low temperatures, and/or high altitudes. Finally, numerous RAMs do not perform adequately in the long radar wavelength band, about 2 GHz.

It would be beneficial to develop alternative RAMs that address one or more of the aforementioned issues. The present invention satisfies this need and provides related advantages as well.

• 
  SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION
• [0007]
  In some aspects, embodiments disclosed herein relate to a radar absorbing composite that includes a (CNT)-infused fiber material disposed in at least a portion of a matrix material. The composite is capable of absorbing radar in a frequency range from between about 0.10 Megahertz to about 60 Gigahertz. The CNT-infused fiber material forms a first layer that reduces radar reflectance and a second layer that dissipates the energy of the absorbed radar.

Original Assignee Lockheed Martin Corporation

https://www.google.com/patents/US20100271253#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[StealthFlanker]

Continues from last post

So you highness allows for the IFF to retain its importance without answering the main question as to why would the Russians need their interrogators to be this big when the whole world is doing it differently? Detection and targeting of a LO target is a challenge but how is interrogation a challenge?

Bigger aperture = higher gain = longer range = able to do IFF at longer distance = able to engage sooner while still obey ROE , pretty important for stealth aircraft if you ask me ( but ofcourse fan boy dont care about IFF ). A bigger IFF antenna also mean it is more directional , which mean PAK-FA will alert less targets in the area compared to normal IFF antenna
Also according to Russian official information the array can also be used as jammer in L band which mean it can be used to jam certain thing like Link-16 datalink

And besides IFF involves some of the same waveform management techniques that for radars and jammers require and that leaves your objection regarding aperture size only. Which is suitably discussed elsewhere herein.
And even if these are just IFF for really long range interrogations then, how do you think it helps if the F-35 is showing up on the VHF and L-band but not on the X-band and is either not responding or improperly responding to such large range IFF challenges. How would you classify such an interrogation? At such long ranges if the F-35 is classified as a high probability adversary then does it not help the defender?

That not how an IFF interrogator work , they are not radar , they do not rely on the reflection of target to work ( IFF interrogator is a completely different thing from the NCTR of modern radar ). If anything the IFF can be imagined like a transponder, after you detect a target with your radar , you use the IFF to send a code toward that direction ,there already a set of ( specific question code and reply code as determined before the aircraft even took off ) , the target is actually in your side , it's IFF system will know what code to send back to answer to your interrogation code ,if it send the correct code then you will know that a friend , if not then it is an enemy or an aircraft without IFF

And I don’t understand your insistence that the L Band radar on PAKFA cannot be used for FCR. Well ok, a true fire control will be difficult but what about merely keeping the range information fed to the AAM. Why must it fail in that..

Because of gain , a L band of that side will have an enormous beam width compared to the X band fire control radar , a bigger beam width will not only reduce your accuracy , it will also reduce your radar range , because power is much less concentrated , you can use the formula below to see how big a difference would be for an X band and L band of equal size ( which in this case even worse because the L-band arrays is smaller.)

Another problem with the L band array is that it doesnt have a secondary row , an ESA ( both active and passive ) without at least 2 elements on 1 plane cannot be steered to the board side of that plane ( because they rely on wave interference to steer the beam ) what does it mean ? It mean the radar wont be able to determine target altitude , and the problem will only get worse when there is more than 1 target inside the resolution cell ( 1 F-35 and 1 MALD-J or more likely multiple F-35 and multiple MALD-J )

And as said before , while Stealth aircraft will have higher RCS at low frequency , the RCS doesnt increased that much ( and radar gain will reduce unless you increase the aperture size significantly ) , so just because you have a L band array doesnt necessary mean that array will see stealth target at longer distance than your X band array.

Why the hell would Russians use this big IFF? Are they dumb.

I already explained before
But let me ask you this , if stealth is so easily to be neutralised then why all the big nation (china , USA , Russian , Japan , UK , Canada , Australia , Korean , Indian ) want stealth aircraft ? are they dumb ?

Because it’s a habit by now. Most people buying F-35 today had a healthy lead in all the anti-VLO technologies. Today they allowed their own lead to peter away for F-35.
I don’t mind it..

So if Russian uses a big IFF system that can help alot for ROE that is dumb , but if various countries spending billions dollars in pursuing stealth technology even though it can be negated so easily like you thought , then that is not dumb ?

Americans have always tried to put roadblocks in the path of others which is the only way they have grown ‘powerful’.

so you believed that all these countries like China , Russian , Japan ,korea , Canada , Australia , Israel ..etc are dumb and they all follow American lead in stealth even though it is a death end ?

1) Expendable, towed, integrated whatever. Hardly matters. There are more than enough ways to know range and send in the AAM..

So why havent you pointed out a valid one without an enomous barrier ? And what make you think that Rafale side is the only side that can use various tactics and extra help from ground VHF radar , AWACS , Stealth UAV ..etc ? what stop the F-35 side from having their own support ? what if the F-35 was assigned to work with an AEGIS destroyer ?

MALD-J will be effective in only the front sector and only against Active seeker heads.

yep ,how fair , it so easy for you to believe that Spectra with it's tiny antenna can work from 1Hz to 100Ghz but of course MALD-J can only work again seeker head and X band radar because USA is studpid according to your version of physics if something is small then it cant jam a big radar, all the thing like signal-noise ratio doesnt matter at all

The semi actives and SAGG won’t even reveal themselves till the very last moment. The future will see even better warheads on these missiles..

Semi active missiles will reveal the location of the illuminator

2) Hardly matters, the Jammer can be put doing in its bearings and only the range needs to be worked at which can be done off board. There were times when the height component too had to be calculated separately and automation of this much technology is not difficult..

The only thing you know is the bearing ( which is esencially what a RWR will tell you anyway ) , you dont know range , altitude , aspect angle , velocity of target. And you cant just said off board and be done with it , done off board how ?

All aspect stealth is American contribution to the world. The world never believed in it and that is why the world has take only the relevant portion of shaping and RAMs for a limited frontal stealth which will be used only in the attack modes, not in hunter modes.

So J-20 , J-31 , PAK-FA , F-35 , JSM , SOM , Storm shadow , various new UCAV ..etc are not all aspect stealth then ? and that assessment based on what ? your MK1 eye ball analysis ? how do you even define stealth here ? at what dBsm value that they should be considered stealth ?

Don’t look like big kill boxes if you go by, what the professionals are discussing among themselves (refer Dr. Igor Sutyagin in RUSI conference, linked above)

i said resolution cell , not just range resolution , do you understand why they have to specificly said " for distance measurement ? , go have a look what resolution cell consist of will you ?

and as stated before , you want shorter pulse for better range resolution then you will have to sacrifice pulse power , that mean less range.

Which is backed by extant technology. Nobody begrudges S-200 or Dvinas or even early generation Patriots.

They still complain when USA sell F-16A , M1 to certain countries , it always a matter of politics here

 

[StealthFlanker]

And as i already said at the start , stealth doesnt mean to make aircraft completely undetectable , it meant to give aircraft ability to detect enemy first and attack them before they can detect or attack you ,
So whether the low frequency can detect stealth aircraft or not is rather irrelevance , what important is whether they can detect the F-35 and create a firing solution before the F-35 can do the same thing to them

 

[Bahamut]

So explained me (you and the russian planes lovers) why the Su24 doesn't heard the message sent by the Turkish F16 .....

According to Turkey's statement to the UN Security Council, two aircraft, whose nationalities were unknown at the time, violated Turkish airspace up to a depth of 2.19 km (1.36 mi) for about 17 seconds.[5][58] According to Turkish officials, the aircraft were given 10 warnings within the span of 5 minutes, by operators at aground-controlled interception station, to change their course.[54] Turkey later released the audio recording ("The unknown air traffic position to Humaymim 020 radial 26 miles. This is Turkish Air Force speaking on Guard. You are approaching Turkish airspace, change your heading south immediately").[59][60][61] The Russians claim there were no warnings.[62][63] Analysts have noted that Turkey's warnings were issued on a dedicated mutually-agreed radio channel, which was the international Guard (emergency) channel (243.0 MHz), but the R-862M radio fitted to the Su-24M is not able to monitor this channel without optional equipment, which may not have been installed.[64][65] According to Turkey, one aircraft left Turkish national airspace after violating it; the other aircraft was fired upon by Turkish F-16s patrolling the area and crashed into Syrian territory after being hit in Turkish airspace.[5] Based on its heat signature, an anonymous American official stated that the jet was hit in Syrian airspace after a short incursion into Turkey.[66] On 30 November, US Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lutestated that the data supported the Turkish version of events.[

 

[Bahamut]

it finished a 180 degrees turn in 7 seconds ( From 2:44-2:51) that equal to average turn rate of 25 -26 degrees/second

Can u shown the calculation?Thanks in advance........................................

 

[smestarz]

When two countries are not at war, they dont fire on each other,. Specially when the turks knew that the Russians were bombing anti Assad coalition.

According to Turkey's statement to the UN Security Council, two aircraft, whose nationalities were unknown at the time, violated Turkish airspace up to a depth of 2.19 km (1.36 mi) for about 17 seconds.[5][58] According to Turkish officials, the aircraft were given 10 warnings within the span of 5 minutes, by operators at aground-controlled interception station, to change their course.[54] Turkey later released the audio recording ("The unknown air traffic position to Humaymim 020 radial 26 miles. This is Turkish Air Force speaking on Guard. You are approaching Turkish airspace, change your heading south immediately").[59][60][61] The Russians claim there were no warnings.[62][63] Analysts have noted that Turkey's warnings were issued on a dedicated mutually-agreed radio channel, which was the international Guard (emergency) channel (243.0 MHz), but the R-862M radio fitted to the Su-24M is not able to monitor this channel without optional equipment, which may not have been installed.[64][65] According to Turkey, one aircraft left Turkish national airspace after violating it; the other aircraft was fired upon by Turkish F-16s patrolling the area and crashed into Syrian territory after being hit in Turkish airspace.[5] Based on its heat signature, an anonymous American official stated that the jet was hit in Syrian airspace after a short incursion into Turkey.[66] On 30 November, US Ambassador to NATO Douglas Lutestated that the data supported the Turkish version of events.[

 

[StealthFlanker]

Can u shown the calculation?Thanks in advance........................................

I didnt use any high level equation there , merely angle/turning time = average turn rate , because the F-35 changed direction by 180 degrees in 7 seconds , you can just take 180/7 = around 25.7 degrees/second

 

[Rahul Singh]

Than IAF has its own requirements for 5th gen aircraft also.

On top of it, any country won't replace their fleet of 4th gen aircrafts with all 5th gen aircrafts in short period of time either.

In-fact PLAAF itself got many new 4th gen aircrafts in recent past only.

There is no such thing as requirement of 5th generation and 4th generation fighters. What required is strength and capability. IAF had put forward the requirement for M-MRCA 10-12 years back for meeting its requirement of deep strike aircraft which could survive without air cover. Here when you say 'survive' you need to understand that specifications was put forward keeping in mind the air-defense capability of China and Pakistan. Now, PAF never had anything to stop even Mirages. Mirage 2000 was already a match for their F-16s, on top of it it would take Mig-29s with it as air cover at any day. Plus IAF already had multi-role SU-30 MKIs joining its fleet. So where was the requirement for those projected 200 M-MRCAs? Answer is China. Ever since '65' a possibility of two front was is looming. But it is only now that we are actually trying to make preparations for it. Proposal for purchase of Rafale in last decade was one such part of the process. IAF was right then, PLAAF did not posses much to threat a fleet of Rafales intruding to strike in Tibet. But that was in last decade. Today PLAAF is equipped with J-10Bs and will be in sometime with SU-35s, J-20s and J-30s. All of these are more than a match for Rafales and will be available in larger quantity than IAF's fleet of Rafales. So where is the advantage and point on which purchase of M-MRCA was being peddled?

What about short of squadrons in IAF........!

Numbers can be filled with LCA as well. You can add more MKIs to bring a balance. This move may not add greater to the tactical capability vis-i-vis Rafale but will surely add much to strategic capability in from of a robust local industry. Such an industry can provide you state-of-the-art fighters in future at fraction of trouble of acquiring a Rafale kind of fighter.

If you want to fight China and defeat it, this is the only way.

IAF has many requirements, one of them could be aircrafts must suit Indian weather and geography.

And second requirement could be, as you mentioned before..................... 'better than frontline fighters of your prime adversary' .

What about that second point..? I ask it second time.

I think i have replied to it by speaking about PLAAF in last post itself.

'Better aircraft' is defined. An imported aircraft is better as long as you adversary has an inferior aircraft. But when your adversary fields a superior aircraft from that date, you no longer posses a 'Better' aircraft. In contrast if you build an aircraft, you may not have a tactically better aircraft initially. But with constant up-gradation you can bring you home grown aircraft to a better position than you adversary at a fraction of cost and trouble vis-i-vis purchasing a up-gradation package. Case-in-point will be Tejas MK-1A vs Mirage 2000 up-gradation. Compare cost, trouble, elapsed time and capability of end product.

The same story one can apply for Russians, French, US, Israelis and for entire euro fighter consortium also.

In other words, you wants a situation where IAF can't buy any aircrafts developed by any other country.

Just bcz they might sell some information to anyone who are willing to pay.

Sadly, yes. Anyone with a requirement as critical as ours can't depend on others, as much as we do. And as a matter of fact none is except us.

Russians are largely dependent on themselves and so is USA; dependent only on its closest allies for little it needs. Rest of the NATO is very much a singular force. They have reason to trust each other for that they have a pact. Interestingly, our prime adversary China too is becoming increasingly independent. So it's safe to say, these countries knew the answer to 'why' long before it even originated in our thoughts.

And how uttam your "Uttam" radar is in real world........? Can it fulfil the requirements you yourself raised....!
This one, I am talking about ---> 'better than frontline fighters of your prime adversary'

Uttam at any given day will be better than any Raven or Elta or Bars or RBE-2s for the reason that it is ours and no one knows how to disable it until someone finds it the harder way. But again we won't be sitting idle. If someone finds a way to jam it, we will find a way to make their ECM ineffective by upgrading Uttam's ECCM. Such an exercise wont' be easy with imported radars. And this is still just one example illustrating a much larger point.

In response to what is highlighted in red. Together with this section of post and what i have written in first section, i think i have defined what 'Better' stands for in a way it should.

 

[BON PLAN]

And i already explained to you that structure Glimit mean little when comparing aircraft agility, even the F-14 which was a 6.5G aircraft can and did pulled 11G and still remains intact

The F14 is not an agile aircraft. I'm sure no F14 seen more than 8-9 G !!!
Speak about F16, which is an agile plane. F16 is limited to 9G, by FBW. The air frame is calculated for 9G.

Rafale airframe is calculated for 11G, and its FBW set for.

You wanted a document. You had it. And you're not happy again....

 

[BON PLAN]

Did you even read your own link before you posted, OMFG , this is like the funniest thing ever, let me quoted your own link for you




next time you should pay attention to whether the link support your point or not

Don't worry, I've read it some days ago.
It's not because some work was made on IR F35 trace that it not remains huge ! The F35 powerplant doens't have a fresh air surroudind the plume (like on M88 for exemple...). 18 tons of thrust, used for exemple to allow F35 to exceed Mach1, that make a nice and beautifull heat point....

 

[gadeshi]

The F14 is not an agile aircraft. I'm sure no F14 seen more than 8-9 G !!!
Speak about F16, which is an agile plane. F16 is limited to 9G, by FBW. The air frame is calculated for 9G.

Rafale airframe is calculated for 11G, and its FBW set for.

You wanted a document. You had it. And you're not happy again....

F-14 is designed as loitering interceptor, not a tactical fighter.
It's maximum is 6,5G.

Отправлено с моего XT1080 через Tapatalk

 

[BON PLAN]

Just like you haven't been able to provide an official link that stated Rafale and F-16CJ joined the same exercise and Rafale survive the air defense but F-16CJ wasn't able to is that logical?

I'm waiting your source Bro .......
At least when I doesn't found a source I say it (and when I gave it, like the 11G for Rafale, you continue to talk without argument...)

 

[BON PLAN]

Did you know what you just posted? An F-15E with Litening pod, which is still a FLIR system , aka still a thermal system so you again just proved my point that you cant even find a picture of F-15E without thermal system

I just answered to your post : "Sniper-XR is like a default for F-15E configuration, it rarely fly without it, just like it doesn't fly without CFT, in fact you cant even find a picture of F-15E whether in exercise or war configuration without targeting pod". No SNIPER on this pic. End of the story. Don't try to change, saying it's another FLIR. It's not the SNIPER, YOUR AFFIRMATION WAS WRONG.

 

[BON PLAN]

Supercruise have to do with dynamic dry thrust of the engine at transonic speed which is decided mostly by the intake and engine design, high T/W doesn't always lead to high speed, low T/W doesn't always lead to low speed, Mig-25, SR-71 are some notable example , but obviously you wouldn't know that, all you know is repeated the nonsense you read on internet forum and magazines like a parrot

Rafale is seen by some haters to be underpowered. And it have simple air intakes, without shock waves effect like in F15 or Mirage 2000. However it is widely Supercruiser.
The JSF is simply badly aerodynamically shaped. Despite 18 tons thrust....

 

[BON PLAN]

I already explained the purpose of the test and it is also clearly written in the test log, but if you decide to play dumb then ok, no problem for me, did you forgot that Rafale lose again F-4 too and F-22 lose again T-38

You explained YOUR version of the test. It's not what USAF said just after. And that forced LM to explain the plane used a non definitive software... 9 years after first flight? No. This plane will never be able to move up to 7.5 - 8 G. It's too late.