Do you expect IAF to defend a square inch of LOC under restricted condition? It can only protect if there is no restrictions on shooting down planes across LoC. Pakistani planes crossed into LOC for about 2km and then dropped payload and fled. This takes hardly 5 seconds which is very difficult to stop. So, whatever was done, was done correctly
Four missiles plus belly drop tank, actually.
Wrong, operations from hidden bases have nothing to do with STOVL. VTOL can help a lot, but STOVL is about as useful as STOL for those purposes - such bases will not have jump ramp to facilitate STOVL aircraft.
There is no reason to deny what you said. MKI was purchased to shoot down Puki F-16s and it finally had its chance.
How do you say the aircraft that defined 4th generation was not 4th generation? According to your definition the only F-16 that was 4th gen was the Block 50/52, that means the M2000-5 is easily 4th generation even by your own definition.
Low Observability is stealth, in both the radar and infrared. That is what the MICA IR does, it gives the ability to shoot down an F-22 at BVR ranges.
If you have a CAP patrolling the Chinese border, how do you expect it to intercept Porki aircraft in another region without supercruise?
I don't know how you make a Su-30 LO when it has the RCS of a double-decker bus.
I told you in the post that you butcher quoted so why don't you go back and look at it.
The GOA has already called it a turd because 90% of the missions will require it to have external stores. Once you add external stores to the F-35 it is vastly inferior to Rafale in all flight regimes.
[citation needed]
[citation needed]
F35 has better sensor fusion than any 4th gen aircraft . Since its engine gathers all the information from all sensors and fuses it for the best possible outcome while others engines on 4th gen aircraft gather the best possible data from an individual sensor thus it is slow compared to the f35.
Spectra should also be tested against the AESA radars and against multiple frequencies operating at the same time.
If that the case ,rafale shouldn't have those round intakes,and those round engine nozzles ,and single vertical tail with no symmetry with the body.
??? Rafale's shape is actually rather good when it comes to RCS, especially from frontal aspect. Intakes are not that round, and from front it doesn't matter anyway. As for vertical tail fin, IIRC it is made from radar-transparent materials so it doesn't matter anyway. Only problem is side and rear RCS - as you point out, round engine nozzles - but that was never too much of a concern anyway, since Rafale was primarily defensive air superiority fighter, and its strike mission profile assumed terrain cover + SPECTRA as opposed to US requirement for all-aspect RCS reduction.
WRONG !
Once again, you are saying nonsense.
Just to answer about tail : a vertical tail is a problem ONLY if the opponent radar is perfectly perpendicular to it, ie same altitude, perfectly at 90° of the plane..... it occured 0,01% of the time....
Rafale A was a test bed for : numeric FBW, 30° seat, close coupled delta config, semi recessed with no moving part mach 2 air intakes, and M88. As M88 was late, it was replace by F404.
Do you think Thales and Dassault waited your advise ?
It is good when compared to 4th gen aircrafts. Intakes are oval still they will contribute in RCS as they are not designed to spread the radar waves in diff direction than the direction of origin. Acc to various researchers and designers , NO AMOUNT OF MATERIAL WILL DO GOOD IF THE SHAPE OF THE AIRCRAFT IS NOT DESIGNED STEALTHY ,and that's reason why get with more advance materials is considered inferior to f22 in stealth. Rafale intakes as well as frontal section which has exposed sensors situated will contribute to the RCS no matter how much you use materials. And thats the problem,in terrain hugging profile it's range will considerably be reduced when compared to the f35 which can fly at the altitudes without being detected . F35 also have better sensor coverage than on Rafale so it has better situational awareness than the rafale,has much advance fusion engine than any aircraft currently build and operational.
And I presume that you neglected the very fact that even a small protruding thing on an stealth aircraft exposes it to the enemy radar ,not only this but a perpendicular tail on an aircraft also increases the heat points from where radar waves could return(as rafale tail is neither shaped nor positioned so a radar in x band presumedly at higher power output can track Rafael even if Rafale becomes lo without that correction) thats why stealth aircrafts are designed with tail(with themselves shaped to reflect the energy in the other directions) matching the symmetry of the farthest point of the aircraft ie the body section of the air intakes.Just to answer about tail : a vertical tail is a problem ONLY if the opponent radar is perfectly perpendicular to it, ie same altitude, perfectly at 90° of the plane..... it occured 0,01% of the time....
Round engine nozzle : F35 is a perfect answer
The numbers of rwr antennas on rafale is clear indication that they should rather take advice which I guess they already are doing so with the f4 development . As far as the f3r is concerned ,they still don't have satisfactory coverage of rwr on rafale which can effectively filter out lpi signals in all directions ie 360 coverage.
Even if the rafale super cruises ,its weapons will be located externally which not only increases RCS but also enough drag to limit the range which everyone boasts .
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rafale in Croatian Air Force | Military Aviation | 10 | |
| W | Rafale and F 18 super hornet shortlisted by Indian navy | Indian Navy | 21 | |
|
Indian Navy more likely to select F 18 than rafales | Indian Navy | 164 | |
|
|
Greek Rafale vs Turkish EF 2000 Who has the Technolocal Edge | Military Aviation | 5 |
