A primary FCR with a repositionner would allow the jet to have access to its primary radar more often than adversaries without one, while the additional side/rear looking arrays would still cover areas the primary radar cannot and allow some increased situational awareness and/or EW capabilities.
That being said, I think most nations are increasingly relying on using their radar(s) as little as possible nowadays, with statements regarding patrol flights of Gripens only having a single aircraft turn on their radars occasionally, and using other passive sensors for the majority of their information gathering, which might actually explain why we havent really seen any NATO jets adopt multi-array systems despite some being designed to be able to do so, like the APG-77. It might just be a liability at this point in air combat. As for a theoretical advantage of a repositionner for a radar beyond just coverage, angling the radar antenna is one thing used to minimize RCS, which is why all stealth aircrafts have angled arrays. With a system like the swashplate repositionner on the ECRS, you can theoretically keep the radar antenna pointed in a way to maximally reduce RCS for a specific target. Take this all with a grain of salt though obviously.
I’d argue quite a few aircrafts already have dedicated EW emitters across the aircraft, so I’m not sure how much of an impact tacking on more arrays would have. Could be a diminishing returns situation.
There’s a good chance the SLAR are more powerful and capable than the dedicated EW emitters which are spread around. SLAR could also be used on new airframes to eliminate the need for as many dedicated EW emitters
My point was more that that aspect is already a thing being done to some degree, rather than to say dedicated EW systems are superior to SLAR, that was why I added that it could be a case of diminishing returns.
Its why im curious to see what the RBE2-XG will choose to go with at the end of the day.
While the Russian radars are less powerful than one dongle gimbal radar, ultimately I think this will be the way to go in new designs, since it allows for a continuous coverage of both sides.
It also looks to be what the US is going with with their f47, as the nose looks to be specially design for such twin radar design.
Plus, looks like this also allows for a stealthier radar placement compared to a rotating AESA. As of now those rotating AESA have all been found in gen 4 aircraft which probably donc have a nose wide enough for this kind of layout, but have the room for rotating radars since they originally carried mechanical radars. The rafale on the other hand has never used mechanical radars, so I actually doubt it can use a rotating radar, and it’s also probably too small for twin radar. I would be surprised the f5 standard brings enough advanced for such an addition so I don’t think we will see either technology
I have no idea why you keep going into this direction, there was a bug report after a crash of a rafale with clear data of the weight, and someone tried to recalculate, but ended up at the same weight that the develloper added in game…
It was a primary source that stated this new weight too…
And Rafale wouldn’t be able to reach mach 2 (i think that was ?) if you just follow that logic too, Dassault has no reason to give precise data to the public about their aircraft anyway.
That’s funny how selective they are lol. Manufacturer data saying 10 ton class ? It must mean it’s exactly 10 tons. Doesn’t specify which variant ? Doesn’t care.
A source with exact weight values for the specific variant in game ? Doesn’t care
I can tell Morvran doesn’t talk extensively to Flame and Gunjob in private so he could be a bit more educated otherwise I doubt he would make half of the comments usually does. I wish he would though.
A 10 ton class(which could be anything between 9001 kg to 10999 kg) spread across 3 different airframes, of which two are around 1 ton heavier than the C - stop make things up, just to start a discussion Mods have warned about many times.
Also; nerfing one plane doesn’t make the other better in itself.
Oh thats some semantics right there. I’m assuming it’s a poorly translated French source.
Because what would the weight class be?
It’s a lightweight multirole airframe.
Ok so lets think logically here.
Unless Dassault are grouping all Rafales together you would not use the word “class”
If they are grouping all Rafales types together then we simply cannot use anything from Dassault unless they list the exact airframe model.
