That’s not true. Under the link you posted, it literally says that they take ram coating into account.
At least for certain parts of the aircraft.
This is true but the notch sector of each missile is determined in part by the closure rate of the target and the missile. And so because the MICA is the fastest accelerating missile within 18km which is usually its deployment range, it is also the most difficult missile to defeat in close range. His best bet would be to try and outrun it and drop a bunch of chaff while doing so rather than trying to perfect an almost impossible notch.
huh do you mind sharing where, cause as far a i’m concerned, they explicetely state the opposite :
ah wasn’t aware of that, thx for the precision
in this case, turning away and dragging the missile down in the process is indeed the best bet.
Under a certain distance however, it won’t work anymore
3 Likes
hey thats what i said !
5 Likes
It says
“Even though there is no current data on the absorbing capability of the RAM used by Rafale. The inner surface of the inlet duct leading to the engine stages and the radar blocker will be coated with a layer of MnZn ferrite RAM.”
just saw that indeed
still all the rest is missing. Inlets and radom only
so cockpit, wings, canards, main fuselage : all metal
no mention of composites either
by the way @DirectSupport , do you know of the thrust values used in game were pulled from any kind of source ?
If they one day fix the missile’s drag so it can reach 80km (and drop the hard 50km limit) they might have to tune it down a bit, which could make the missile a bit slower during acceleration.
A bit more threatening at longer distances, but maybe more dodgeable up close ?
Ofc yeah.
And with this model they arrive at around 1m²
I agree that with ram and composites we might be arriving at 0.1m². But not the 0.01m² that I see some people online going around with.
That part i very much agree on.
To clarify : the 0.01m^2 comes from an interview from a chief engieneer at Dassault, who talks about Rafale RCS as being the size of a “sparrow”.
Thing is, it could be with Spectra jammers for all we know, so with a more “conservative” approach and only with open source data, i think anywhere between 0.1 and 1m^2 would be fine
Gaijin can wait a bit before modelling its lower RCS anyway, the Rafale is currently busted enough imo (not like it would change much, considering the external pylons)
Yeah I doubt the RCS of the Rafale matters a lot for air to air combat.
Eurofighter is claimed to detect an F-35 at 50+km so Rafale should be no problem at a reasonable distance.
Except none of this makes any sense when you take into consideration the Eurofighter and its RCS reduction report.
The Eurofighter according to a government source is less than 1.0m^2 with 6 missiles. This could mean that the Eurofighter would be somewhere around 0.5m^2 or 0.8m^2 with weapons.
Without weapons, then Eurofighter could likely fall down to 0.1m^2 clean.
It makes no sense then to have the Rafale clean at 0.1m-1.0m considering it is smaller in size, as well as incorporating many more methods of RCS reduction than the Eurofighter.
So either the Eurofighter consortium document is lying, which makes no sense because it’s an internal document to themselves, or the modeling of the Rafale is not done correctly.
3 Likes
Ah i wasn’t aware of the EF bug report
In fact, if you were to message the authors of that Rafale modeling, and asked them to first
-
State the differences in RCS reduction for Eurofighter compared to Rafale
-
Then show the document of the Eurofighter having less than 1m^2 with 6 missiles
They would have to admit that their modeling has some discrepancies.
You answered your own question:
They stated right there that there isn’t precise data on the capability of Rafale’s RAM so they used another known coating and used it on less surfaces than Rafale otherwise has. The simulation is based on assumptions, as good as they are, they cannot reflect the actual capabilites of Rafale’s RAM.
Still, the proof of Rafale being “0.01m^2” is… feeble at best, as its only point of reference is “a sparrow” (hence why Gaijin hasn’t taken the numbers you’ve presented in your reported at face value, just that the RCS should be smaller than it currently is).
4 Likes
Even then, Gaijin can incorporate the Eurofighter document, compare the stealth features of both aircrafts, the differences in size, and still come to the same conclusion of 0.01m^2.
Also, I offered other sources.
3 Likes
You would also have to be able to prove the RCS comparatively though I do 100% support the Rafale getting its reduced RCS but the devs have never considered ‘common sense’ reports, particularly as when loaded with 4-6 AAM’s eurofighter also has the advantage of that semi-recession.
Yes you can look at the features but you can equally point to things like eurofighters semi-recession and meteor/asraams optimised L/O profile combined with the retractable refuelling probe and stronger wing sweep with selective RAM coverage perhaps equalising them in the frontal profile. (Yes I am aware of Rafale’s gold-lining, serations, RAM, tilted radar, etc etc)
The KF-21 for example is claimed by KAI as being in the ballpark of Eurofighter for L/O and that one has full RAM coverage as well as twin tails, s-ducts and semi-recession, I think you could argue very easily that it goes further than either EFT of Rafale, evidently you cannot get a full spectrum based on visual qualities only. (They could also be low-balling it)
This is just my 2-pence, i’m not particularly hugely informed like you, mig, flame etc etc
1 Like
They should at the very least be equal, balancing the probabilities and features, you can see which way it goes, getting gaijin to accept that is something else though.
Okay, then lets wait for them to do that, and lets take into account they’re probably going to botch both.
Also, I offered other sources.
Your other sources spoke nothing of Rafale’s actual RCS, they’re at best circumstantial and at worst they’re pulling at straws based on your own confirmation bias:
My point is that your report doesn’t really prove anything other than that Rafale’s RCS should be reduced, all the power to you, since at least you’ve gone out of your way to make the report, but you’re being way too optimistic.
3 Likes