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
It should be noted that Rafale also has this advantage although to a lesser extent than the Eurofighter sure.
I will note that
Both should be low-observable, but there is no stealth features on the Eurofighter that the Rafale doesn’t have, but there is stealth features on the Rafale that the Eurofighter doesn’t have, so it’s only reasonable to conclude that they’re not actually equal.
1 Like
So then you actually didn’t read it. I can understand if the report is too lengthy for you to read. While majority of the report goes into detailing the stealth features which is important to demonstrate, if you had bothered to read it carefully there is another source that does demonstrate the Rafale’s actual RCS. Should read it more thoroughly.
Other than the retractable refuelling probe and full semi-recession, but I take your point. You can conclude lower when clean certainly imo (when laden im less convinced), as I said i’d say that if they aren’t ‘buying’ your report, the logical conclusion is make them equal until some sort of comparative figure is realised from a reputable source.
3 Likes
The problem is that they’ll have to play guessing games with RCS based on stealth features going into the future when it comes to Su-57, J-20, and F-22. While they’ll take a look into the claims of certain RCS numbers, those RCS numbers all vary when you input different frequencies and so countries can measure them differently. It’s not so easy to implement RCS numbers if different countries have different methods of measuring an aircraft’s RCS.
So Gaijin will ultimately be left with analyzing the stealth features of every aircraft with what’s visually been incorporated. It’s not so important that sources state that the Rafale is 0.01m^2 or that Eurofighter is less than 1.0m^2 with 6 missiles.
What’s more important is what methods of RCS has been used, and what methods are visibly not incorporated and compare them to non-stealth and full-stealth aircrafts.
8 Likes
Why not point it out then. It’s not my job to look thru every nook and cranny just to find another reference to Rafale’s RCS, no need to be an ass about this.
Rafale doesn’t have a tilted radar.
5 Likes
Oh my bad must be a misconception, could’ve sworn I saw it here, maybe mixed it up with F-35 (i think that one has a tilted radar?)
To be fair, if you’re going to make a conclusive claim about what a report contains, then it should have been read thoroughly no?
In 2002, a Rafale went up against an F-18 and F-14 and conducted a look first and shoot first sequence. The F-18 isn’t the important part, however the important part is the F-14. The only weapon the Rafale had at the time were MICAs and not Meteors, which are vastly outranged by the F-14s radar and the AIM-54 Phoenix.
In order for the Rafale to have look first and shoot first sequence against the F-14, it had to have an RCS low enough for it to get within the MICA’s envelope, and an RCS of 0.1m^2 means the Rafale can still be detected well outside of the MICAs range with the powerful Tomcat radar. Only an RCS of 0.01m^2 provides a low enough RCS to get within MICA range.
11 Likes