Yes sir.
1 Like
Is that what you’re saying right now?
Simply put, the Rafale’s intakes are better suited for reducing RCS than the Eurofighters. Little effort was put forth on the Eurofighter in comparison.
I would consider the inability to notch to be quite a disadvantage for a fighter that isn’t low observable. I can see why they failed to just install side-facing AESA… seeing as it took them two decades to realize mechanical scan was obsolete.
1 Like
Goes straight for insulting multiple nations as he thinks he knows best guys
They found AESA wasn’t worth it then now it is
1 Like
I don’t understand how this is an insult? It is like discussing the carousel autoloader on T-series tanks… you are not insulting them by pointing out a massive flaw in their weaponry and design decisions.
no where near the same
yeah it what i have gathered from him
Eurofighter uses 3 AESA jammers. Two in the left wingtip pod, one forward and one aft with a third in the forward right pod, with the rear being taken up by two towed jammers. And some more additional side firing spiral antennae in the center of both pods.
Ah, my bad for assuming towed decoys would become part of Spectra when integrated. Still F.4.1 is so much later than the EFT which had them from the beginning
1 Like
What does that say about Rafale which still only has a forward facing ESA?
And no, Rafale isnt any more low observable than Eurofighter, even if there would be slight advantages in structure (which you have nowhere reliably proved) they still both carry their weapons externally, especially Meteor and its exposed air intakes
Oh, while at it. What about F/A-18E or the Block 60 F-16? Why do none of those have side facing AESAs?
Is the US just too technologically incompetent as well?
6 Likes
Fair enough, I’m curious to see how Gaijin will handle the European Eurofighters and the fact that they haven’t mounted any AESA radar or that the German Eurofighters went without IRST for a long while. If they’re a bit unrealistic, then both the Rafale and Eurofighter would be competitive with each other. If they remain realistic and unbudging, then the Rafale should be the clear winner. But it all depends on what Gaijin wants to do.
3 Likes
in what way because flight performance i don’t see it wining
I meant in that they wouldn’t have their AESA radar while the Rafale does, or that Germany wouldn’t get their IRST for a long while since they opted to not mount them, and the same for their LWS, correct me if I’m wrong.
ah ok fair
If we even live long enough to see Rafale & EFT w/AESA, I don’t think having or not having LWS would make much of a difference.
MICA IR is a 50km IR missile that can be guided on the Rafale’s TV sensor using the laser rangefinder to not alert any RWR. The MICA NG IR is a 100km IR missile coming into service next year, so having a LWS in the face of 100km IR missiles is particularly advantageous for planes that have them.
Planes that have LWS are namely F-35, some Eurofighters, etc.
4 Likes
AESAs are currently coming into service, Tranche 4 will have them in 2025, IRST was used on the WTD61 aircraft (which are technically still part of the Luftwaffe).
Then theres also the aforementioned DA5 which carries CAESAR
True on LWS though, however doubtful its usability will be
I want to remind everyone that Eurofighter does not use IR based MAWS like most aircraft, but millimeter radar, which means it can even detect passive missiles with their engine burned out already
Eurofighter IRST is passive, it doesnt include a laser rangefinder
2 Likes
The Rafale is low observable so I don’t see the issue. RCS is 1/10th the EuroTycoons.
The US isn’t still providing significant upgrades to legacy fighters, rather increasing their capabilities in other areas. No need to crank and use side facing AESA when your stealth fighters are already doing that to support missiles fired from a missile bus at beyond the MAR.
Fire AIM-120D … turn around… let the stealth fighter guide it in instead.
I was listing planes that had LWS
1 Like
Sure, that’s fine 'n dandy… but take note of me saying AESA there, those games would be dominated by people slinging MRAAMs (maybe even Meteors) from much longer ranges, LWS or not. It may in handy in some obscure situations, but largely relegated to a secondary/supporting role.
You’ve yet to provide any proof of that, so really stop throwing that deci around like it’s a done deal. EFT w/missiles (AS config) is 1m^2, Rafale w/missiles is presumably 1m^2 per that simulation (the RCS in a completely clean config with hidden IRST is not relevant because nobody in their right mind would try to fly that against fully kitted out 4th gens).
2 Likes
French discord has proof of it, they just aren’t going around sharing it until it is added. The information is provided to tech mods in advance and like the MICA (which was mostly already correctly modeled thanks to this forward info handed to tech mods / devs)… the Rafale will likely come with reduced RCS if that is a feature at the time of introduction.
So far, 11 reputable sources covering the topic iirc.
1 Like