Well it's not exactly perpendicular. It seems to be slightly angled outwards instead of inwards like the F-22.indranilroy wrote: The F-22 has surfaces angled in a direction which never let the radar wave to return to the source. Not the case with EF. The EFs perfectly perpendicular intake shape works like a retro reflector in the form of a corner reflector.
Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
I was using the word amplitude in the literary sense (as opposed to the scientific sense). I suppose the correct term would have been greater reflected power density.indranilroy wrote:Scattering never amplifies electromagnetic waves .. many possible reflections increase the possibility that the wave after many reflections might reach back to the radar. However I don't know what would be the interference patterns. and nobody will tell me
Its unlikely the active radar platform is perfectly at 12 o'clock to the target, thereby minimizing the missile profile. Its more likely that there is at least small angle between the two exposing the entire 12 foot missile. Where ordinarily (after launch) only a small strip on the missile would reflect the rays actually detected by the radar, with the aircraft and other munitions close by on a captive missile, I'd expect a lot lot more secondary radiation.The value of RCS of x is borrowed from Igor. He makes a simplistic assumption ... how much of the front area do the missiles present to the radar ... He doesn't think they are more than the plane itself and I strongly agree with him ... But you don't need to agree with us
Oh, I'm the last person to claim they're wrong in trying to reduce the RCS. But there is a ceiling to what can be achieved with features like serrated edges, LERX, better joint blending etc. Most aircraft in development including next gen UCAVs are going to be equipped to carry munitions internally. That said, there's nothing wrong with a 10% increase in detection range. After all we'd welcome a 10% increase in missile range without scoffing, its just personally I'd think the EF's 50% higher radar power output (assuming similar TRM) and semi-recessed weapon stations will be better bet over the Rafale's slightly stealthier airframe.As regards to 10% difference in detection range, well you must be way smarter in your analysis than engineers around the world who are trying to bring the RCS of the plane down by as much as they can inspite of detection range only decreasing by a fourth power. i.e if your new plane has a 16 times smaller RCS, the detection range is only halved. Yet people are trying recessed weapons and serrated edges! I have no way to prove all those people at Dassaut, EADS, Boeing and Lockheed wrong. But if you can I would love to know.
What difference does it make to the frontal or near frontal RCS?indranilroy wrote:Viv, are you just posting for the heck of it ... please read a little before posting ... a simplest Google search would have sufficed.
The F-22 has surfaces angled in a direction which never let the radar wave to return to the source. Not the case with EF. The EFs perfectly perpendicular intake shape works like a retro reflector in the form of a corner reflector.
Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
.You seem to cherry pick your bandits position according to your posts. Just in the previous post you were telling me that the bandit in most conditions will not be at 12 o'clock. Now you ask me, what difference will it make in case that the bandit is frontal or near frontal?Viv S wrote:What difference does it make to the frontal or near frontal RCS?indranilroy wrote:Viv, are you just posting for the heck of it ... please read a little before posting ... a simplest Google search would have sufficed.
The F-22 has surfaces angled in a direction which never let the radar wave to return to the source. Not the case with EF. The EFs perfectly perpendicular intake shape works like a retro reflector in the form of a corner reflector.
Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
Well it won't be the perfect reflector ... it is a near slightly less perfect reflector.nachiket wrote:Well it's not exactly perpendicular. It seems to be slightly angled outwards instead of inwards like the F-22.indranilroy wrote: The F-22 has surfaces angled in a direction which never let the radar wave to return to the source. Not the case with EF. The EFs perfectly perpendicular intake shape works like a retro reflector in the form of a corner reflector.
Please read here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_reflector
indranilroy wrote:Anyways here I repeat again:
Suppose you send EFs with SUs ... The EFs don't have the legs ... but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link ... so the whole contingent will have to concentrate on missions which require legs only as long as that of EFs ... Rafale's won't handicap the Su-30s this way.
With two external fuel tanks the EF already has a range comparable to the Su-30MKI. Yes the Rafale can fly with upto 5 external 2000L fuel tanks enabling it to far far outrange the Sukhoi but I don't think that's a serious requirement.Well this may be blasphemy on this forum, but I'm not so confident about the Su-30 being such a superlative machine. I hope to heavens I'm right, because if I'm not, there are over 300 of them to our north just an AESA upgrade away from becoming a very very imposing threat. We're all confident about the Rafale chewing up and spitting out the Su-30MKM but is the difference between the MKI and MKM that stark. And even if so, is it something that will persist in the near future considering the rapid advances in Chinese domestic military technology.And imagine Su-30s using their huge radars to scan the huge horizons with its radar while Rafales go in silently with their superb A2G loads ... My question is Su-30 is alread a fab A2a machine, its compliment should be a superb A2G machine. At the moment there is no doubt which of the 2 competitors is the best A2G platform.
Within visual range at lower speeds yes. But at BVR the importance of altitude, energy and agility for post launch maneuvering is often understated in debates on the internet. Its also not the kind of thing that can be effectively simulated in DACT exercises, but as the performance specs starting with the original air superiority BVR fighter - the F-15, to the newer F-22, to the IAF's future PAK-FA prove, aircraft designers still consider it critical to the aircraft survivability. And that's where the Eurofighter excels.As to A2A prowess of EF vs the Rafale, the jury is very much out there ... actually, a bigger half believe that as of today Rafale do hold an edge . Only the RAF pilots (meekly) and EF brochures have ever contested this claim ... so we really don't know ... but we can say for certainty that closer to the ground and at lower speeds the Rafales are definitely better.
The one on top has the bigger nose (by almost 2x). The intakes are larger and have been moved outwards a little to accomodate the larger-diameter forward fuselage. The "air scoop" shape of the forward fuselage is also retained. Note that only the forward fuselage is different--the rest of the plane is the same. Of course this is a very simplistic illustration and there will be other issues but in essence, this is it. In reality, Dassault (and HAL for that matter) would be able to come up with much better solutions than this.Viv S wrote:Well I'll wait for you to post a more detailed description
I was saying it will not be at perfect 12 o'clock which is the only position where the missile's minimal frontal cross-section is visible. Ten degrees off-boresight and the entire 12 foot missile comes into view, allowing the radar radiation to bounce off the length of it, and possible reflect off a nearby store or airframe or control surface back to a hostile receiver.indranilroy wrote:You seem to cherry pick your bandits position according to your posts. Just in the previous post you were telling me that the bandit in most conditions will not be at 12 o'clock. Now you ask me, what difference will it make in case that the bandit is frontal or near frontal?
First decide what you believe is most likely .... bandits flying at 12 o'clock ... or are they flying higher/lower/ slightly to the left/slightly to the right ... Also in mist cases will they be flying alone or in groups ... if they are scattered obviously atleast a couple of them will not be flying at 12 o'clock and at the same altitude.
Well I see what you're getting at but I'm not sure if an effective limit of 40-50km would be practical. The Meteor for example was designed to have a no-escape-zone that was three times larger than existing missiles (the Aim-120C had a range of about 50km+ with a NEZ maybe half of that). While the Meteor has a maximum range comparable to the R-77 and Aim-120C7, unlike them it retains a high kill probability almost throughout its flight envelope. Its expected to have NEZ of 80km (I had an article about it, but its been a couple of years and I can't locate it anymore). The Aim-120D too has a substantially larger NEZ by virtue of having range that's 50% higher than the C7 variant. Point is, with something like the Astra or even R-77 I'd expect launches at 50-60km. With the Meteor and Aim-120D on other hand, I don't think 100km is out of the question.indranilroy wrote:^^^ Well, see I can't prove you wrong ... because you are not ... you side with the EADS philosophy while I have a softer corner for Dassault's. Different design policies ... even if EF actually detected planes from further, by the time it gets into any kind of range where its missiles will be effective (40-50km) it will be glowing on any radar (same as the Rafale). So as I said I don't know which philosophy is right.
Viv if you have to plates at 90 degrees, no matter where you are you would have your radar signal reflected back. You can try it at any trial room with mirrors perpendicular to each other ... you will be able to see yourself at all times.Viv S wrote:Besides, the question that I had raised was that how does the basic curving shape of the Rafale contribute to a better RCS than a rectangular intake? (Genuine question not statement.)
Increasing the size of the intakes and fuselage design would need the entire airframe to be redesigned even if the original shape is retained. Starting with simulations, wind tunnel testing, an extensive rewrite of flight laws, at least two new prototypes, possibly newer engines and/or larger control surfaces to cope with the larger and presumably heavier airframe. Also, just as importantly all the production infrastructure would have be altered and then recaliberated. Navalizing the EF would probably be a cheaper venture (and nobody is going down that rabbit hole).Victor wrote:The one on top has the bigger nose (by almost 2x). The intakes are larger and have been moved outwards a little to accomodate the larger-diameter forward fuselage. The "air scoop" shape of the forward fuselage is also retained. Note that only the forward fuselage is different--the rest of the plane is the same. Of course this is a very simplistic illustration and there will be other issues but in essence, this is it. In reality, Dassault (and HAL for that matter) would be able to come up with much better solutions than this.
Its not an equivalent comparison. For one the engine cannot be equal - the EF is a larger heavier jet. A 90kN M88 would correspond to a 110-120kN EJ-2x0.The Rafale is aerodynamically superior to the Typhoon, period. Everything else being equal (weapons, avionics, engine etc), it is hands down the better aircraft on the most basic level. It will surely have some commonalities with the M2K and that would lower its lifetime costs that include training, maintenance, spares, etc.
indranilroy wrote:^^^ Well I am yet to hear a case where pilots say I am going to shoot my missiles at 100 km away ... so I don't buy it.
Where does one usually hear such stuff? Besides, the Meteor is not yet operational while the latest AMRAAM variant is just entering service. Even the C7 variant is still available in relatively limited numbers. Sure but if you move ten degrees to the left at 20 paces, you'll move out of view. With a curving mirror on the other hand, you'll remain in view (albeit with an amusing distorted shape).indranilroy wrote:Viv if you have to plates at 90 degrees, no matter where you are you would have your radar signal reflected back. You can try it at any trial room with mirrors perpendicular to each other ... you will be able to see yourself at all times.
Sure but at the same time wouldn't a curving surface always reflect some energy back to you, while the perpendicular surface reflects it away at all but that one orientation?The second reason why curves are ok is that, on modern stealth planes, their radius is rarely constant. They never look like circles when seen from any angle, and no part of the surface is spherical or cylindrical: they always look like squashed ellipses blended together with hyperbolae and parabolae. What that means is, as the orientation of a curvy stealth airplane changes in relation to you as it flies around, the part of the curvy surface that is perpendicular to you RIGHT NOW will have a different radius of curvature than the part that was perpendicular to you one second ago. As the airplane flies, the part of the surface that is perpendicular to you changes. But since each point in the surface has a different local radius of curvature, the parts that are reflecting energy back at you keep changing their radius of curvature as the airplane moves. Why is this important? Because something with a small radius of curvature (something very curvy) reflects less radar back at you than something with a large radius of curvature (something flat).
That is true because you are also considering unreal images ... but radars don'tViv S wrote:Sure but if you move ten degrees to the left at 20 paces, you'll move out of view. With a curving mirror on the other hand, you'll remain in view (albeit with an amusing distorted shape).indranilroy wrote:Viv if you have to plates at 90 degrees, no matter where you are you would have your radar signal reflected back. You can try it at any trial room with mirrors perpendicular to each other ... you will be able to see yourself at all times.
That is true ...but I just told you how it is not constant with a moving plane can't be locked onto.Viv S wrote:Sure but at the same time wouldn't a curving surface always reflect some energy back to you, while the perpendicular surface reflects it away at all but that one orientation?indranilroy wrote:The second reason why curves are ok is that, on modern stealth planes, their radius is rarely constant. They never look like circles when seen from any angle, and no part of the surface is spherical or cylindrical: they always look like squashed ellipses blended together with hyperbolae and parabolae. What that means is, as the orientation of a curvy stealth airplane changes in relation to you as it flies around, the part of the curvy surface that is perpendicular to you RIGHT NOW will have a different radius of curvature than the part that was perpendicular to you one second ago. As the airplane flies, the part of the surface that is perpendicular to you changes. But since each point in the surface has a different local radius of curvature, the parts that are reflecting energy back at you keep changing their radius of curvature as the airplane moves. Why is this important? Because something with a small radius of curvature (something very curvy) reflects less radar back at you than something with a large radius of curvature (something flat).
I'd have to agree here - the little rafale is a beautiful piece of engineering - weighs no more than the a blk 52 F-16 and can carry almost 3X its body weight - I don't see too many fighters capable of this.Victor wrote:The Rafale is aerodynamically superior to the Typhoon, period. Everything else being equal (weapons, avionics, engine etc), it is hands down the better aircraft on the most basic level. It will surely have some commonalities with the M2K and that would lower its lifetime costs that include training, maintenance, spares, etc.
Well put - coupled with the Su-30s, the Rafale becomes a perfect complement - both, in a strike role as well as A2A - let the mighty Rambha with a far more powerful radar than the EF do the scanning, and let the little squall do the sniping. And then there are those other advantages such as commonalities in Supply chain and the possibility of next gen Rafales for the IN.indranilroy wrote:Anyways here I repeat again:
Suppose you send EFs with SUs ... The EFs don't have the legs ... but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link ... so the whole contingent will have to concentrate on missions which require legs only as long as that of EFs ... Rafale's won't handicap the Su-30s this way.
And imagine Su-30s using their huge radars to scan the huge horizons with its radar while Rafales go in silently with their superb A2G loads ... My question is Su-30 is alread a fab A2a machine, its compliment should be a superb A2G machine. At the moment there is no doubt which of the 2 competitors is the best A2G platform.
As to A2A prowess of EF vs the Rafale, the jury is very much out there ... actually, a bigger half believe that as of today Rafale do hold an edge . Only the RAF pilots (meekly) and EF brochures have ever contested this claim ... so we really don't know ... but we can say for certainty that closer to the ground and at lower speeds the Rafales are definitely better.
I have not followed most of the discussion, however, I think/feel that this selection has to be looked at from the FGFA AND the MCA as part of the equation. Remember that the FGFA (or the PAK-FA?) is more than likely or will join the party not much after the MMRCA. IF the FGFA becomes a part of the leg, then there is no need to take the MMRCA along - specially if it the EF.Anyways here I repeat again:
Suppose you send EFs with Us ... The EFs don't have the legs ... but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link ... so the whole contingent will have to concentrate on missions which require legs only as long as that of EFs ... Rafale's won't handicap the Su-30s this way.
This is exactly what we did with the Su-30MKI. It's similar to designing trainer vs single seat version--and you don't necessarily have to redesign the entire plane if you change the cockpit and nose area only although yes, structurally it is a different plane and will have different characteristics. Of course, if we don't want a bigger radar on the Rafale or don't have the money or time, the question is moot and this discussion pointless. My point is it can be done without any problem and will result in a much better plane (with larger engine of course).Viv S wrote:Increasing the size of the intakes and fuselage design would need the entire airframe to be redesigned even if the original shape is retained. Starting with simulations, wind tunnel testing, an extensive rewrite of flight laws, at least two new prototypes, possibly newer engines and/or larger control surfaces to cope with the larger and presumably heavier airframe.
Very little seems to be known about the technique except that Katrina's sprays out "perfume" (Radar counter signals) which mesmerises the hunter?This may not be the first French attempt to implement AC on the Rafale. At the Paris air show in 1997, I interviewed a senior engineer at what was then Dassault Electronique, about the Rafale's Spectra jamming system. He remarked that Spectra used "stealthy jamming modes that not only have a saturating effect, but make the aircraft invisible... There are some very specific techniques to obtain the signature of a real LO aircraft."
"You mean active cancellation?" I asked. The engineer suddenly looked like someone who deeply regretted what he had just said, and declined any further comment. (As Hobbes once put it after pouncing on an unsuspecting Calvin: "We tigers live for moments like that."*)
Sweetman goes on to explain that Moore’s Law of improved processing power may make the project more achievable now. MBDA and Thales have since confirmed that they are working on active cancellation for missiles as part of the Rafale’s SPECTRA defensive suite, and research in this area is underway in several other countries.
Very true sir.NRao wrote:I have not followed most of the discussion, however, I think/feel that this selection has to be looked at from the FGFA AND the MCA as part of the equation. Remember that the FGFA (or the PAK-FA?) is more than likely or will join the party not much after the MMRCA. IF the FGFA becomes a part of the leg, then there is no need to take the MMRCA along - specially if it the EF.Anyways here I repeat again:
Suppose you send EFs with Us ... The EFs don't have the legs ... but a chain is only as strong as its weakest link ... so the whole contingent will have to concentrate on missions which require legs only as long as that of EFs ... Rafale's won't handicap the Su-30s this way.
Not an expert but as far as I knowkmkraoind wrote:I have noob questions. They say that AMRAAM will not get a lock (non-US) on any NATO plane. If India chooses AMRAAM, will it be able to phyred upon F-16. I have a second question. Is it possible to lock multiple fighters and firing one single missile at the same time, deciding the final target at last moment. Because once we see a formation of aircrafts coming, fire one missile, lock on multiple targets with aircraft, so that every aircraft in the formation scramble for evasive maneuvers giving extra time for lone defender (is it just a software tweak or hardware thing or impossible to do that).
The MoD, Eurofighter and Dassault deny any meeting on Thursday. So unless it was top secret (can't be), this was some bad info. Oh well.
If 2 vendor denying any meeting including MoD, are we any how expecting a split here. IMO the more it take time it might shape it for a Bananaajay_hk wrote:Shiv Aroor on this his blog tweeted this..
The MoD, Eurofighter and Dassault deny any meeting on Thursday. So unless it was top secret (can't be), this was some bad info. Oh well.
GrandeStrategy sources suggest that the Eurofighter Typhoon may in fact be the winner of the long delayed Indian Medium Multi-Role Combat Aircraft (MMRCA) competition
They said wrong kmkraoind. The AMRAAM will not be "fixed" to not fire on US/NATO aircraft,, they will fire all right. But low caste users like India/Pakistan/Arab nations will be given downgraded missiles with weaker ECCM.kmkraoind wrote:I have noob questions. They say that AMRAAM will not get a lock (non-US) on any NATO plane. If India chooses AMRAAM, will it be able to phyred upon F-16. I have a second question. Is it possible to lock multiple fighters and firing one single missile at the same time, deciding the final target at last moment. Because once we see a formation of aircrafts coming, fire one missile, lock on multiple targets with aircraft, so that every aircraft in the formation scramble for evasive maneuvers giving extra time for lone defender (is it just a software tweak or hardware thing or impossible to do that).
Are you sure about this? If true this would be an very interesting development. Since we will not have a credible SSBN leg for a decade or more, we will be wholly reliant on the missile delivery systems with no fallback. Indian planners seem to have a lot more faith in the efficacy of their missile delivery system than I would have imagined.Singha wrote:I do not think air delivered gravity bomb is part of the triad from 2015 onward. we should have enough missiles to negate that role going fwd.
Just curious, so the SFC 40+ MKI fighters will be equipped with cruise missiles to deliver the nukes?Singha wrote:I do not think air delivered gravity bomb is part of the triad from 2015 onward. we should have enough missiles to negate that role going fwd.
your other q's are valid.