Redundancy is a ky for safety. I they were (F-35 engineers) so confident in stealth, would they have radar attack modes?
Err… to kill other planes which aren’t stealthy.
If you’re flying at 200ft it doesn’t matter whether you’re in a Rafale or an F-86. In fact the smaller F-86 might even be more difficult to hit.
A task force will generally be using AEW of some kind, which will spot a bomber or MiG-31 a long way off. And an F-35 with a Meteor won’t need to get very close to kill them. You also have the issue that the Kh-32 and Kh-47 are not unkillable and likely need some kind of OTH targeting system in place for a 1000km strike, which will likely involve satellites. These can also be shot down and/or jammed, as can the missile’s terminal homing radar.
Noone denies that VLO IS a big advantage for survivability. Simply for Raffale they assessed survivability with a diferent concept. Extremely sophisticated self defense suite and capability to fly 550Kts at 200 fts in automatic follow ground mode.
If they were that confidence in the self-defence suite, they wouldn’t fly an an altitude where it’s redundant.
The cockpit glass is slanted back massively. If the IRST were slanted back like that I doubt anyone would comment but it’s basically a baseball on the front of an aircraft claiming to have the RCS of a tennis ball.
Look UNDER F-35, see how many huge bumps there are, then compare to IRST. No comment.
Any shapes under the F-35 are stealthy shapes and covered in RAM, no so for an IRST and additionally, it’s smack-bang on the front of the aircraft.
[USER=”41059″]halloweene[/USER]
How do you know it is not an effective design? From what I have been told, a CSG can move freakin’ fast, actually much more than publicised… for a ship. That is, essentially motionless compared to a 10 or 15 M ballistic missile. Nevertheless, what is your point, that the RV will not find its target or something? How much distance can a CSG cover in 15 minutes? How do you hide a 300 m vessel and escort in the middle of the sea??
It would need a mid-course update from targeting satellites. They can be jammed or shot down.
From a European buyer’s perspective, the Gripen E seems to be a fighter that’s already out-of-date but not in service yet.
Yes and no, quotations will be done on existing versions, but you cannot help examiners to think about future.
Each party will promise the world for the future though. What’s now is known.
£105k per unit. Much cheaper than a tank but most guided weaponry is a waste on terrorists.
That is probably why there will be *Rafale 4.1 (2023) and 4.2 (2025) (first real fork in Rafale program), with funcions available as soon as 2022. Spectra antennas are already AESA. but in fact, they realized that tile architecture of modules was cheaper and already greatly improved signal treatment (co location).GaN modules were expected on F3R standard but will be available finally on Spectra 04T (on fourth tranche Rafale, F4.1). At least that is what i could deduceafter extensive talks with Thales people (not very talkative).
I would have thought they’d be extremely talkative about such progress. Maybe there silence indicates worries. Nevertheless F4.X is irrelevant to this competition.
Long wave antennas. do not need to be as precise as Xband.
Still not exactly a sure-fire working solution without a lot of testing and that doesn’t address the loading or cabling issue either. The other problems I see with a 360deg MFA is alerting aircraft on a 360deg sphere as to where you are if used in detection mode.
I agree, he should continue working in his special place in hell.:cool:
Once again the topic of this thread is the Swiss RFQ. I wonder why do we have to burden those discussions here for something that will not be available.
There is a Rafale thread for that.
Indeed. We can debate whether this will be complete by 2025 or 2035 but it will not be available for demonstration in the bid and will therefore be assessed with the same merit as the Captor-E in the 2008 RFQ, i.e. not.