You are correct. This was to replace the boundary layer suction device (that mesh thing in front of the intakes visible on the prototypes) with a DSI bump, in order to keep boundary layer air out of the intake. This would have helped greatly with maintenance and weight. It probably would have helped with stealth too (and that likely came into consideration), but as you say, we cannot tell if the fan blades are still slightly visible from some angles. Too bad this didn’t enter production. It would have been a gorgeous aircraft. 🙂

The way I see it is- NG clearly went through the trouble of designing a complex inlet boundary layer suction device. They wouldn’t have done this if they only intended it to be used on a prototype. So at the time of the design of the prototype this would have been close to what they planned for a final design. However, when NASA and the USAF started doing research on DSI’s they probably realized this would be a simpler, cheaper, lighter, and more easily maintainable solution while still providing good performance.

i dont know if it would have met the same fate, but boeing had spiral hardware upgrades as opposed to LM’s fixed blocks and we know how that turned out
my guess is there would be a lot more than there is now, thankfully the f-35 has gone with spiral

again, i’ll give the example of the PAK-FA prototype that has visible fans now, but wont when in production
i dont know why this is so hard, other than you want to hang onto it like a dog with a bone to minimise rafales basic mistake if they had truly considered low rcs a priority in the production design or the fact that it wasnt a primary motive
i’m going with the latter as there are many other examples of non priority

Discussing 1on1 situation is pointless. Aircrafts aren’t flying alone, but at least in pairs.
In 2on2 situation one of the Raptors could be an ‘eye’ – using radar to track Rafales and distracting attention from another one – ‘shooter’. So, the shooter will fly silently, and might use high speed (supercruise) and altitude advantage to circle around Rafales and place himself on the best position to fire AMRAAMs.

ahh the reality of its, systems, systems, systems, systems, then platforms
you seem to forget we are all plebs here and its obvious even in 1 vs 1 there are problems
i dont think anyone here has the ability to think in full deployment of battlespace platforms
once we can agree on 1 vs 1 in a clear sky, then we can move on to the next step
it shouldnt be long i can ‘almost’ see agreement around the corner 😀

😀

Ok… I’ll do it ONCE, just for the fun (it’s not going to last) :
You said :

Then, I asked you :

The answer was : “I would turn the active part of the system off, since the passive would not reveal anything. The active part of the system, also called “jammers”, however, would reveal some top secret knowledge, which might have compromised our nuclear deterrence…”

Where’s my bias ?
I just wanted you to realize that Spectra is not a single piece, but is made of several components (sensors + jammers).

Since all the parts of Spectra obviously weren’t “off”, then, the RWR was probably looking for EM radiations…
You said :

How would a RWR/ESM/MAW/MLD detect a missile launch ?
1) IF the enemy radar is recognized as tracking us as a target ;
2) IF the MLD or MAW detects the heat of the missile or it’s EM signature ;
3) IF the missile turn on its homing radar.

So, I asked you 3 questions :

Answer : the APG-77 was not emitting, and because AN/ALR-94 is passive, then, Spectra couldn’t detect anything suspicious before lauch.

Answer : Rafale missile detectors looks for missile’s exhaust plume. Since it was an exercize, their were no actual missile shot, thus, Rafale missile detector couldn’t detect a single actual missiles.

Answer : There was no missile at all !

Where’s my bias ?

you said :

Yes… Amraam C has a greater range than a Mica IR, provided the F-22’s sensors can detect and track the Rafale far enough…
So I asked you a question :

Answer : We don’t know ! MAYBE it’s enough to launch Amraam at its full range, MAYBE it’s not enough to exceed the Mica IR’s range. But what’s the problem ? In this scenario, F-22 still was the first to “see”, and the Rafale have to look in the right direction…

So, tell me where i’m wrong, because I’m quite sure who’s using common sens, here, and who’s not !

If Spectra was “ON” ? LoL Remember Spectra is a passive sensors suit, looking for EM emissions emitted by other aircraft/SAM/etc. F-22 was using a PASSIVE (not emitting) system. You wrote it !

My claim ? You are the one who said that Spectra didn’t detect the missile launch (which is true for OBVIOUS reasons). What was your point ?

I agree… Where did I deny that the missile hit ?

Sorry ? Ah ! I understand. This is what we call, in French, “un procès d’intention”. You accuse the evil French of claiming something they didn’t (or… where ?).

I wasn’t discussing about this. Only about Rafale vs F-22 in BVR at ATLC according to the more accurate rumors we had about something which is not supposed to have happened.

Again, “procès d’intention”. You’re putting thoughts into my mind.
I think that statistically, it will prove. But I also think that it won’t always be black OR white.
Gun dogfights have proved the F-22 pilots they have to keep very careful against some potential threats.
There is nothing to conclude about the BVR engagement.
I’m not sure F-22 is as good as Rafale in all A2G missions.

However, if France had to money, be sure I’d be very happy we had our own F-22 which to me is the ultimate fighter.

I’m not sure F-22 pilots are as over confident as you are. I believe they are much humbler, open minded, and caring about how using their aircraft as carefully as required against every possible threat.

I know, thanks.

yes jessmo thought that a sim missile launch would be detectable and flawed his argument, not that unusual, we have seen others think the same

confusion over ‘spectra’ he is no orphan there from pro and anti which is why i like to talk about the relevant individual sensors involved in the point
most of your answer i agree with, but there is a couple of points

: “I would turn the active part of the system off, since the passive would not reveal anything. The active part of the system, also called “jammers”, however, would reveal some top secret knowledge, which might have compromised our nuclear deterrence…” quote

i think you will find the rafale uses its jammers in training mode as all forces do, its not an on or off
there is an example on this page in greece on that

quote
Answer : the APG-77 was not emitting

other than the french who didnt detect it, who else said the f-22 wast using its radar ?
it also has a dogfight mode in it, why would the f-22 limit its self unnecessarily

with all fighters, there are training modes and there are war modes
its pointless to do training if you have to turn off half your sensors other than for a specific mission purpose

thats ok
for an exercise, would you like to compare the fa-18sh integration and SA with the rafale, we can do

tootcool
try and keep up, #70
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showpost.php?p=1580338&postcount=70

what makes you think the f-22 didnt light up the rafale during the 2-3 week dubi exercises
i havent seen anything to indicate spectra is more advanced than some other 4.5 gen
i wont compare it to 5th gen
we will have to wait till 2020 for the spectra 5t? to see what its like

You should be able to answer all points. That is a whole. Take your time…I will only be back latter this evening.
For once it will force you to elaborate and not answering with very short sentences.
regards.

the bigger the claim, the bigger the standard of proof required
as these are your supported claims, its up to you to provide validation
but ok, lets start with this
“In real life you often need to ID an aircraft due to the restrictive ROE. That is something wchich the F22 is unable to do unless having a visual contact. Conversly rafale OSF allows for positive ID from much greater distance.
Without radar emmissions to look for, an hostile cannot be ID for sure. The rafale can ID un unknozn plot at distance around 40Km thanks to the FSO and see if the aircraft is armed or not, from which country it belongs etc…In terms of Situational awarness it is much better and safer. ” quote

so the rafale can TVC ID on a clear day, no night engagements, cloud or just the dirt thrown up into the atmosphere that goes with strike missions on a country, it caused a lot of problems in iraq, unless you want to claim 40k ID for the obsolete osf ir function
if a f-22 can make you turn your radar off, it has already won 1/2 the battle

http://www.janes.com/articles/Janes-Avionics/AN-APG-77-multimode-radar-United-States.html
Designed from the outset for operation in dense RF environments, the APG-77 is reported as having a maximum range in excess of 180 nmile against a fighter-sized target
In addition to the normal Search, Track-While Scan (TWS), Multiple Target Track and Dogfight modes, the radar incorporates an ultra-high resolution target recognition mode, offering centimetric resolution at the extremes of its range envelope. Returns generated by the ultra-high resolution mode are matched to an onboard library to facilitate Non-Co-operative…
“non-cooperative target recognition (NCTR)”
what do agree and disagree with in the above

Bager1968 aa1 is going to be blown apart bit by bit, it has flown its last flight, may it rest in peace, just a shame it didnt go to a museum and aa2 was blown up