Surprising, heh ?
It comes from modern AAM flight path.

I just re read what i wrote , my bad , i was mean to say max range missiles can fly in optimal condition ( high altitude launch , high speed launch , maximum vertical separation ..etc )

Did I say they don’t get any new advantages ? No. I even admitted a lower loss rate, so what ? Can’t you read simple english ?

No you said .

Stealth may enable a lower loss rate (or not)

if i say something like ” Rafale may enable lower loss rate than P-51 ( or not ) ” i bet you will argue with me too

Granted, so what ? Does that mean that flying low makes it impossible to hit the targets ?.

No , but flying low to strike ground target is not the smartest or safest way

Try this for a start
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/libya-plane-shot-french-fighter-jet-enforcing-no-fly-zone-article-1.118504

I really dont understand what your point ? the jet get shotdown

I think you are putting too much trust in computers sorting out return signal from ones own noise. At low level angle it is saturated with own returned signals. That is not the same at all than reading a return of own signal within alien noise . So horizon may be the same for both, but one emits strong clear signal that stands out while the other is in a background of messy returns while exposing its most advantageous cross section. Might be a short lived advantage, but it is there.

Xman , we have look down shot down radar since a long time ago , nowadays radar with GMTI can even distinguish moving tanks and infantry , CIWS shot down sea skimming missiles fine
the rafale moving at mach 1 will have significant doppler effect compared to a tank or infantry , sure clutter will reduce detection range , i didnt deny that but a Rafale carry AASM , looked from above or front will have very big RCS ( remember Rafale is not a low flying stealth missiles like SOM , NSM , JSOW or Storm Shadow ) , even with the range reduction due to clutter ground radar will have no trouble detecting rafale as soon as it pop up from horizon ( since you fly low , the horizon is only 40-50 km )

So horizon may be the same for both, but one emits strong clear signal that stands out while the other is in a background of messy returns while exposing its most advantageous cross section. Might be a short lived advantage, but it is there.

remember the clutter ? part of the wave from enemy’s radar that hit ground will also travel to rafale’s RWR , now Spectra will have to distinguish what is the return from enemy’s radar , what is the return from ground so it is not as easy as you thing

I was not talking about R-27ER. I said that, by your own definition of kinematic range, the MICA can reach a target far beyond its kinematic range.
So I meant your definition is flawed. No more, no less.

How come?

Those who spend money on stealth are pursuing another route to achieve the same goals. Stealth may enable a lower loss rate (or not),

So you think USA, Russia, UK, China, India, Japan, south Korea , Israel , Canada, Australia, Netherlands,Turkey, Italy government just spent billions USD on stealth just for fun? and stealth doesnt bring any new advantage?

but that doesn’t mean the goals cannot be reached by other means. So what’s your point ?

The point is Stealth is much safer than flying nap of the earth when you trying to strike deep inside enemy’s territory

Then MICA can reach a target far beyond its kinematic range, by your own definition.
That’s great ! 😀

i don’t understand what you mean? , the range of R-27ER in the manual is the effective range rather than maximum kinematic range

Considering you certainly do not have access to MICA data such as performance curves or specific impulse, I’m afraid you cannot make such statement. I’ve had enough of Carlo Kopp like statements on russian missiles range.

According to producer :
Mica range : 50 km
R-27ER range : 130 km

Physical size :
Mica :
weight :112 kg
length : 3.1 m
diameter :160 mm

R-27ER
weight : 253 kg
length : 4.08 m
diameter :230 mm

both of them only have rocket motor so it quite obvious that which one have better range

Please define kinematic range, because at first glance what you say doesn’t fit with reality.

kinematic range = basically maximum range missiles can fly on straight line

Impressive demonstration. So what works at sea won’t work on the ground ?

1- you can fly much lower at sea because you don’t have to avoid terrain
2- on the route to target at sea you dont have to face low level threat like shoulder SAM, Anti air gun, mobile short range SAM, enemy’s CAS aircraft .. etc

Do you really think there are radars on every mountain and that ground clutter is inexistant ?

Not every mountain have radar but putting air defence radar on mountain is very common
And yes, ground clutter exist and it does reduce enemy’s radar detection range, but it won’t make your fighter invisible , especially since Rafale will have quite big RCS viewed from above
anti ship missiles are a lot smaller, have smaller RCS and also fly lower, and they can still be shot down

Flying low makes sense, and that was demonstrated more than once.

and they always have much higher lost compare to high flying aircraft

For fneb’s sake, shoulder fired sams are useless in the case of deep penetration missions. They’re useful against CAS planes & such, but when an aircraft hugs the earth at 600 kts along carefully chosen penetration routes, they become much less relevant if there is no prior warnings.
Do you think that some dudes are pointing shoulder lauched sams up in the air h24 or something?

Shoulder SAM are just one of low level threat, there are also many mobile short range SAM that equipped with optical sensor that can be serious threat. For example :Pantsir-S1, AN/TWQ-1 Avenger, M163 VADS, SA-13 Strela-10M3 , SA-8 Geko…. etc
Not to mention the huge amount of AA Gun that pointed to the air all the time, AA gun can be serious threat to low flying aircraft , For example in Vietnam war, about 2000 aircraft was shot down, only 200-300 hundred was shot down by SAM and enemy’s aircraft. the rest is victim of enemy’s AA cannon

You just don’t get it do you? You rely on offboard sensors in such situations. Why do you think the Rafale is getting SATCOM in next update? Do you think they always operate alone?

Nic

at the start of this discussion we was talking about situation when you dont have support from third party like AWACS, ground radar. For example when you are inside enemy’s territory ( hence we talking about SAM)
and mission planning by satellite’s pictures are not the perfect solution either since modern SAM like Buk, Tor-m1, Pastri-s1, S-400 can all change their position within 5-15 minutes
p/s : if you pay attention, the original discussion was about whether Rafale should turn it’s radar off and totally rely on passive sensor or using it’s radar once in a while for better SA