I wonder how effective the rafale would be using a pointer shooter tactic. The pointer could have only 2 wingtip MICAs and nothing else to keep the RCS and drag as low as possible, and the wingman would carry a full load of meteors and tanks. A pair of rafales would be able to carry about 10 missiles. The pointer would be light so would rely on its maneuvrability and speed to escape after it has guided the meteors launched by the other. It wouldn’t need to use its AB much so it would be harder to detect by the enemy FLIR.
Rafale isn’t stealthy with or without the tanks and missiles.
You have been writing nothing but unsupported crap from the day you came to this forum, lukos..
Such as?

larger does not mean fatter. its a sleek efficient design. F-35 is as draggier as F-15/F-22.
You forget about the drag reference area.
Additionally, although I don’t have hard knowledge, I doubt if it was fired on all that often (“…up to 1000 SAMs”) although tracking and lockup attempts may have occurred more than a few times. I personally know of only one actually observed shot (by the crew)…a North Korean shot that missed by a wide margin. There may have been a few more, but anywhere near the 1000 number is probably overstated.
It didn’t miss by that much at all, the crew saw it fly straight by the cockpit. The SA-2 however, was known to have a dodgy proximity fuse from Vietnam War testimony and it didn’t go off.
Of course they could detect and track the SR-71. The aircraft’s stealth features were intended to help reduce detection range, making an engagement more difficult to set up. But I question whether establishing track data with combat-type radars and under differing presentation conditions whould have given more than ‘ballpark’ estimates of RCS at a few specific frequencies and a limited range of angles.
Well I don’t know about getting the RCS from a track but I think at least one of the SAM misses was down to known issues with that SAM rather than anything about the aircraft.
I guess you misunderstood.. I am not looking at finding out their true identity rather than point out what stupid, dumb and laughable reasoning is being used by some to promote the F-35. And those same clowns will then demand pages of evidence for every line one writes..
Well if you quit writing unsupported crap, you could change all that. The power is in your hands.
Engagement at range.
It’s definitely true that several radars were able to track the SR-71. An SA-2 was guided towards it above the Korean DMZ, but fortunately the proximity fuse didn’t work and it flew straight past, which was also something noticed by subsonic fighters during the Vietnam War.
I hope its range is a lot greater than 5,500ft.:very_drunk:
Indeed … and the US don’t spy, the UK, France, Israel and Russia …
There’s spying to find out what an enemy is doing and gain the upper hand, then there’s spying just to duplicate something. But I guess imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Just to point out that AIR International clearly states that the F-22 does indeed have ‘active decoys’.
Because no one else do that?
Well if you want full credit for something, it’s a little difficult when you’ve been hacking and spying. Only recently they were caught trying to steal F135 engine design information.
If you were the first then nobody can accuse you of copying.
OMG … we are indeed back in the Kindergarten !
Why do they need to use espionage then?
Probably wouldn’t be too difficult to copy a 1970s missile today.