Oh come on, as soon as the Scud clears whaterver valley, ditch or whatever the plume will be detected just the same. Soon, ISR assets will swarm the area, find the entrances and target them for destruction.

Sounds like a perfect SAM trap.

No wonder your friend doesn’t want to wear them !

The Silent B-29

Start with this :

Replace most of the metal skin with composites and RAM. Blend the wings with the body. Remove the vertical surfaces. Replace the old prop engines which are huge radar reflectors with turbofans, more efficient and hidden inside the wing with trailing edge exhausts.
A few more minor adjustments, mostly dealing with electronics.
End result should look like this :

Spectra rucks because it’s made in Russia? (sorry I could not resist…)

And France is paying the Russians in empty Mistral hulls 😀

You know, come to think of it- if Spectra is designed or manufactured in the US, then that may explain why they are looking at doing active cancellation as a separate subsystem in their F4+ stealth demonstrator. The active cancellation technology was researched in France by MBDA, but I thought it was Thales doing the work on the demonstrator. :confused:

Or, more likely, Airframer is wrong. I’m not denying there could be US-made components in Rafale’s systems, just as there are French components in US planes. The aircraft industry is a globalized one.
But to think that SPECTRA, one of Rafale’s core and most sensitive subsystems, could be designed, tested, and assembled by Americans (or Russias/Chinese/Klingons) is simply ridiculous. It’s even more ridiculous when all the past evidence (such as production facilities and involved personnel) point to French design. You have to be a master of pickin’-&-choosing to reach such a conclusion because of one summary mention on one site.

And as to the AESA thing and the Swedes : Thales was initially involved in designing the Gripen NG’s next radar, namely an AESA one. That’s what it’s all about – Gripen’s radar, not Rafale’s. The Swedes were to integrate a Thales active antenna to their own backend. This is the only thing that remotely makes sense, not some preposterous notion that the Swedes are doing the Rafale’s RBE2 AESA work.

like the optics osf system that are made by thales uk or the parts of spectra that are made by thales USA ?

i guess you want links ?
the thales usa is linked on key
i’ll have to google thales optics uk to find what i read

And don’t forget the part about Stark Enterprise’s involvement in the AASM, will you. :rolleyes:

Can you explain us the physical phenomenon that prevent the RBE2 AESA to use air/air and air/ground functions ?

Because perhaps you missed the point of having an electronic array, to be able to use your radar for air/air and air/ground at any moment.

And interleaving AA and AG modes was something the RBE2 PESA was doing already (for eg. terrain following and air search). If the RBE2 AESA is, as JJ insists, a simple matter of dropping an active antenna on the “old RBE2 backend” why would that change suddenly ?
The logical meaning of Silvy’s quote amounts to the UAE wanting even more interleaving modes (probably having to do with adding GMTI-GMTT) than the RBE2 already has. Not “hurr hurr the RBE2 doesn’t have any mode interleaving, durr hurr !”