Lee Begin suggested that Rafale showed elements of stealth in its configuration back in the early 80s.

I would be VERY reluctant to say Irbis is better than CAPTOR, let alone CAESAR (or whetever the CAPTOR AESA ends up being called).

Irbis is a prototype. We have been given a single performance figure,400km detection for a 3 sq m target. We don’t know the % chance of detection for that range.

In a set of tests of the British AI Mk 23 radar for the Lightning in the mid 1950s, detection range against a head on Canberra target ranged from 12 nm (100% chance of detection) to 23nm (20% chance of detection) with some pickups exceeding 25nm. Was the range of that radar 12nm? 23nm? Either could be quoted with some justification.

We also don’t know the relative ECCM features of Irbis and CAPTOR. We don’t know their relative performance in clutter, in tailchase engagements, etc.

The Soviet Union and now Russia haven’t produced a radar fully equivalent to the Blue Vixen to date (Zhuk isn’t really in the same league), which is CAPTOR’s ancestor.

I’m not sure that you can tell the relative RCS of Typhoon and Rafale simply by looking at them.

Neither are stealth designs. Both incorporate some measure of signature reduction. Both have questionable features from a low-RCS standpoint.

Did you try reading what I posted?

RBE2 uses a fixed planar array behind two lenses. Therefore, by definition, it can’t have smaller sidelobes than a planar array antenna.

In general, passive phased array radars have higher sidelobes than well designed planar arrays. I’m sure there are exceptions, but thats one reason why the US avoided passive phased array radars.

AESA is a whole different ballgame.

I believe it went to Cranfield to be used as an instructional aid.

The concept of the Gyron engine was quite sound. Frank Halford deliberately chose a lowish pressure ratio, as it allowed the use of less exotic materials in the construction and made the design rugged, cheap to build and maintain, typical virtues of De Havilland engines. He realised that, for high altitude Mach 2.0 flight, the intake would be greatly adding to the compression of the engine and allow large thrusts to be generated by a relatively simple design. Its not a dissimilar approach to the R-15 engine of the MiG-25, or the Atar engine of the Mirage III. The Olympus got greater fuel efficiency though its higher compression ratio, but its performance above Mach 2 would have been hindered by turbine entry temperature limitations.

Hawker believed that the P.1121 prototype with the Gyron would be able to exceed Mach 2.5 for short periods, perhaps even going as high as Mach 2.7.

A production P.1121 would probably have used an Olympus engine for good all-round performance, sacrificing the very high speed capability for more range and performance at lower levels, or a Conway with reheat if strike had become the primary mission.

Probably, for production machines, but the prototype was going to use Gyron.

There’s an article on the Gyron here:

http://www.flightglobal.com/PDFArchive/View/1957/1957%20-%201073.html?search=gyron

includes a cutaway and some info. It was intended for various supersonic projects including F155T designs and the P.1121 prototype.

I have more info including pics of the prototype engine from the DeHavilland Heritage Centre. Research for my P.1103/P.1121 book 😀

P.S, I think you mean Tony Buttler’s British Secret Projects: Jet Fighters…

I think there’s little doubt that the Soviets got some of the F-14’s that Iran had. I’ve even seen pcitures of some F-14’s flying in Soviet paint

Abitnutz, you have the most appropriate name imaginable.