SOCLower WING SWEP and Lower Canard swep! Not lower wing! And I forget the Rafale Tail has the smaller swep.
Has anybody pointed out that at fighter combat ranges, the differences in wing sweep are nowhere near the head-on RCS impactors that you are purposely making them out to be?
SOCSame role. Theatre nuclear strike during WWIII.
I’d think that the MiG-27s and Su-24s would have been dropping the nukes. The BACKFIRE was probably going to have one role in life: find carrier, kill carrier, and maybe kill other floaty bits in the area as well. It could perform other tasks, but that one was where it was probably going to be the most effective. Disregarding the hilarious argument over the supposed intercontinental range of the jet, it was highly regarded as a serious naval threat system.
If you needed to launch a large awkward component there was no need to send up the Buran, just put the component on the back of the Energyia in an aerodynamic fairing and you can launch an object weighing up to 130 tons into low Earth orbit.
…which is what they did with Polius Skif, albeit without an aerodynamic fairing IIRC.
SOCFound a KS-1A site in Google Earth, decided to write about it:
http://geimint.blogspot.com/2007/12/ks-1a-sam-system-site-analysis.html
SOCI see a lower wing and canard swep, that all not really good for a low RCS!:diablo:
Ever heard of TACIT BLUE? It had straight wings and all-around LO… And of course the B-2A also has a much smaller sweep angle, so it must be a bigger RCS target than the EF-2000, right?
:rolleyes:
SOCThat’s Podvig’s blog, an excellent site, but it doesn’t always have a lot of the hard numbers. He does do a most excellent job covering current events regarding Russias strategic forces, however.
SOCVenezuelan Su-30MK Flanker-C
Su-30MK2 FLANKER-G 😉
SOCRS-24 is essentially a MIRV’ed Topol-M.
Topol-M and Topol are both silo and TEL based.
Podvig’s book is a pretty definitive work on the overall subject. For up-to-date info I’d recommend a Jane’s online account, giving access to Jane’s Strategic Weapons Systems.
Pesho also posted a copy of Russia’s Arms Catalog Volume IV: Strategic Missile Forces, which has a lot of information as well, but it is a 1997 edition.
Lastly, try NASIC’s Ballistic And Cruise Missile Threat 2006, an unclassified publication available on the web.
SOCI know why you are saying so 😉 , but believe me criticism or no criticism(about Indian projects) it isnt a problem with us.
You misunderstand I think…it has nothing to do with any topic, but with the fact that according to some people I should not be allowed to participate in discussions because I am a moderator. This doesn’t apply to all of us mods, just to me. So as I said, it’s not what I say, it’s the fact that I say it in the first place.
Last I heard it was mid 2008.Will look for updates.
That’s the one I could see being axed the easiest. With the MiG-29K already on the books, a larger order could replace the LCA-N.
SOCSOC
How old is a F-117 and how old is a Rafale and the sawtooth is only used on the F-117 canopy.
There are sawteeth all over the F-117, as well as the B-2 and F-22A. If it works, it works.
Baffels limit your max speed and you forget Frenzl’s Area Rule and Wolfgang Haack’s Supersonic Area Rule. You can’t insert baffels in a straight intake duct without produce excessive wavedrag.
Then how did Boeing make it work on the X-32…
We see, you overlook the canopy treatment.
Which I admitted was my error, so what is your problem?
You have also not only an inbuild “eyemeter”, but even the X-ray view!
No, but you can see the reprofiled external wing-body junction, the reshaped forward fuselage, and the sawtooth fairings!
SOCNobody is getting offended when facts are being discussed[as long as they are mature adults]
It wasn’t what I was saying that was the problem, it was that I was saying it in the first place.
About the LCA , I would advise to wait for sometime before coming to any conclusions.There have been many such occasions in the last 10 years[quite a few] where LCA has been written off citing this or that reason starting from “the design will not go beyond the drawing board” but everytime they have been proven wrong.
When does the NLCA fly, by the way? I asked someone a month or so ago and got no response.
SOCApologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:
Well I was trying to avoid this argument, but I can’t resist a decent debate 😀
First, Sintra, my comments directed at the Eurofighter’s non-LO features weren’t intended as a comparison of it to another platform. You are spot on in some of your assertions that a lot of those features are also found on the Su-35BM and the Rafale! The gold-coated EF-2000 canopy: I found that referenced after I made my post, you are correct there as well.
The Super Hornet HAS S shaped intake design
Yes, but that wasn’t my point. It also has radar baffles like the X-32 did, which can be applied to the Su-35 to hide the engine compressor faces as well. That was my point in directing you towards the X-32 and Super Hornet!
trying to compare the two of them by that famous technology “the eyemeter” his a very good way of getting the wrong result.
Yup. I already said that. Knowing what to “look for” wasn’t meant to be taken completely literally.
Then you are an amateur?
I didn’t get paid Friday? :confused:
I already addressed the error regarding the canopy treatment above.
And again, those comments were not made as a comparison, they were comments directed solely at the EF-2000 design on its own. I could find just as many on the Rafale design if I chose to list them!
If the Rafale so good. Why not sell them?!
Politics and financing. If the EF-2000 is that good, why isn’t it being bought by Singapore or South Korea?
Why need the Rafale this “re-entrant triangles patchwork”?
Have you ever seen the canopy of the F-117? Or the serrations on the doors and panels of the F-22A or F-117? Same concept, and not “patchwork”.
SOCNo apologies for this one: leave the 1600’s and colonial Africa out of it. That is WAY off the course of the CFE and Russian-NATO relations!
We now return you to your regularly scheduled postings 😀
SOCApologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:
RAAF Aardvarks (Ozvarks?) do carry AGM-84s. And I believe the Tu-22M did perform some bombing runs in Afghanistan, but I don’t think they were at low-level.
SOCApologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:
I’m not sure that you can tell the relative RCS of Typhoon and Rafale simply by looking at them.
As a general rule, no. But as a professional who knows what to look for, the Rafale has had more LO attention paid to it than the EF-2000. That’ll be it from me on this topic in this thread, I’ve nearly driven it right off topic completely as it is.
SOCApologies if my commenting offends or irritates anyone, but:
Doug Richerdson “Stealth Warplanes” p.113
Regarding to Eurofigter : Several factors help minimise RCS.
It,s a small aircraft, and much of its profile is rounded. The mean
straigt areas, such as the wing, canard and fin leading edges, are
highly swept, so will reflect radar energy well away from the front
sector. Extensiv use in low electrical conductivity CFK, this suppresse
traveling waves. The electrical conductivity of CFK is low.
Therfore Radar energy arriving a CFK structure has a hard job setting up
the electrical an magnetic currents which reradiate the energy.
The most obivious is the “smiling air intake” and hiden first compressor
stage. This has less drag and less RCS. Some external weapons are
mounted semi-recessed into the aircraft, partially shielding these
missiles from incoming radar waves. No tail and higher sweep angle as the Su-35, what is stealthier?
Where the EF-2000 demonstrates a lack of low-RCS design, off the top of my head:
-trailing edge control surfaces hinged at 90 degrees to the centerline
-single, large vertical tail
-apparently untreated canopy
-vertical intake lips placed at 90 degrees to the centerline
-corner reflector created in the intake at the lower left and lower right corner
SU-35 and Rafale has no semi-recessed weaponstations.
The EF-2000 constantly uses pylon-mounted stores as well, particularly the AIM-9.
SU-35 no S-Intake.
Irrelevant, research the Super Hornet and X-32’s intake designs.
The always inclined Rafale Canards (short coupled) are not really good for a low RCS. Doug Richerdson write that the Typhoon has the better RCS.
EF-2000 has canards that are angled as well, but that actually helps the RCS from some aspects. Not sure what you’re going for there. And I’d disagree with Richardson. That book is relatively old (I have a copy as well) as well and may be inaccurate as a result.
MAC Rafale -5% MAC Typhoon = -35%
Therefore is the supersonic drag lower by the Thyphoon and the Typhoon is agiler. Bleed lesser energy in turning.
Thyphoon long symetric lever arm arrangement (flaperons and canards for pitch control), therfore no downforce and lower AoA at turning —> bleed less energy in turning.
Better agility does not necessarily mean you have a better aircraft.
Sign In
