Or, for example, suppose you approach the chinese border at high altitude and the Chinese aircrafts lock steadily on you. If you think they ‘re attempting a shot from 100 km on you and there is some cover (mountains), you can dive. This should suffice to break the lock (unless their radars can penetrate the Himalayas and the missile can avoid terrain and magically re-acquire target once beyond the mountain), climb back again when you are shorter range and shoot mica.

This is not too good of an idea imho. You really don’t want to get close to the flanker/fulcrum types. And thats exactly what the ADla pilots during Garuda (at istres) found against the Su-27MK that India had. You get them quick or forget it.
In either case, if the enemy can fire at you at a long distance and makes you jump for cover, he may have mission killed you anyway. That is the biggest advantage the flanker offers. It can shoot from far away and then either choose to further engage or if it does not look to good, disengage and later engage again. The flanker can do this thanks to its incredible endurance. Something like a Mirage -2000 (whatever block) or F-16 MLU or whatever will always be against the odds vs. a flanker that can fire from far away.

Even Sarh missiles fired at long distances could make it difficult. JMT

USS.

Does’nt the Mirage-2000 have a very capable datalink ala Gripen, which would allow for such silent attacks? So in a box formation for eg., one guy lights up the radar and another chap 50kms away gets the required targeting infor to fire a Mica. Would be nice to have such capability. The greater such versatility, the greater the options to evolve tactics imho.

The IAF may not need the MIca EM though – the upcoming Astra should do it for them. Also, can the Mica IIR be used as a HOBS missile slaved to the Topsight? I hear it is TVC equipped and will probly do well in a short range scenario. This could mean that the IAF may not require to purchase an Asraam type for the mirage either. Would be great if the Jags got the Mica IIR as well in the Darin III!

USS

Jack what do you mean by: “The results were entirely as you’d predict.”

The Rafale probly got toasted – BVR, AND probly WVR too! But so what? its not meant to compete against the F-22. I’d like to see the F-22 do all that a Rafale can – ain’t happening – the aircraft wasn’t designed to lug stuff around. Ahem, Rafale’s got the F-22 in looks as well – as long as it is intact that is 🙂

The Tiffy will probly end up fried as well, esp. BVR. WVR, it may fare slightly better.

USS.

😀

I’m not sure to what extent rounded intakes, for example would give the Rafale any kind of RCS reduction, I really don’t see much difference in the RCS of either, being decidedly angular is not necessarily something that will detract from RCS reduction either, after all the F-22 is all curves right?

The F-22 is a bit irrelevant to this discussion – it was designed as a VLO bird from the v.beginning. You are not saying that the Ef-2000 uses similar methods as the F-22 are you? If you notice, the raptor doesn’t have too many right angle faces.

AFAIK, rounded intakes do make some difference – iirc it was precisely this reason that the Tiffy now has smiley faced intakes – earlier they were supposedly straight. This reduces the right angles that cause RCS spikes.

Besides, I mentioned the bodywork of the Rafale, It’s rougher than a badgers ****.they have non flush rivet heads everywhere which will obviously cause radar return to increase when it bounces off them, they have that drogue for re-fueling, that’s not exactly condusive to RCS reduction is it.

Rivets will make a marginal difference to a semi-stealth type design such as the Rafale that hangs EFTs anyway. It will make a significant difference to a VLO birds though (f-22/B2 for instance).

As you say though, with meaningful loads I doubt it helps so much either way.

Indeed, although it’d be interestign to see how a lightly loaded Rafale with a couple of Mica IIRs would fare. My point was that Dassault did take some clear measures to emphasize the discreetness of the Rafale – again the Mica IIR / OSF combo, the passive location system in the Spectra and the toned down RBE 2 are indicators of this imho. How much difference it truly makes is anybody’s guess but I doubt the Adla/Dassault would invest so much into this if it were mostly pointless.

USS.

Ugly as hell but I like it. Better than the current shornet anyway! 😀

USS>

Looking discrete and having low RCS aren’t really connected. If there is much in the RCS I’d think the Typhoon has the edge, certainly when you look at some of the close ups of the Rafale’s bodywork, not clean at all. Also I’m reasonably certain that the Typhoon has a better instantaneous and sustained turn rate at superosnic velocities as well.

the rounded edges, intakes and sawtooth designs are a clear indication of what the Rafale means by discrete. Their decision to go with a low power RBE PESA also reflects their intent. No such measures with tiffy, which is decidedly angular. The ram on the leading edges can be done with any a/c, hardly anything noteworthy.

Another clear indication of the Ef-2000 RCS confusion is seen from their PR dept. First they didn’t talk much about it, but then (what with the rafale/F-18 showing such measures) they mention how it is most stealthy after the JSF, then (probly after being ridiculed aplenty), they say it is 1/10th of the f-15. now it is supposedly 25% of the tornado (with external weapons that is) and below 1msq clean. :rolleyes: Hardly inspires confidence.

Still, admittedly, once external weapons and tanks are used, it really doesn’t matter – a rammed up MiG-29M is hardly any different.

I greatly prefer the Rafales looks. I find the Typhoon the least visually attractive of the Eurocanards, though at least it’s better-looking than any F-18.

Agree completely. Rafale followed by the Gripen in a close second and then the tiffy – distinctly third. Still, it is certainly prettier than the F-16 or F-18. The F-15 too to some extent. The F-16 XL though is a looker.

USS.

Bottom line: a fanboy journo selectively quoting from pilots of the Rafale’s number one competitor. Takes some valid points and turns it into a hatchet job. Are we surprised?

Hmm, hate to say it but I’d have to agree. That article smells of sour grapes for sure. Poor taste really.

Not to say that the Ef might not be a more nimble bird – it probly is what with all that power. But I’d bet on the rafale at lower speeds and possibly turn rates at higher speeds as well. A fighter is more than acceleration, where the Tiffy should doubtless be excellent. But the Rafale does come across as a more complete aircraft – multirole for sure. RCS is another area where the Rafale scores, the reduction measures on the Tiffy seem more of an afterthought; on the Rafale, the emphasis on “discrete” shows.

And yes, the Rafale is a looker! That alone should be enough – 😀

JMT

USS.

F-15C – 12.7t (~30t MTOW)
Su-27 – 17.7t (~30t MTOW)
F-15 wing loading – 225kg/m^2
Su-27 wing loading – 285kg/m^2

Cola, I think the Flanker’s empty weight that you have is for the Su-30; it was a good bit heavier than the Air Superiority Su-27, which was indeed closer to 16 tons. Flankerman could confirm.

USS.