mrmalaya :

Bluewings, can you see that just because France has very laudably done it one way, it doesn’t mean that is the only way to understand and implement RCS reduction measures?

Can you see that?

Of course I can , I am not blind or stupid . To makes thing clear to everybody :
-1) I have never said that France was the first in Europe to explore the stealth concept .
-2) I have never said that France was alone in developping stealth technology .

Some posters tend to try to put words in my mouth , which is no good for the discussion we are having . When I post something , I am honest so don ‘t try to look beyond my words . If I am being sarcastic , I use this : 😀
Now , wrt the Lampyridae , the aircraft (or one of its possible followers) never made it and this is what I meant by “talking about real life” .
I wasn ‘t bashing anything or anyone , I was thinking about operational capabilities (like I always do) .
I am affraid that some here may see me as an “enemy” but I am not , as I said I am always honest but of course I can be wrong and I have been wrong on many occasions . What I like most on forums is to learn and to teach . Forums are made for , aren ‘t they ? 😎

Cheers .

EE :

I don’t recall Dassault designing a 1/1 scale model of a ‘manned’ Stealth aircraft like MBB (EADS) of Germany did with their Lampyridae or BAE Systems have with their Replica

Lol !! 😀 (sorry , :o)
C ‘Mon EE , let ‘s be serious shall we ? 🙂

What about the Neuron :

A real gem with a bright futur . Remind me , who did design those smooth stealthy curved surfaces ? 😎

Cheers .

Scorpion :

Dassault wan’t the sole European aerospace company to work on stealth technology at that time…

I know and I have never said otherwise . I am only saying that Dassault pushed the know-how further than anybody else in Europe .

And Typhoon’s design includes more RCS reduction features and its canards are in fact RAM treated on the leading edges, so you are wrong again .

I have read quite a bit on the Typhoon ‘s RCS reduction features , thank you .
So you say that the canards leading edges are coated with RAM ?
Let ‘s see :

All I can see is a very thin layer of an unidentified material . Too thin to be a wideband radar absorbant material (RAM) , maybe some kind of thin rubber .
Here is wideband RAM with sawtooth edges :

Now , regarding the possible RCS of the Typhoon , it is said (I quote) :

More recent comments from BAE seem to indicate the radar return is around four times less than the Tornado.

http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/structure.html

While some RCS work has been done from the Tornado GR1 to the GR4 :
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1996/1996%20-%202199.html

the Tornado ‘s RCS is around 10 square meter (twice the vanilla F-16) .
So , Typhoon ‘s RCS should be around 1 to 2 square meter , which is 10 to 20 times Rafale ‘s RCS .

Cheers .

Dazza :

Its a PR/Publicity shot

and a very bad one since such load is impossible in real life . To advert your toy , better put up something real …

Cheers .

Sorry for posting twice in the row but OPIT , you responded to 12F with :

The more stuff you add to make the “omnirole” concept unique, the more you look ridiculous because this concept is at least 30 years old, and thus not compatible with the recent bells and whistles you keep trying to link to it.

So , the “omnirole” concept is not unique ? Ok , give me an omnirole aircraft built to be omnirole from scratch other than the Rafale .
The SH ? No . The Typhoon ? No . The Gripen ? No .
The F-35 ? Yes . The T-50 ? Yes . The J-20 ? Probably .
So , where the original omnirole concept comes from ? France .
Who has an operational omnirole fighter ? France .
Is this capability still unique as I type ? Yes .

Also , the omnirole concept is a living and kicking concept , always on the move and not an idea born 30 years ago and stopped right away . So , the French bells and whistles are still part of it , OPIT .

Cheers .

Thank you 12F 🙂

I am affraid that some will never grasp the omnirole concept …

Cheers .

Just a couple of things …

Between the Rafale CO1 :

and the actual Rafale , there is no difference , none . Scorpion , when you say “the Rafale C01 prototype featured the intakes of the proposed stealthier variant” I think you are confusing .
The Rafale “D” (for discret) never existed as the technology was implemented directly on all Rafales (C , B , M) .
Furthermore , the data gathered during the electronic mapping of the aircraft (for SPECTRA) were with the CO1 and the M01 .

Scorpion :

The idea to add LEX to the Typhoon design is much older than you actually believe (…) The benefits are undeniable and Eurofighter should have opted for them in the first place

Thank you .

the Rafale A had no LEX itself, it was introduced on the real prototypes only

Indeed and it shows that Dassault knew what they were doing . Don ‘t forget that the Rafale A was vastly different from the actual Rafale . It was larger , longer , with a bigger wing surface , different air intakes , and a different nose . Basically , a different aircraft . The Rafale A was build to ease the jump from the M4000 to the real Rafale .
The Rafale A prototype had an airframe more AtoA orientated .

Cheers .

I must say that I have been a bit harsh yesterday .
Some of what I said is facts , some is only my personal opinion and I understand if some are in disagreement .

Nevertheless , the line I choosen to follow during my last posts holds water .

Anyway …
Nic :

Omine role just means that the Rafale replaces all the warplanes in the french air force and navy.

I disagree .
But I somehow agree with this from OPIT :

Even the Rafale cannot handle all roles in a single sortie for the simple fact that some roles are not compatible with each other, and there’s not enough room to carry everything needed to do so.

Obviously , an AtoA loaded Rafale can ‘t drop bombs :rolleyes:
So what means “omnirole” in Dassault ‘s mouth ? First , an aircraft can be “multirole” , swingrole” or “omnirole” , depending on 2 factors :
-1) the capability of the platform (clean) to fuse all the possible available informations into one big picture to be capable to undertake many actions at once depending on :
-2) the weaponry at hand .

Obviously , to archive an “omnirole” capability , the weaponry at hand must be capable to perform different task even if only one kind of AtoG weapon is carried . These tasks can be CAS (like in A-Stan) , Interdiction (like in Lybia) , SEAD (like in Lybia) . A weapon like the AASM fits the bill . So to say that the “omnirole” capability is not binded to the aircraft only but to the weapons it can use . “Omnirole” is a concept .

Wrt -1) (the capability of the platform) , some kind of ELINT is a must to allow the main computer to compute the best action to undertake at one moment in time , with regard to what the actual load is (keep that in mind , not all aircraft have this capability) . More infos you have , better the SA is . A flight of one Tornado ECR , one F-16 Blk52 and one M2000B will get fewer data on their own than a single Rafale , thanks to the sucking electron device called SPECTRA . The EM activity of the zone will be monitored and presented to the pilot as different priorities . A bit like in the M2000-9 with ICMS MkIII but with a simpler presentation .
Depending on the weaponry at hand , the aircraft can present to the pilot a possible course of action to get in a firing position (new NavPoints and/or autopilot) . The aircraft is not only warning the crew of the detected threats , it ‘s also proposing a possible course of action , mostly based from interferrometry readings . A Rafale is not an easy target since it can try to navigate in between the enemy EM “bubbles” , increasing its survivability and its ability to close in to firing range . “Penetration” is the word .

Very few aircraft can penetrate the enemy airspace like the Rafale can unless to be true VLO aircraft .
The Rafale is “discret” with regard to the airframe and “LO” with regard to what it can do with the help from the onboard systems .

It ‘s the best I can say .

Cheers .