I have the highest possible faith on the French ‘s choppers pilots (and choppers) to make a decisive move towards kadafhi ‘s fall .
I also have the same faith about British ‘s choppers pilots .

We are going to hammer them :diablo:

Cheers .

Mildave :

@ Bluewings : I would be interested in reading your sources with the different range for the radars.

My sources are everyone ‘s sources , they are on the Net and known (I also get some weird stuff from military friends as well) .
Mildave , you too you can be a “Détective privé” and gather all the infos you NEED to find to close a case .
Look for everything , Ratheon , Thalès , Dassault , Boeing , Lockmart , PDFs , pilot reports , studies , military blogs , Tiger Meet , Red Flag , Garuda , MMRCA , Singapore , Korea , Switzerland , etc …
Then , cross your findings , check them and re-check them with other sources .
All of this to say that I post links and papers to make ONE point .
What you ask would take ages and dozens of links if not more 😮

I am not dodging your question Sir , I just don ‘t have the will to re-start from the begining , sorry .

Cheers .

paralay , if you put any faith in the diagram you posted , I pity you .

I ask again , where it comes from ?

Cheers .

mrmalaya :

so we are back on the active cancellation thing again are we? effectively saying “i have evidence that its been worked on but i can’t show you”.

I do have the document .

Add this to the idea that Rafale operates under different rules of physics with regard to radar reflection

Where did you get that silly idea ? :confused:
I quote :

Another method is to use a compact , smoothly blended external geometry to archive a continuously varying curvature . Most conventional aircraft have constant-radius curves for simplifying the design and manufacturing processes . However , a constant curve is an isotropic scatterer . It reflects energy equally in all directions .

A varying curvature is similar to a sea-shell helix . The curves have an ever-changing circle radius , as though they are sections of a spiral rather than arcs of a circle , and thus do not reflect energy in the usual predictable way . Rather , they tend to absorb the energy as it scatters towards the interior of the curve itself . This carefull shaping technique can be observe in the overwing engine nacelles of the B-2 , as well as the basic fuselage cross-section of the Rafale .

(intake shaping and vertical surfaces are not big issues for RCS on Rafale am i correct?)

Yes , you are correct .

Mig :

What it looks like is that while MBDA/Dassault are working on it, they haven’t gotten it to work on an aircraft. So Rafale it seems, categorically doesn’t have active cancellation .

How can you be so sure Mig ? The document I have is dated from 2002 , 9 years ago . Since , I bet my pants that some progress have been made . I also note that the work done by Dassault and Thalès is still going because it is vital for futur conformal AESA arrays . I ‘ll come back on this later on .
Just to add another good bit , Dassault ~at one moment in time~ though about replacing the RBE2 by a powerfull Optronic system , leaving the AESA conformal array spread on the aircraft doing the radar work on a 360deg bubble .
I do not know if the idea is still on the table but if Dassault decides to make a VLO Rafale , it does make sense since an optronic system is undetectable because passif and also unjammable .

And for all the modelling that Dasault can do, they are hitting up against a wall of knowing how the aircraft will react in several physical domains to every conceivable manouvere at every velocity and altitude, And then trying to put enough real time processing power onboard the aircraft to be able to near instantaneously change it’s signal output based on thousands of changes in the airframe.

You greatly underestimate the modelling process Mig . Everything is based on it in fact .
Around 2000-2002 , Dassault created a software called “Spectre” (with a E in the end and not a A) who is taking care of the entire modelling :

The DASSAULT AVIATION developed computation code SPECTRE gathers numerical and asymptotical electromagnetic computation methods. The numerical methods use finite-element field modeling. The latter offer great accuracy and robustness for computations on complex structures composed of different dielectric materials which may be prone to attenuation losses. These methods are, however, limited by the size of the matrix problems that can be handled by the processors. On current computers, it is challenging to conduct numerical method computations on the whole aircraft that exceed the Giga Hertz range.
Asymptotical methods are the numerical methods’ natural complement to conduct higher frequency computations. These methods describe the electromagnetic field propagation along the ray traces, by use of analytical reference solutions

That was back in 2001 . Today , Dassault ‘s computer arrays and the Spectre software are fully capable to model the fighter ‘s RCS during manoeuvers .
Sure , the result is a huge databank but since only the main “spikes” are treated (ECM) , the real time work done by SPECTRA is not as big as some are thinking .

Mig :

Bluewings solution, a perfectly rigid airplane is useless, if not impossible to build for obvious reasons – it’ll tear itself apart.

You didn ‘t understand what I said . Of course a “rigid” aircraft is impossible to make . What I said is that active cancellation would be far easier to implement if the aircraft was rigid , that ‘s all , which is indeed impossible .

And how does he conflate the curvature of the B2 with that of the Rafale?

Because the same techiques and maths have been used , as I posted above . Ero senin is right when he writes :

To faster the process of analizing and processing the input signal, I have always believed that the data libray was a key factor. Be it for RWR, Passive detection or active cancellation.
Knowing what the input are supose to be is a huge advantage when processing time is key.
Further more, the consensus i’ve heard about the AC cancellation and Rafale, if it ever existed or will ever exist, is that it will concentrate on the critical emission point and not the entire cell.

The US B2 ‘s ECM system ~at the time~ also tried the same approach but failed .

Some people who like to dig deep when they look for things are sometimes rewarded . There are a lot of stuff about the French work on active cancellation and some details shoiws that the idea was part of the initial design , yes .
I quote :

An industrial example of a coupled simulation illustrates those recommended solutions. The previously described methodology was successfully applied between DASSAULT AVIATION and THALES Airborne Systems during a feasibility study to install CNI conformal and multi-function antennas on Rafale.
The GPS, IFF, MIDS and TACAN functions were grouped within the same antennas block, located on the Rafale spine behind the canopy. This development was performed to achieve the following specifications :
• conformal antennas
• adaptative patterns for MIDS and GPS to ensure resistance to jamming.

360deg coverage by AESA arrays , both in detection and jamming , was part of the original design . Something who can ‘t be seen on the Typhoon because they had no such plan . :diablo:

mrmalaya :

Rafale was designed with low RCS as an afterthought

No , that ‘s wrong , at the contrary .
I keep posting stuff showing clearly that low RCS was part of the original design . When people will stop to write rubbish , we ‘ll be able to raise the discussion where it belongs : facts and technicals .

Btw bloodshot , you could have posted the entire text :

The platform completed an initial campaign of seven test flights earlier this year, during which the radar – which comprises over 1,400 European-built transmit/receive modules – demonstrated a detection range of 65nm (120km), says EADS.

Which is 30% less than the RBE2-AA who has less modules…

Cheers .

J-20 , just to close the discussion , at least on my side , ok ? 🙂

The Leo 2A6 and 2A7 are better tanks than our actual Leclercs .
I would even go as far as saying that the Swedish Strv 122 is as good as the Leclerc wrt protection .

Cheers .

bloodshot :

I was not suggesting that it’s necessary for the intake geometry to be angular, but there are still a few established rules for low observability shaping features which should be adhered to regardless.

“established” ? Yes they are but other studies (US , Europe , ?) show that the same result can be obtained with a design built from curves . I posted such paper 2 pages ago .

One of those rules is that the leading edges of the airframe should be angled to reflect energy away from the front of the aircraft and ideally be mutually aligned with other features of the airframe (planform alignment)

True . This is one way (and so far the best) to minimize the “bouncing” effect and to deflect radio waves away from the emiter . The front design of the B2 and the Rafale obey to different rules , as I said earlier on and supported by studies .

Oh, and the spill ducts on the Rafale’s intake are moving parts.

Yes but look at their size and place 😉 No brainer , isn ‘t it 😎

If you ask me , a naked Typhoon (no RAM) is not better than a M2000 with regard to RCS . I admit than the Typhoon ‘s S-Ducts might help but the “souris” on the M2000 are hidding the fan blades . Then , both intakes have moving parts . Composites on the Typhoon are also better used than on the Mirage .
A “naked” Rafale has a much lower RCS than a M2000 , due to careful shaping and better designed intakes .
Dassault said from the very begining that the Rafale ‘s RCS was concentrated on some spikes , those being treated with RAM and the “left-over” dealt by Spectra .

Cheers .

It is nice to see the Typhoon trying to make a name for itself in real Ops . 🙂

The most important factor is probably down to what the UK learned from the deployment . I am sure it ‘s gonna help them to think about what the true needs are , what should be integrated first , etc … We might see a different calender , who knows .

Cheers .