What about the Gripen ?
What about the futur Gripen-NG ?
To be honest and to stick to my belief , I have more trust in Saab than in the Typhoon people about stealth matters .
Saab know what they are doing and while being a small Company , they have the brains , the knowledge and the facilities to do some very interesting stuff .
I praise them 🙂
With the Gripen , they went for a “discrete” airframe and a low frontal RCS . The fighter itself is smaller than the other Eurocanards , fast , very agile .
It boost one of the best intra data-link there is within NATO .
When you are another NATO fighter , it is very easy to work with the Gripen and to interleave tasks . It has been made for 🙂
In itself , it is a little gem .
From any angle , I bet that the Gripen has a lower RCS than the SH 😎
Cheers .
Let ‘s have a look at the F18 E/F stealth features .
We know that Boeing made extensive work to bring the RCS down .
First , the aircraft is very different from the basic Hornet . It is more than 1m longer , 1m more in wingspan , 25% more wing area , nearly 3tons heavier , it is also slightly higher .
It is not really a “scaled-up” F-18 , it is a very different airframe .They share very little .
Basic Hornet RCS : 5m2
The US Navy took a “balanced approach” to survivability in its design , with a focus on Radar , ECMs and stand-off delivery . I can post various links but trust me on that and let ‘s continue 😎
Boeing worked mostly on the frontal RCS :
The design of the engine inlets reduces the aircraft’s frontal radar cross section. The alignment of the leading edges of the engine inlets is designed to scatter radiation to the sides. Fixed fanlike reflecting structures in the inlet tunnel divert radar energy away from the rotating fan blades.
When you look at the picture , we can see that Boeing did a nice work . It took them the need to use again the 3D CGI tools to re-build it from scratch and it shows .
(in this regard (stealth) , I believe that Boeing is more advanced than LM , but that ‘s my opinion)
Nevertheless , they had to keep the huge LERXs because they are what make the F-18 a decent flyer .
The aircraft only has to pitch its nose up or down by 3 degrees and we get a fuc***-up RCS . Same if the aircraft is banking left or right , it doesn ‘t matter .
If it does both , the aircraft ‘s RCS from up front will be the same than a normal F-18 , probably bigger since the aircraft is bigger .
The huge LERXs are a low RCS killer .:mad:
The very same LERXs are not even blended into the airframe or wings !:mad:
They don ‘t even show a smooth angle with the fuselage ! 😡
Then , people are telling me that the SH has a RCS close or similar than the Rafale ‘s RCS ? 😮
Me , I am telling you that the SH ‘s RCS is bigger than 1m2 from up front and over 5m2 from the sides .
Cheers .
I knew of this feature but it is really nice to have some more infos on it 🙂
The pdf provided on F-16.net are neat . I am studying them right now and I learn a bit more , lovely 🙂 .
a new low-observability (LO) substance called fiber mat.
Lockheed officials avoided the need to use stealthy appliqués and coatings by curing the substance into the composite skin of the aircraft
Dassault also has its own fiber mat which is also a part of the composite skin airframe (wings and vertical fin) . See it on video (at 4:12)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=douzAeXkjo4
But while Rafale only use RAM and RA paint , the F-35 also use a Radar Absorbing Structure and Infrared (IR) Topcoat .
I didn ‘ t know . So I was wrong to say that only the B2 and F-22 had this type of coating . 😮
Well , I ‘ve learned something 😎
******************
jackjack , the RCS of Rafale is indeed 0.1m2 (maybe 0.2m2 ?) , data from Dassault .
Then , I read :
The F-35 is about 42% composite by weight, Burbage says, compared to the F-22 at 22% and the F-16 at 2%.
The Rafale is about 30% composite by weight . Slight advantage to the F-35 but it ‘s better than the F-22 . The Typhoon is also around 30% , I don ‘t know about the Gripen or T-50 .
Just to say that the Europeans are not asleep 😎
Cheers .
Sign In
