Where does it said Carbone is active cancellation system?

Last time you posted that, it has been debunked as BS, i dont understand why you bothered to repeat the same thing again?
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134900-Rafale-news-amp-discussion-part-XVI/page69

In fact, the debunking WAS BSloudly claimed by sheer ignorant. Figure i was in contact with the company since… Why would i listen to idiots convinced that fibre optics are best audio cables? (generally speaking people who do not even know the wma standard used for their CD is a piece of crap and heavily downgraded from studio recordings (not to mention HOW it is downgraded…)

I repeat things i’m sure about, with evidences in the desperate hope that some will listen instead of parroting their forum guru, whatever ignorant and arrogant he is.

Australian government auditor slams Tiger attack helicopter

Did Aussie gov compare european built tigers to those built in Australia? Beacause some Airbus Helicopters employees were privately catastrophed by aussie’s industrialarrogance and incompetence (note : i didn’t mean they are right) and are wishing loads of luck to DCNS…

One should distinguish between “active stealth” and “active cancellation”.

Active cancellation is a “simple” technique that is based on:

1. receiving the incoming radar signal
2. generate a new signal that is identical but out of phase
3. emit the new signal.

The end result being that the incoming signal is cancelled. This works well for audio:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_noise_control

One should note that:

1. the frequencies for audio aresomewhat lower than the frequencies used for RADAR (hopefully you can read the sarcasm here)
2. Even for audio, the Wiki page states that:

Thus one can safely conclude that active cancellation for radar frequencies is a nice dream, but nothing more than that.

“Active stealth” on the other hand, encompasses advanced ECM techniques that, in some cases, makes the object “invisible” to the radar. I am no expert on the field and cannot tell how this works however several sources have referred to such techniques so most likely they do exist. And most likely Rafale employs such techniques. How efficient they work will most likely depend on the radar that one is trying to confuse.

Not really. Active cancellation is used by a UK acoustics company for example in order to cancel electrical noise on USB cables (which is otherwise nearly impossible using linear systems that would require near as much energy as USB can power, if not more)

What new technology did the Rafale or Eurofighter bring to the table?

btw, Only the US makes their dev & procurement programs as open as they are. Just try and get real numbers (ie not from an interview or other non-budgetary source).

RAFALE dev coûts are public on sénateur site aswell as unit cost

You are of course correct that it is possible to defeat a missile kinematically, but you also hit on one of the F-35’s key advantages… to defeat a missile in that manner you need to know that there is a missile in the first place. In a scenario where two 4th generation fighters are facing off both would expect to see and be seen by their adversary. When/how they fire their missiles is where a lot of the tactics come into play. A longer ranged shot would be easier to defeat, but holding your missiles until closer range has risks as well.

If an F-35 were flying against a 4th generation fighter the F-35 would expect to be able to choose when/how it fired more or less at will. Its opponent might only become aware it was in danger when the incoming missile went active, far too late to initiate the types of maneuvers you are describing.

I don’t totally disagree, but there are missile departures warning stuff for that.

I agree that a European equivalent would have been highly desirable, but I don’t blame Airbus for the failure to produce one. That’s the difference between us.

Airbus had a proposal (A319/A320 with FITS, sensors to customer specification), & offered it to European governments. But nobody would back it. Without a home country order, it’s unlikely that other potential customers would even consider it. They wouldn’t want to be left with an orphan aircraft.

Atlantique II is not anymore produced (for ages). When tested in a south east asian country it really banged P3 and POTUS had to phone. (personal comm from a friend directly involved).

That very much depends on whom you ask..
IAF = we need 90% servicebility.
India goverment = our AF need around 70-75% servicebility.

Cause the higher you raise it, the moar $$$$

Yes, and in an exponential way..; Sometimes it is cheaper to have 3 planes with 66% availability than 2 with 100% and loads of exotic spare parts rusting…

I’m dubious : firstly you accused AH problems, then extended sophisticated defense suite etc. Sorry if you did not intend to bash, but it really looked like so… The history have nothing to do with airbus helicopters.