F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 12 Nov 2018, 17:35

icemaverick wrote:That Hush-Kit article states the following about the Super Bug:

It also featured radar cross-section reduction measures that are rumoured to make it the stealthiest fighter (in terms of frontal cross section) this side of the F-22 (though Dassault may dispute this).

Are they really implying that the Super Hornet (and possibly Rafale) are stealthier than the F-35 variants?

Could be true as well, if the F-35 is on the other side of the F-22.

playloud · by **playloud** » 12 Nov 2018, 20:44

steve2267 wrote:
icemaverick wrote:That Hush-Kit article states the following about the Super Bug:

It also featured radar cross-section reduction measures that are rumoured to make it the stealthiest fighter (in terms of frontal cross section) this side of the F-22 (though Dassault may dispute this).

Are they really implying that the Super Hornet (and possibly Rafale) are stealthier than the F-35 variants?

Could be true as well, if the F-35 is on the other side of the F-22.

That would be inline with statements from Generals Hostage and Bogdan.

kimjongnumbaun · by **kimjongnumbaun** » 12 Nov 2018, 21:13

Gonna call BS. The Super Hornet doesn’t even have planform alignment. It sounds like more garbage from Dassault and Boeing. Even the RAAF (those guys buying the F-18E as an interim) stated under oath that a 5th gen will have a lower arCS because it was purposely built with that intent and there is no way a 4th gen could match it.

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 12 Nov 2018, 22:09

kimjongnumbaun wrote:Gonna call BS. The Super Hornet doesn’t even have planform alignment. It sounds like more garbage from Dassault and Boeing. Even the RAAF (those guys buying the F-18E as an interim) stated under oath that a 5th gen will have a lower arCS because it was purposely built with that intent and there is no way a 4th gen could match it.

Absolutely!
But in favor of the Super Hornet - this compared to the Eurocannards - at least the SH had saw-toothed edges (always associated with real Stealth aircraft) on the main landing gear door edges and other surface edges and squarish engine intakes (anther feature associated with stealth aircraft) while the Eurocannards like the Rafale don't have any of this.
But no, even with these features the SH doesn't have a minimal chance against the F-35 in terms of low RCS.

swiss · by **swiss** » 12 Nov 2018, 22:35

ricnunes wrote:Absolutely!
But in favor of the Super Hornet - this compared to the Eurocannards - at least the SH had saw-toothed edges (always associated with real Stealth aircraft) on the main landing gear door edges and other surface edges. while the Eurocannards like the Rafale don't have any of this.

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ance-data/ :wink:

I think we all agree, the F-35 have clearly the lower RCS. And i assume Boeing and Dassault agree with this too.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Nov 2018, 01:25

Minor stealth features on the Super Hornet and Rafale mean little. As the second you add external stores your RCS goes thru the roof! Which, is every mission.....

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 13 Nov 2018, 01:31

Apart from the base A-A configuration of recessed and wingtip missiles i.e. no pylons where the RCS should remain under 1 sq m.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Nov 2018, 03:27

marsavian wrote:Apart from the base A-A configuration of recessed and wingtip missiles i.e. no pylons where the RCS should remain under 1 sq m.

Sorry, the Rafale will almost always carry pylons and stores in the real world....

steve2267 · by **steve2267** » 13 Nov 2018, 03:45

Nice catch, swiss!

I must confess, though... at being a bit confused at the sawtooth patterns, yet the actual panel edges are straight and not sawtoothed?

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Nov 2018, 04:00

steve2267 wrote:Nice catch, swiss!

I must confess, though... at being a bit confused at the sawtooth patterns, yet the actual panel edges are straight and not sawtoothed?

Honestly, nothing more than a marketing ploy than a real benefit. I am sure Dassault got it from Boeing and the Super Hornet. Which, sold the USN on it's Stealth.....

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 13 Nov 2018, 07:05

steve2267 wrote:Nice catch, swiss!

I must confess, though... at being a bit confused at the sawtooth patterns, yet the actual panel edges are straight and not sawtoothed?

Yup. That's the way it works. The sawtooth's are on the ram material. A simplified explanation (I'm not a good teacher like jw) is that the RAM material is wrapped around the trailing edges of the wing/door/aileron to stop (well, actually dampen) the travelling waves to radiate from the edge.
When a radio signal (radar) hits a conducting material (aluminium, CFRP etc.) there will be a electric current in the surface. when the current travels along the surface everything is fine, but when the current hits a discontinuity (like a edge) it will radiate a radio wave perpendicular to the edge. If you put RAM on the edge the material will dampen the current, and thereby the radiation.
the reason there is a sawtooth on the leading edge of the ram material is that when the current hits the ram material, there is also a discontinuity and some of the energy will radiate.

The reason that the RAM is on the trailing edge and not on the leading edge is that the trailing edges are less angled away from the front sector, witch is the sector most important to minimize the rcs.

As I said, not a good teacher, but maybe I made myself understood.
my 5 cent.

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 13 Nov 2018, 07:08

steve2267 wrote:Nice catch, swiss!

I must confess, though... at being a bit confused at the sawtooth patterns, yet the actual panel edges are straight and not sawtoothed?

...and the reason the edges are not sawtoothed (or angled in another direction) is that the requirements for LO came after the aircraft was designed, or that the requirements were so modest that the performance gains from not sweeping the edges were more than adding the weight for the ram.

regards

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 13 Nov 2018, 08:02

swiss wrote:Im really curious if they are plans from mbda to integrate the AESA seeker also in the Meteor. And what kind of advantages gives a matrix sensor for a IR seeker ?

I'm sure MBDA would like to do that, but it will require customer interest first and money for the integration. I'm sure that AESA seeker integration will happen at some point in Meteor too, but it might take some time. MICA NG is supposed to become operational in 2026, so it might be 2030+ before Meteor gets AESA seeker.

Matrix sensor sounds like normal IIR seeker (which is matrix), but with improved sensitivity and resolution. There can be really significant improvements here as MICA IR seeker technology is from 1990s and both sensitivity and resolution have gone up a lot. We are talking about potential to have at least 10 times the resolution and several times better sensitivity while reducing size and cooling requirements. I think seeker technology will improve significantly with future upgrades to all current IR seeking missiles like AIM-9X, ASRAAM, IRIS-T etc.

linkomart · by **linkomart** » 13 Nov 2018, 08:50

linkomart wrote:. If you put RAM on the edge the material will dampen the current, and thereby the radiation.

Hmm, thinking again, I'm not sure the current will be dampened, just the radiation... I'm mostly a structures guy, I don't do black magic and such like those signatures guys...

hornetfinn · by **hornetfinn** » 13 Nov 2018, 09:23

Corsair1963 wrote:Minor stealth features on the Super Hornet and Rafale mean little. As the second you add external stores your RCS goes thru the roof! Which, is every mission.....

I really doubt that RCS goes up that significantly with modern weapons. Otherwise there would've made no sense for anybody to pay the price for developing lower RCS aircraft like SH, Rafale, EF Typhoon or even F-16 Have Glass upgrade. I think that modern weapons and even EFTs have very low RCS themselves and even added together with the aircraft, have lower RCS than without them. I agree that the have rather limited help, but everything that increases survivability is very good to have. Even somewhat lower RCS will boost survivability especially when combined with EW effects.

Of course true VLO will be totally something else when it comes to survivability.