But If I understand correctly The Neuron co-developement model, Dassault would propose some solutions and ask everyone to say how they can contribute.
Rafale with Neuron is the way to go. Rafale/Neuron combo shall penetrate most advance IADS and achieve complete SEAD/DEAD. Tagging 4+ gen fighters with stealth drones is going to be done by most countries in future. Dassault can't lag behind.But If I understand correctly The Neuron co-developement model, Dassault would propose some solutions and ask everyone to say how they can contribute.
They just make it up as they go.Whose analysis is this?
So you're saying that French are liars? They make stuff on the fly??They just make it up as they go.
I don't think Pic said 5.5 tonne? He was on a mythical rant of a lot more.
"This snapshot, which there is no reason to doubt was taken after takeoff from the Goa Ski Jump test, shows that the Rafale is capable of carrying heavy loads, over 5.5 tonnes in external loads, and therefore to achieve a maximum take-off weight in the Ski jump configuration of between 20 and 21 tonnes, i.e. a weight very close to that commonly used on board the French aircraft carrier."
Seen recently on ae.net :
Question : On the other hand, if external payloads account for 90/95% of the Rafale's SER, we might as well have external payloads that are as stealthy as possible. If we divide the Rafale's SER in combat configuration by 20, we divide the range of enemy radars by 2, which is far from negligible.
Answer :
Once again: yes? no? why?
Okay, the Rafale's payload represents the bulk of its SER. But what's the point of a reduced SER? Generally speaking, it serves two purposes in our use of air power:
1) to be able to penetrate and bypass adversaries' defenses without being shot down, in air-to-ground penetration missions
2) to be able to shoot first at an airborne adversary without being counter-detected in return.
In both cases, the French choice for the Rafale has been based on different approaches, with tactical results that are not necessarily inferior (on the contrary, sometimes).
On the penetration side, we have maintained very low-altitude penetration capabilities and, above all, developed air-to-ground weapons capable of being fired from a safe distance, outside the bubble of the enemy's defences. So yes, a SCALP costs more than a GBU-24. And yes, an AASM costs more than a GBU-12. Yes, an ASMP costs more than a B61. And yes, a future supersonic cruise missile will cost more than a handful of SDBs. But in the end, all these weapons, however expensive, still cost less than the extra cost of developing a stealth fighter.
In air-to-air, same thing. Okay, we're less stealthy than an F-35 or a J-20 (maybe). But we do have MICA-IR (soon to be NG), which can take out any stealth fighter without revealing the Rafale's position, provided we make good tactical use of it. And should the stealth fighter try to flush us out with its radar, we have a SPECTRA suite designed to locate it accurately enough to throw a MICA-IR (or even a Meteor?) in its face, or at least in the right direction.
What's all this to say?
That it's probably MUCH cheaper to develop weapons that carry two or three times as far (as we've already done with the AASM in air-to-ground and the Meteor in air-to-air) than to divide the Rafale's SER by 20 to enable it to get twice as close.
In fact, the new air-to-ground weapons to be developed in the coming years will probably be designed from the outset to be more stealthy, in order to bypass enemy defenses. But this won't always be the case (especially for CAS ammunition, or for super/hypersonic weapons), and even when it is, the "weapon-fuselage" or "weapon-wing" interaction won't necessarily be hyper-stealthy. And that's where I still think we need to find the right balance between the money invested in passive stealth, and the money to be invested in electronic warfare or in the
I don't know if it was a frenchman, there wasn't a link. You replied, but do you know who said it? there is nothing convincing said there. You asked, but they never gave you the link.So you're saying that French are liars? They make stuff on the fly??
Yes, but you gave example of Picdel and called him deceitful again. You also said 'they' just make it up. Who are these 'they'? French, me thinks as per youI don't know if it was a frenchman, there wasn't a link. You replied, but do you know who said it? there is nothing convincing said there. You asked, but they never gave you the link.
they are two different thing. The herciv post you asked about had no link. It also sound like a BS story and made up as they go.Yes, but you gave example of Picdel and called him deceitful again. You also said 'they' just make it up. Who are these 'they'? French, me thinks as per you
He is PolluxDeltaSeven - AIR-DEFENSE.NET on Air-defense and he is also Deputy editor-in-chief of DEFTECH and SPACE INTERNATIONAL magazinesWhose analysis is this?
Seen recently on ae.net :
Question : On the other hand, if external payloads account for 90/95% of the Rafale's SER, we might as well have external payloads that are as stealthy as possible. If we divide the Rafale's SER in combat configuration by 20, we divide the range of enemy radars by 2, which is far from negligible.
Answer :
Once again: yes? no? why?
Okay, the Rafale's payload represents the bulk of its SER. But what's the point of a reduced SER? Generally speaking, it serves two purposes in our use of air power:
1) to be able to penetrate and bypass adversaries' defenses without being shot down, in air-to-ground penetration missions
2) to be able to shoot first at an airborne adversary without being counter-detected in return.
In both cases, the French choice for the Rafale has been based on different approaches, with tactical results that are not necessarily inferior (on the contrary, sometimes).
On the penetration side, we have maintained very low-altitude penetration capabilities and, above all, developed air-to-ground weapons capable of being fired from a safe distance, outside the bubble of the enemy's defences. So yes, a SCALP costs more than a GBU-24. And yes, an AASM costs more than a GBU-12. Yes, an ASMP costs more than a B61. And yes, a future supersonic cruise missile will cost more than a handful of SDBs. But in the end, all these weapons, however expensive, still cost less than the extra cost of developing a stealth fighter.
In air-to-air, same thing. Okay, we're less stealthy than an F-35 or a J-20 (maybe). But we do have MICA-IR (soon to be NG), which can take out any stealth fighter without revealing the Rafale's position, provided we make good tactical use of it. And should the stealth fighter try to flush us out with its radar, we have a SPECTRA suite designed to locate it accurately enough to throw a MICA-IR (or even a Meteor?) in its face, or at least in the right direction.
What's all this to say?
That it's probably MUCH cheaper to develop weapons that carry two or three times as far (as we've already done with the AASM in air-to-ground and the Meteor in air-to-air) than to divide the Rafale's SER by 20 to enable it to get twice as close.
In fact, the new air-to-ground weapons to be developed in the coming years will probably be designed from the outset to be more stealthy, in order to bypass enemy defenses. But this won't always be the case (especially for CAS ammunition, or for super/hypersonic weapons), and even when it is, the "weapon-fuselage" or "weapon-wing" interaction won't necessarily be hyper-stealthy. And that's where I still think we need to find the right balance between the money invested in passive stealth, and the money to be invested in electronic warfare or in the
When is MICA-NG(IR) expected? Once that becomes operational, Rafale would become a legit stealth buster. Just think about OSF-NG's range and then the supposed range of MICA-NG. Stealth plane may just die equally stealthily, lol.He is PolluxDeltaSeven - AIR-DEFENSE.NET on Air-defense and he is also Deputy editor-in-chief of DEFTECH and SPACE INTERNATIONAL magazines
I suppose that you compare with drone and how they are defeated by EW. But AASM for example is hardened against by construction physically and also lectronically using several way to be guided. You also have to detect an incoming AASM. That's not so easy when it has a low level flying profile.Yeah, it's the old SU method, hence their massively varied weapons options. The only problem with this method is a weapon is easier to defeat than the platform. And the platform's kill probablity is higher.
Imagine if Rafale's weapons are integrated on the F-22/F-35 then...
When is MICA-NG(IR) expected? Once that becomes operational, Rafale would become a legit stealth buster. Just think about OSF-NG's range and then the supposed range of MICA-NG. Stealth plane may just die equally stealthily, lol.
I suppose that you compare with drone and how they are defeated by EW. But AASM for example is hardened against by construction physically and also lectronically using several way to be guided. You also have to detect an incoming AASM. That's not so easy when it has a low level flying profile.
If I undestrand what you mean, I think there's a balance to be finded. The weapon range have to be adapted to this undetected capacity of the plateform. The weapon range is related to its compacity and then its ability to be loaded internally or not.No, I wasn't comparing weapons, I was comparing platforms.
If Rafale's weapons are so superior that reducing RCS of the Rafale is not necessary, then what will happen if the same weapon is used from an aircraft that's much more stealthy, like the F-35.
For example, a Rafale may go undetected at 75Km and can fire away a MICA stealthily. But an F-35 can go undetected until 40Km and the MICA will become even more effective.
This weapon range also give you an ability to engage more distant targets simultanously or not. This ability is uncorrectly adressed if you have only a small internal load.
Current MICA-IR has 60kms head on range. Our Rafale has got OSF-NG that is QWIP based and much more modern and long-range. Americans claim that Super Hornet's IRST 21 detects gliders, F-117/F-22/B-2/F-35 from over 100 miles, i.e., over 160kms. So, if Rafale's IRST is tech wise as good as the American IRST then Rafale will detect subsonic J-20 from 150/160kms away. But with current MICA-IR, it can only engage J-20 from 60-70kms. By that time, J-20s IRST would also detect Rafale. Since, MICA-IR has longer range than PL-10, so Rafale has good chance of blowing J-20.MiCA NG just uses a dual-pulse engine. How did he become a legit stealth buster ?
Your assumption here is that France and the United States have the same level of optical and electronic technology, It is impossible.Current MICA-IR has 60kms head on range. Our Rafale has got OSF-NG that is QWIP based and much more modern and long-range. Americans claim that Super Hornet's IRST 21 detects gliders, F-117/F-22/B-2/F-35 from over 100 miles, i.e., over 160kms. So, if Rafale's IRST is tech wise as good as the American IRST then Rafale will detect subsonic J-20 from 150/160kms away. But with current MICA-IR, it can only engage J-20 from 60-70kms