RCS OF Different Fighters

[ptldM3]

This is highly debatable as you are claiming something which is far from reality. JFT radar has publicized detection range of 105 km against 5m2 target and Su-30 even if, has RCS of 10m2, will be detected at around 200-210 kms!! I bet BARS cannot detect a 3m2 target even at 150 kms and JFT is much less than 3m2 so MKI will have a hard time detecting the JFT at advertised range. Reality is, it will most likely be the other way around.

That is if the radar can even efficiently detect targets at those ranges, the other factor is ECM's such as the MKI's ELTA jammers which have been know to effectively jam some very good radars. As for rcs, it would also depend on the hemisphere of the aircraft. Most RCS figures are just estimates or speculation it' also unclear if these estimates are overall estimates or frontal rcs estimates which tend to be the smallest.

 

[Dazzler]

That is if the radar can even efficiently detect targets at those ranges, the other factor is ECM's such as the MKI's ELTA jammers which have been know to effectively jam some very good radars. As for rcs, it would also depend on the hemisphere of the aircraft. Most RCS figures are just estimates or speculation it' also unclear if these estimates are overall estimates or frontal rcs estimates which tend to be the smallest.

I specifically mentioned NON-ECM confrontation in another post

 

[Whiplash]

Check this out. And note the author has done good research and backed it up with credible sources. Moreover, he's assumed the JF17 RCS to be 2.5

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/78981-best-bvr-capable-fighter-south-asia.html

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

The minimal frontal RCS of the traditional fighters

EF-2000:
My personal estimation is 0.05~0.1 m2, which is based on the declarations of BAES:
1. "The Typhoon's RCS is bettered only by the F-22 in the frontal hemisphere and betters the F-22 at some angles." (2001).
2. "The RCS of EF-2000 is about 1/3 of the RCS of Rafale" (1998).

MIG-44:
"0.1 m2 class, which is about 1/10 of the RCS of MIG-29SMT", the declaration of Mikoyan in 1999~2000.


F/A-18E/F:
"0.1 m2 class", the declaration of USN in 1999~2000.

Rafale:
"1/10 of the frontal RCS of MIRAGE-2000" (about 0.1~0.2 m2), declared by Dassault in 1999.

Su-47:
"0.3 m2 class", declared by Sukhoi in 2002.

JAS-39:
"1/5 of the frontal RCS of F/A-18 C/D, 1/3 of the frontal RCS of F-16 C/D block40/42, and 1/2 of the frontal RCS of the MIRAGE-2000" (about 0.5 m2).


EF-Tyhoon's RCS is close to 1m^2 for naked configeration. When carrying weapons, it should be around 2 m^2. It is ridiculus that people come up with figure 0.05 m^2. F-35's RCS is 0.01 m^2. How could the MUCH MUCH HYPED Tyhoon and Rafale has 0.05 m^2. Lies from the Europeans.

Rafale, Tyhoon has about 1 m^2. There is no way there are at 0.05 m^2. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

Check this out. And note the author has done good research and backed it up with credible sources. Moreover, he's assumed the JF17 RCS to be 2.5

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/78981-best-bvr-capable-fighter-south-asia.html

JF-17's RCS should be around 1 m^2.

JF-17 has DSI to hide all its engine fan blade, it is also smaller than F-16. Just do a little calculation. F-16 has 3 m^2 for naked configeration. So JF-17 being smaller and with DSI and some other stealth feature should be around 1 m^2. Makes perfect sense.

When it carry A2A, A2G weapons. It should be around 2-3 m^2!!!!

 

[Dazzler]

the first prototype had a frontal rcs of 2.6 m2 which was later confirmed to me. Current jft has much less. Link given by whiplash lost credibility on more than one accounts particularly on the issue of RAM....

 

[AerospaceEngineer]

the first prototype had a frontal rcs of 2.6 m2 which was later confirmed to me. Current jft has much less. Link given by whiplash lost credibility on more than one accounts particularly on the issue of RAM....

Is that clean configuration or loaded with weapons?

 

[Manticore]

@AerospaceEngineer

no need to go all red on me bro--- im contributing data from multiple places ---- hahaha dont kill the messenger!

 

[rockstarIN]

Check this out. And note the author has done good research and backed it up with credible sources. Moreover, he's assumed the JF17 RCS to be 2.5

http://www.defence.pk/forums/military-aviation/78981-best-bvr-capable-fighter-south-asia.html

Its all mostly in clean configurations, I do not think JFT will ever go with at least 4 A2A and 2 fuel tanks. Moreover, there will be AWACS whihc always see all jets and inform their fighters..

 

[rockstarIN]

JF-17's RCS should be around 1 m^2.

JF-17 has DSI to hide all its engine fan blade, it is also smaller than F-16. Just do a little calculation. F-16 has 3 m^2 for naked configeration. So JF-17 being smaller and with DSI and some other stealth feature should be around 1 m^2. Makes perfect sense.

When it carry A2A, A2G weapons. It should be around 2-3 m^2!!!!

You mean to say JFT & EF have the same RCS (of 1 Mc2) in clean configuration??

 

[Manticore]

^^^ thankyou for starting the vicious cycle of trolling

 

[SR 71 Blackbird]

^^^ thankyou for starting the vicious cycle of trolling

No sir I am not trolling some fanboys in this website are representing JF-17's like that.

 

[Areesh]

I think JF-17 is superior than F-22,F-35,FGFA & J-20.Recently UFO's have been observed near PAF bases operating JFT's as they are interested in it's technology.

Their are three things now.

1 You don't know much or anything thing about JFT.

2 Those guys aren't fan boys.

3 You are definitely trolling.

 

[rockstarIN]

IMHO, JFT RCS:-

+ve -- Small fighter, DSI intakes, RAM(may be)

-ve -- No combosite, traditional design, need external fuel tanks(since a small fighter)

 

[Jungibaaz]

IMHO, JFT RCS:-

+ve -- Small fighter, DSI intakes, RAM(may be)

-ve -- No combosite, traditional design, need external fuel tanks(since a small fighter)

I'm not quite sure what you meant by 'traditional', i see nothing wrong with a design like that becoming a 4.5 gen fighter