i thought gf was sesible to use a link to one of the upper numbers published for the rcs of a f-15

it ranges from about 11 to 405 sq m ..take your choice

 

a rafale fan  posted on here quoting the 405 sq m ( 3rd post down )

 

gf , could you explain to me (from your table) why that the F-15 has a four hundred and five square meter RCS (!!!) and the F-22 has an RCS only 5 times bigger than a common fly ???

Where do you get you rubbish , mate ?

i thought gf was sesible to use a link to one of the upper numbers published for the rcs of a f-15

it ranges from about 11 to 405 sq m ..take your choice

a rafale fan  posted on here quoting the 405 sq m ( 3rd post down )

h*tp://www.strategypage.com/mi...

one of the reasons for quoting realistic numbers is that they have to reflect combat load in various states of config.

the issue for geniuses like BW and slowman who crap on about capabilities that they clearly don't understand is that to shift from highball RCS down to competitive LO rates is clearly unachievable - no matter what the marketing suits might want you to believe.

a basic comprehension of how LO works is needed.  An F-15 with slab wings, open intakes and no body blending is not going to convert into a low RCS capability no matter how much applique is added, no matter how many arrays are added to the leading edges, and no matter how much cant is applied to the skegs.  again, the basic aerodynamic design feature found in all modern LO managed platforms (manned and unmanned) cannot be found on the F-15, or the F-15 "special"  Gee zuz wept, even the Rafale shows some of those traits.

"I find myself on BW's side in this.  I would think that the Silent Eagle drops RCS some, but it's still going to be bigger on a radar scope than a F-22 or a F-35.  The F-15 was never designed to be stealthy.  The F-22/F-35 are.  It would be akin to coating a brick with radar-absorbing paint and declaring that "stealthy."  I'm not sold on active ECM either; those emissions can be detected, even if it is a pain in the ass to burn through all that jamming.  The Silent Eagle is at best a poor man's F-22; at worst it's a marketing ploy by Boeing. "

 

 

Oh there is no chance the F-15SE will be as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35, that much is a given, but that also isn't what bluewings was saying. 

 

He was trying to argue that even after receiving far more extensive modifications than the Rafale, including internal weapons carriage and some actual structural redesign,  the F-15SE will still have a larger RCS.  

 

Boeing wouldn't have even bothered developing a new version if that were the case.  As we have already discussed here numerous times, the Rafale is not a LO platform and has received only the most minimal RCS reduction work. 

 

Also, the provision of internal carriage tells you a lot about the intended RCS level of the F-15SE.  You don't bother with internal carriage on an aircraft unless you are planning on achieving some pretty darn low RCS numbers because it is just too much of a pain.(They are adding complexity, losing fuel/range, and reducing its carrying capacity dramatically in a stealthy configuration compared to external carriage.)  You only need to worry about the RCS of missiles hanging on the wings when the RCS of the rest of the aircraft is so small that even an exposed missile is a significant issue.

 

So while the F-15SE will not be as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35, it will still be far stealthier than any other 4th generation aircraft and will likely rival the stealth level of aircraft such as the PAK-FA.(At least from head-on.)

 

It would be a very good option for states looking for a true interceptor that can not get their hands on the F-22 and/or that want a greater level of domestic industrial involvement than is possible with the F-35 at this stage.

 

When compared to an F-35 the F-15SE will have a larger RCS, particularly outside of the frontal arc, a smaller internal carriage capacity, a higher price, and less advanced overall avionics; but it will have better speed, longer range, a state of the art internal jammer, and a larger and longer ranged radar. 

 

If you are looking at racing out, finding, and killing something a long way from home in a primarily head-on fight then the F-15SE will be a very competitive option. 

 

The emergence of the F-15SE may steal a few sales from the F-35 but commercially it is a much bigger threat to the EF and the SU-35, the premier interceptors on the export market today and much more of a direct competitor for the F-15SE than something like a Mig-35, Rafale, or Gripen.

 

The original Rafale was designed with RCS reduction (I speak of real Rafale not the Rafale demonstrator a decade before), not the initial F15.

But I agree that such a F15 could have a frontal RCS close to Rafale.

Howver I think lateral RCS of Rafale will still be better (plus Rafale advanced ECM) due to its lateral shape.

In my opinion RCS is a $#1t parameter that doesn't tell a damned thing about stealth.

 

To be honest we don't have any meaningful data publicly available to make statements with any certainty in my opinion.

 

Of course that is just my opinion.

 

 

It is really really hard to evade detection with all the advanced high-power radars deployed(ballistic missile radar, L-band AWACS radar, Aegis radar) in the region of East Asia where the new fighter purchases will be heaviest outside of US for the next couple of decades, low RCS only helps to increase the effectiveness of electronic warfare suit in combat, not evade detection.