In the case of the Rafale, radar is angled as well

It is the whole front part of the radar which is angled

You can see the reard attachment and angles , plus inclination of surface on the top

However angle is lower than in former US AESA display which means that optimisation is different.

After all Rafale is optimised for low altitude penetration.

If you know basic RCS mesurement you would known that a very slight angle produce already a -30 DBSM

link

As a gift for our US readers

Some interesting confirmation in a public NATO document of what I have explained before:

link

Okay. Lets deal with your ignorance with some FACTS. 

 

1. The MIT subscale LODAR simulator only mimics model RCS in a benign environment. It does not include weather effects or enemy countermeasures effects or your own (French) electronic propogation mistakes. so that citation is basically MEANINGLESS. It was designed as a first cut estimator procedure for US to show what problems we will have when we go full scale. Its most like a windtunnel in that it gives US the first rough cut as WE work on shape.

 

Second:

 

Monograph is from pre-1995.

 

Since then, we've moved on from those fairy tales as more about EW and LO strategies have revealed themselves to those who actually applied physics to the problem. So what did you actually tell us, here?

 

Active cancellation or signal phasing has been shown to not work well. The time clocking is not fine enough. I told you that more than a year ago, when you first tried to run that falsehood on me, trying to take me for some fanboy patsy..

 

So you actually brought nothing and just discreditted yourself.

 

What's next? Plasma stealth?

 

Herald

 

 

 

You know what else helps?  Posts that aren't one freaking line long!

 

You know what else helps?  Actually typing out the words explaining what you mean, instead of posting a picture and leaving it to us to try and see the same thing you see and interpret it that same way you are interpreting it.

 

No, you don't, as you've amply demonstrated--that is, as long as you aren't interested in actually getting your point across and demonstrating that you are in fact correct in whatever you might be trying to say.  In this case, I don't know any different, so I'll accept what you say, but so far I see absolutely nothing about that picture that indicates the antenna needs to be tilted to get inside the F-22's nose.

 

In particular, since I do not know the height of that array (and there is no ruler conveniently laid across it), and I do not know the interior height of the nose at the antenna station, I can not tell for myself that it would have to be tilted to fit.  Furthermore, if that is your point, I certainly do not consider it a reasonable expectation on your part that I would look at that photo and go google away until I manage to turn up those data in order to figure that out on my own.  If you know that's the case, you should have just said it.  If you know the actual numbers, or know where they can easily be found, you should have provided them.  Otherwise, at least make the assertion so we know what you're trying to say.  As far as I'm concerned, to do otherwise is poor form at best.

 

Ratio" target="_blank">link aid.

 

Check your X/Y ratios and fit the radar in. 

 

It has to lean.

ratio" target="_blank">link check aid.

Some interesting confirmation in a public NATO document of what I have explained before:

link target="_blank">link

19A.A.1 THE FOUR BASIC METHODS OF RCSR

There are generally only four basic techniques used for reducing RCS. They are:

? Shaping

? Radar absorbing materials

? Passive cancellation

? Active cancellation

Each of these methods have their advantages and disadvantages.

It goes directly to wrong choices which has been a continuous theme I have about most technological incompetence..