@@grimreapers Good idea! And this time give the French CSG at least 1 USA Destroyer(Not Cruiser) because of the NATO thingy GR. French CSG have US ships with it same thing about the UK CSG in real life but because UK won last time, they will be full UK CSG again. So it would look like this: Rafale with 0.5 RCS, and French CSG with 1 USA Destroyer vs UK CSG with F-35B with Meteors. The US Destroyer should deployed with their anti-shipping SM-2 and SM-6. :) This will give a chance for France to win vs the UK CSG. Ohh and no anti-shipping Rafales only air-to-air. And change the UK AWACS to 3 Merlin Crowsnest helicopters, UK does not have any apart from that helicopters at the moment. The Wedgetail will be available in the future, but not for the navy i think. So yeah, no E-2D for UK.
@@grimreapers Another thing to consider. The CdeG has E2. QE only has the lacklustre Crowsnest which is for spotting periscopes and low flying missiles. No theatre wide control of BVR missiles.
@@LondonSteveLee maybe a slight advantage, but as long as it's carrying missiles on pylons, it's RCS is not going to be significantly different from the Rafale, even if the Rafale has fuel tanks and the Typhoon doesn't.
@@djzoodude Perhaps - the advantage would still be with Typhoon and of course in combat trim Typhoon could enter the battle with a 10-15,000 foot ceiling advantage giving its Meteors much longer legs - this advantage alone would be decisive in handing the battle to Typhoon. The Rafale is a great all-rounder though - I would rather the British had the M-variants on their carriers over F-35B - we could have more than 12 per carrier to begin with - and they'd actually function rather than being below deck under repair - again.
i remember one of these where Matrix fought 3 raptors alone, while just casually commentating. You can tell the real pilots... Which he is (or was) btw.
I've never considered how modern aerial battles over France can take place without even leaving England... How different WWII would have been with this technology...
I can't remember now how many times I've had a chuckle when you've gone from an overview of the battle and back into your cockpit only to be killed a few seconds later from a missile or miss hap. But please don't change and rob me of 1 of my minor enjoyments.
A few quick comments on the starting planes: both RCS are wrong if the planes have external tanks, you should probably multiply by at least 3 the proposed numbers... In terms of loadout, Eurofighter would normally take 6 meteors max (or a mix mix of meteor and AMRAAM) and 2 ASRAAM, the latest Rafale F4 version would take 2 meteors, 4 MICA EG and 2 MICA IR; There are tremendous differences for each planes between versions (regarding their radar, electronic countermeasures, helmets etc.) and that would have a massive impact on the results. If Rafale are in pairs, the standard practice is that the front plane that fires missiles does not turn on its radar, to be a more difficult target, the Rafale behind can guide the missile fired by the front plane. The MICA IR is a medium range IR missile that can be fired without IR lock, the missile then searches its target, so it is essentially a BVR IR missile which launch is very hard to detect by the enemy plane. Eurofighter should be expected to dominate at high altitude, and Rafale at low altitude.
ASRAAM is also a BVR missile when fired from an initial high speed and altitude. As part of Sky Sabre even ground launched ASRAAM is achieving 25+mile kills - they must have a range of nearly double that if fired at 50,000 feet. The Wikipedia range on them is way under-rated. Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of a conformal tank improving RCS over a tanked-up Rafale. It would also have an at least 10,000 foot ceiling advantage (conservatively!) over Rafale in combat trim giving its Meteors much longer legs. Typhoon would just have to fly in at maximum altitude - that would give it enough of a range advantage to defeat Rafale given the same missiles.
@@LondonSteveLee All real characteristics are classified so let's avoid making guesses here. ASRAAM certainly has longer range than IRIS-T for example, but it is also a smaller and lighter missile than MICA IR (and also slower, with a speed of about Mach 3 vs Mach 4 for MICA) so its range is still probably less. Let's remember that MICA IR and ER are identical save for their guidance system. Conformational tank would certainly help, but there are so many factors involved in detection range... Typhoon are better than Rafale at high altitude, but the reverse is true at low altitude, so if Rafale evade the initial salvo, table are turned... Overall, this would be a tight fight, and this test, despite all the caveats, does show this rather well, well done to the teams !
@@VoltaireVoltaire-zq4zh Indeed, I didn't say ASRAAM matches MICA for range - I said it's also a BVR missile. Low altitude performance would very much depend on whether the Typhoon has the 2015 aerodynamic enhancement kit fitted or not which tremendously improved nose authority and lift with no additional drag. (I don't think the Brits have fitted this.) the bypass ratio of the Rafale engine (suited for marine operation) gives it great responsiveness at low altitude making it a good dog-fighting engine. On the EJ200 side, RR have recently unlocked a staggering 30% (THIRTY PERCENT!) extra thrust from EJ200 (though a software update) as the engines are lasting well beyond their expected service life (doubling it to be precise) - which is costing them millions in lost (projected) revenue. This turns what is already a hot-rod into the power-to-weight king of the skies in interceptor trim - all that extra power sups fuel of course.
Is there an A-6 Intruder in DCS nowadays? Just watched your "Flight of the Intruder" video from 4 years ago, was hoping you might be able to redo it with the correct aircraft - not to mention, all your additional accumulated experience in modding and mission building in DCS - could be a real blast.
You can take the pilot outta the Jaguar, but yer canna take the Jaguar out the pilot 😁 Luv that Matrix is low flying around Brighton and finding ‘mountains’ in the South of England.
I'm surprised cap didn't know about the south downs Butser hill (about 900feet about sea level) being a well known land mark and north downs punchbowl area (900 Feet OD)and Box hill (700 feet OD) also well known not mountains but good height considering how flat south England generally is.
@@flashgordon6670 yep. Though the only real way to really catch the bandits off guard is to add a stealth like the F-35 in with a basic internal loadout nothing external. Though I would prefer the F-22 in the role, for the obvious reasons. Watching these videos makes me want to get DCS and work out different scenarios of current tech during the height of the cold war. Would be even better if was over the arctic circle for more realistic feel. Crazy thing is the US is still using one main airframe the b-52 bomber. Just wished there was a dcs Avro arrow in Mk II or even a modern version. If one of the original use the radar and fire control system from an a model Tomcat as it would be the closestin set-up to the arrow
Typhoon has such a huge altitude-celling advantage (in combat trim) over Rafale (at least 10,000 - probably 15,000 feet in reality), it could simply fly in at maximum altitude giving its Meteors a considerable kinetic and range advantage. This "simulation" is nonsense - the less said about the laughable RCS modelled for Rafale the better. The considerable altitude disadvantage for Rafale would be further exacerbated if Typhoon was wearing its conformal tank against Rafale carrying drop-tanks (and a RCS disadvantage to-boot). Of course Rafale in clean trim has much better range than Typhoon. The already considerable celling advantage for Typhoon has recently been theoretically increased thanks to Rolls Royce unlocking a staggering 30% increase in thrust for the EJ200 as they are doubling their expected mean time before failure in service. The engines are too damn reliable which is costing RR a lot of money in reduced sales! (meanwhile we reduce the available thrust for our F-35Bs due to engine fragility!)
@@LondonSteveLee everything I hear about the F-35 engines has been positive. The only issue people seem to have that there is only one engine in the F-35. As with anything new to aviation it takes time to figure out what are the issues to watch out for. Most F-35 issues I am aware of have all been software related.
@@everydaycarrycanada951 It's a fragile engine being operated below maximum thrust in normal service - there isn't tonnes of talk about a new engine for nothing - the huge expense and time overrun of the F-35 project meant staying with the current compromised and over-stretched engine design to avoid igniting further political backlash. If the project demanded a new engine I wouldn't be surprised if an angry congress canned the project when looking for cuts! Hopefully the export success will mean it actually DOES get a new engine when the dust settles - they've got to break the bad news that it needs a total avionics refit first. Again a legacy of the project being so late causing design freezes to reduce risk means that everything under the skin is nearly 20 years out of date. Block 4 is a sticking plaster and really is the end of the line for the current F-35 computing infrastructure. Yes (whisper it) F-35 is already obsolete until it's completely refitted.
Would a vertical saw tactic work in a long range flat terrain situation like this? The guy at the top of the climb fires at the baddies, and drags the incoming missiles back down into the thick air as the next guy is climbing into the top position. Would it burn too much fuel?
They wouldn't need to do any of this - In combat trim Typhoon has an (at least) 10,000 foot ceiling advantage over Rafale - that would give its Meteors a decisive kinetic and range advantage. The Missiles have AI, they won't track a low altitude target at low altitude - they'll stay up high to maximise range until they HAVE to dive.
The Rafale with 2 fuel tanks and missiles that don't semi recess does not have a RCS of 0•5m² but way above ( 3m².). Why set a fantasy figure unless it's a guns only with no drop tanks. The Eurofighter does semi recess it's missiles so although it is 10% larger than Rafale it has more composites in its structure and so both aircraft would have similar RCS.????
Not seen anything to support Rafale at 0.5m, it has the same advances in composite materials and RCS optimisation as the Eurofighter with no special stealth coatings. F4 version is supposed to be a bit more radio quiet as its been upgraded with secure communications and still has the pretty powerful active radar jammer in the SPECTRA suite (more powerful version than Praetorian DSS on Eurofighter and F-35's AN/AAQ37), SPECTRA has been upgraded for F4 has recently had missile infrared guidance jamming capability added as well as an expansion of its jamming frequency range (rumoured to include millimetric radar as used by active radar homing missiles).
Gripen - the one able to operate from the shortest and roughest runways with the fewest number of support staff for turn-around. Exactly the scenario it was designed for.
And definitely not when "tanked up" as Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of a conformal tank which gives it an RCS advantage over Rafale with drop tanks.
No, with fuel tanks this climbs up quickly, same for the Eurofighter as well... then the electronic countermeasures do play a critical role and those are not really modeled, so all in all, this is a decent compromise
Indeed it's utter nonsense - also Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of conformal fuel tanks which actually swings the RCS the other way in maxed-out configurations.
@@LondonSteveLee Conformal tanks have been tested on both aircraft but neither is used in service. The latest Captor E has a repositioner swash plate so the Eurofighter can notch and still guide it's Meteors while the Rafale has no ability to perform that.
@@NATObait I quote "Defensive Counter Air -> Need some improvements in EW and identifications domains" , Recon -> Minimum capabilities not achieves, Air to Ground -> Minimum capabilities not achieves, Air policing -> "Moderatly objectable deficiencies". The opposite as you can see on the test in the link, Rafale Achieved all Minimum or Maximum capabilities and Best pilots impression / Effectivness.
@@thelemega9476 Correct statements were made 1: No way has a Rafale got a RCS of 0•5 m² with weapons and tanks!!! 2: Absolutely Rafale can't match Eurofighter and F22 in acceleration or climb. With internal weapons and big fuel reserves an F35 does not have drag and no change to RCS also it's Radar is double the size with more power available for EW , it has 360° field of view Rafale has 140° . Missile approach warning is served by 10 censors on F35 and 3 on Rafale. Basically it is not a contest due to modern design v previous generation.
It does have a pretty low RCS, just not as much as an F-22/F-35. Unlike the Eurofighter, the Rafale had extensive work done to reduce intake's RCS for example with inclusion of S-ducts. And I'm not French :)).
@@warthundershowcasing8905 It has the same RCS as a Super Hornet (both clean). As soon as you add a bag or two and any weapons, it stands out on radar like a big pair of dogs whatsits!
Yes sir, they are making a proper full euro fighter for dcs, same quality as the f-16 or tomcat. But the release date is unknown and it might not be out until next year
Very good video, we always love to see some EuroCanard on the channel. The 0.5m come from a director at Dassault that said that the requirement for the plane was to have the same radar signature as a small bird (hummingbird). But with fuel tank and missile it would be a lot more (at least going up to 1.5m). Same for the Typhoon. Loadout wise, the rafale can carry up to 4 meteors, 2mica em and 2 mica IR. Mica EM have a small range increase over the mica Ir thanks to better aerodynamics (maximum range is up to 80km for the radar variant and up to 65km for the IR one). Anyways i loved the video and hope to see another video with the rafale soon! A Rafale FAN
If you ever want to tweak the Rafale specs to GR standards you might want to have it tested by Ate Chuet (a french youtuber that flew Rafale and pretty unbiased in regards to equipment quality). Afaik the Rafale "stealth" mostly comes from its spectra system which is classified but apparently very efficient (though not as good as Gen5 packages).
Hey Cap do you think you could work on a Peregrine missile for the game? The concept is essentially a small "half-raam" shaped a lot like the SM-2 with the range of an AMRAAM-C or so but the maneuverability of an AIM-9X. It's being made for the F-35 because it's small enough that 2 can fit on a single rack and the seeker head has a radar, IR seeker, and a HARM's passive receiver for homing on jam or maybe SAM arrays.
Could you make a scenario where the three eurocanards (Gripen, Rafale, and Eurofighter) teaming up to face the Russian fighters (Su-35, Su-30, and Mig 31)?
Plase do a UK CSG vs US CSG :) Iam just curious how long the UK CSG can survive vs the US one. :D Ohh and please give UK a little bit help. The battle will take place in the English Channel. So in that way 20+ Eurofighters from UK can join in 10(air-to-air) and 10(With Storm Shadow missiles used as anti-shipping) from London(Why from London? Why not.. Lets say they are already refuelled mid air somewhere above London before the big battle). So fair amount of aircraft each side in this way... :D And these 20 Eurofighters will spawn into the battle after 5 minutes have passed. So in this way it is fair.
Things you can count on 100% in life. Death, taxes and a GR video where Cap starts off assuring us there will be no dogfights, and there are dogfights.
The stuff about reducing altitude to reduce the range of the missiles is a joke - yes - if BOTH aircraft are down there, but if someone is up high the missile will stay up high until it HAS to dive to engage the target - modern missiles don't blindly aim at their target at the target's altitude - particularly if the target data is coming from an external source (including the aircraft itself) so the missile doesn't need to keep its target in its RADAR cone - the missile's AI will calculate the best flight profile in real time to maximise range. So somebody sitting at 55,000 feet will have a HUGE advantage over someone at 10,000 feet. Another area where Typhoon has the upper hand - Rafale's engines are a compromise for carrier operations - Typhoon is much better at high altitude - fuel burn and actual fight ceilings - so forget wikipedia figures - in real combat trim Typhoon will have an (at least) 10,000 foot operational ceiling advantage as a starting point for launching its Meteors - that would turn into a decisive kinetic and range advantage for Typhoon's Meteors. These so-called simulations are so far from reality it’s mind-boggling. Great game but GIGO nonsense. As for less than half the RCS for Rafale - what utter trot.
A river in Paris...you mean the Left Bank and Right Bank aren't financial institutions? "You want a loan? Sorry, that's Right Bank. We only do deposits and wealth management here at Left Bank."
IMO if the best plane was based on looks alone the Rafale would be the F22. I saw the Rafale when I visited Paris and its just a cool, beautiful, lethal, looking Jet. The French did a great job with it. and Ive watch F22s do take off and landings at our local airport here in Billings, MT. Like a little airshow. also a cool looking jet..just not as.
Why is that the Meteor performs worse at lower altitudes compared to solid rocket motor missiles? Intuitively, I would think it would be the other way around. Here’s my logic. Because the Meteor requires atmospheric oxygen to produce thrust, there is a point in which the thrust/drag ratio begins to decrease as altitude increases. Seeing how conventional missiles contain their own oxidizer, there is no such constraint. Therefore, thrust would not change depending on altitude, just drag. Accordingly, a conventional missile becomes more efficient the higher the altitude where’s the Meteor may prefer relatively higher air density to produce optimal thrust. This would be my logic, but I am not an aerospace engineer so I am not be understanding ramjet physics properly. Any explanation would be greatly appreciated!
It doesn't, it's Grim Reapers/DCS nonsense based on historical compromises that you used to have to make with ramjets. With modern compact computing power and advanced sensors calculating the throttling of the intakes in real time to generate the required air speed through the ramjet engine to maintain the burn is trivial - what was a electro-mechanical nightmare to keep ignition going is a few sensors, some lines of code and some servos away. Guess what you get loads of down low? That's right, oxygen! Meteor will be a demon at low altitude - able to accelerate and steer under power when the solid-fuelled missiles are already slowing. You certainly won't be out-turning Meteor in piloted aircraft at ANY altitude while they are still burning - as they ridiculously did in this video!
Wonderful just really freaking wonderful! And Cap I’m enjoying the modified cursing but it’s ok to rip some swear words off in the heat of battle. Please continue to put out such great content
I got this from an A.I. bot :The Dassault Rafale is generally considered to be more stealthy than the Eurofighter Typhoon due to a number of design features that help reduce its radar cross-section. These features include: Shape: The Rafale has a highly streamlined shape with a flattened nose and a smooth, curved body. This helps to reduce the aircraft's radar signature by deflecting incoming radar waves away from the source. Composite Materials: The Rafale is constructed with a high percentage of composite materials, which are much less reflective to radar waves than traditional metal materials. This helps to further reduce the aircraft's radar signature. Internal Weapons Bay: The Rafale has an internal weapons bay that can be used to carry weapons and fuel tanks. By keeping these items inside the aircraft, the Rafale can maintain a lower profile and reduce its radar signature. Advanced Coatings: The Rafale is coated with advanced materials that help absorb and scatter radar waves, reducing the aircraft's signature even further. Engine Design: The Rafale's engines are designed with reduced infrared signatures, which makes it more difficult for heat-seeking missiles to track the aircraft. While the Eurofighter Typhoon also has some stealth features, such as a curved shape and the use of composite materials, it is generally considered to have a larger radar cross-section than the Rafale. However, it's important to note that stealth is just one factor in the overall performance of a fighter jet, and the Typhoon is known for its superior maneuverability and high-speed performance, which are also important factors in air-to-air combat. I don't know if its accurate, I just got it from an A.I. bot but it did say its source included government reports as well as the official websites of Dassault and of the multitude of companies that worked on the Eurofighter like Airbus, BAE systems and Leanardo. Also once again I don't know how accurate this is as I'm pretty sure some people prefer the Rafale over the Eurofighter because of superior maneuverability and energy management at high speeds while maneuvering but I could be wrong. (Edit): Also thats not saying thats even nearly enough for a cross section to be that low
Do you guys actually answer Patreon messages? Doesn't look like Patreon has seen attention in a while. If I can get the same value by posting in here for free, I'll save my money. 😂😂😂
Should try an Argentine surprise attack on England. War era of course. I can already hear the intro. "For reasons, the entire Argentine fleet has managed to get within 100 miles off the British coast without anyone knowing".
Hey cap, i heard or see on the previous comment saying that you were going to make a video about the new RCS of SU57 that has changed the RCS from 0.12m2 to 0.017m2, that i saw on the comment, that you were saying on it, right. So, can you make a video about the change in the RCS of the SU57.
9:10 Supercap, Meteor’s propulsion seems better than SRM missiles like AIM260 when fired down low. The missile has both the ability to modulate its throttle and energy dense oxidant free propellant. This should allow Meteor to conserve fuel and keep its motor going longer, maybe even flooring it in terminal phase. Thicker air offers the motor more oxidizer which might also increase maximum thrust. The downside of air breathing propulsion is the inability to exit atmosphere. GR’s imaginary AIM260 uses bow thrusters to maneuver in space, it might hit targets up high that are tough for Meteor. TL;DR Fox 3 Weeds: Meteor propulsion seems better Fox 3 Very High: AIM260, PL15, R-77 propulsion seems better
Roger noted. I;m not sure we can change it anyway TBH. Due to current game restrictions, our Meteor actually has a VERY long burning but low impulse SRM. This is why it's so bad low down. So I guess we have to accept this as an innaccuray.
Correct, someone actually gets the massive step forward modern computing and sensor packages give ramjet motors. The days of fixed ramjet configurations compromising performance are long gone. Meteor will throttle the intake maintaining the intake velocity required to keep the motor ignited for maximum efficiently and power regardless of altitude - there's plenty of oxygen down low! Meteor will thrive at low altitudes.
Hey Cap, I was just in Hong Kong yesterday, and when I logged in to your channel, I was like WTF...what happened? Most of your videos were gone, with the last video 3 months old. Not only that, but all videos had commenting turned off (and no comments visible) I thought you had a big spat with YT and was trying to download Rumble. Today, I landed in Australia and checked...all your videos are back with comments. Unless you did something major yesterday, I think YT does some SERIOUS censorship of your vids in certain countries.
5:38 - Spent several seconds looking for the town/city of "Unglay" that you ordered the team to stay over before it dawned on me what you meant. . . ;)
i have a request i dk if its modeled but can you guys do the mach loop for a fun little video i see mountains are modeled on map idk if they are in game
@@grimreapers is there an arctic circle map to go over cold war themed missions like bomber interception with dew line stations. Would be interesting if you could set up a battle that lasts as long as certain key strategic centers and factories are not destroyed. Using ai bots and humans.
Sorry to say my dudes, but there is no way the Rafale has a radar cross section on 0.5. I'm not sure where your peeps got that info from, but I call bullshit on that. If I'm wrong and someone can prove it then I apologise, but I still call bullshit. It may have a slight advantage in cross section due to it intakes and I don't think it carries as many missiles, but they are very similar in size and shape. You gave yourselves a massive disadvantage, and I mean massive. Should do this again with the correct cross sections. Look at what you set the crappy looking J-20 and the nice looking SU-57 at. No way the Rafale is close to them. I might be wrong. And I know cap you love the look of the J-20 but let's be real, it is a liquorice allsorts of jets between F-35, F-22 and even the SU-57, it's big and ugly, we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Anyway, I love your channel and keep the vids coming. Lot of respect for you dudes because I know you put a lot of time into your channel.
In real life Meteors can be launched at low altitude and be effective. When fired at low alt they would have to throttle up and spend much fuel climbing up high and accelerating but the result would be a Mach 4 missile at 40-60k ft ready to dive on target - only with less fuel left so less range. But Meteor would still have MUCH longer effective range than a conventional missile launched from low alt. Of course low launched Meteor would lose with high launched Meteor :).
Indeed, with modern computing calculating the throttling of the intakes in real time to generate the required air speed through the ramjet engine to maintain the burn is trivial - what was a electro-mechanical nightmare to keep ignition going is a few sensors, some lines of code and some servos. Guess what you get loads of down low? That's right, oxygen! Meteor will be a demon a low altitude - able to accelerate and steer under power when the solid-fuelled missiles are working on kinetic energy alone. You certainly won't be out-turning them in piloted aircraft while they are still burning.
The Meteor has a NEZ of 60k that means if you are flying at 3000m at Mach 0•9 and launch at a target at 15000m at Mach 1•3 even if it manoeuvres the Meteor will hit ( this is it's worse case scenario). Likewise if you launch from height/speed at a low flying target you have a kinetic advantage giving a 30% range increase. AIM 120D managed to achieve a test hit at 100+ miles and that has shorter range than a Meteor.
@@NATObait Some simulations based on known performance like above suggest that with high altitude launch Meteor could reach 200+ or even 300km with Mach 3 cruise speed. On high altitude It's rather limited by things like battery time, datalink range or launching aircraft's radar range than it's propulsion. Some other simulations suggested that AIM-120C in anti-radiation variant launched from 5000ft against ground radar target could reach maximum of 30-40km with below 1.5 Ma terminal speed. I believe the lower number is more realistic. In the same conditions simulated Meteor launched from 5000ft climbed into stratosphere, cruised at high speed and then dived reaching 80-100km against ground target with also 1.5Ma terminal speed. It would mean also it's max range in Lo-Lo scenario against non maneuvering cooperative target (helicopter, transport, cruise missile). That also fits to your 60km NEZ against fighter aircraft from low altitude launch. I think there is no other A2A missile that can do that, to reach so far from low altitude. Maybe some with dual pulse rocket propulsion, but would have to be really modern and have a big/long engine. So maybe AIM-260. There are missiles that can reach very long ranges when launched high and fast against non-maneuvering target, but none with NEZ parameters similar to Meteor. Yeah seems that missiles in DCS can have a single level of thrust, or rather thrust can't be modified depending on altitude or speed. So with thrust set such that it reaches 4 or 5 mach at high altitude, it could ho barely supersonic at low altitude where air is 10x as dense. If thrust was set to reach Mach 2.5 at low altitude then it would probably went Mach 10 at high alt.... I hope when the official Eurofighter module is released we get properly modeled Meteor... Or maybe it is going to be Tranche 1 armed with AMRAAMs only ?
The RCS of a Rafale is certainly not something that is set in stone, outside of the amount of composite used in the plane and the revised aerodynamics, the SPECTRA suite also act in a way to reduce the RCS but all that part is classified, on the other hand, add some missiles or pods and that RCS is going to grow. My question is would french pilots bring 2 fuel pods for a flight over home ground when faced with peer to peer level threats ?
The Rafale RCS is utter nonsense - also Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of conformal fuel tanks which actually swings the RCS the other way in maxed-out configurations.
What is all this guff about ramjets not working a low altitudes? What do you think Sea Dart was? With modern computing the throttling of the intakes to generate the required air speed through the ramjet engine to maintain the burn is trivial - what was a electro-mechanical nightmare to keep ignition going is a few sensors, some lines of code and some servos. Guess what you get loads of down low? That's right, oxygen! Meteor will be a demon a low altitude - able to accelerate and steer under power when the solid-fuelled missiles are working on kinetic energy alone. You certainly won't be out-turning them in piloted aircraft while they are still burning. Ramjets were a huge compromise set to operate efficiently at certain altitudes, now with modern sensors and computing they can trim themselves to work efficiently at all altitudes.
Now you all will need to model the Storm Shadow missle that the UK is giving to Ukraine. Possibly could hit the Kerch Bridge from the front lines now!!
So, question. I haven't done DCS. When you set the Rafale's RCS to .5, was it .5 with the bags? Or was it .5 + the bags? Feels like 1.5 + 1 bag = 2.5 (assuming a 1 m add for the bag) and .5 + 2 bags = 2.5.... Again, having not played DCS, I have no idea. Just curious.
So now you have tweaked Rafale's RCS can you please do a QE vs CdeG carrier fight? You know you want to do a thing.
I'm not convinced it will make much difference against full 5th gen?? th-cam.com/video/Lpe2QLBaP_0/w-d-xo.html
@@grimreapers Good idea! And this time give the French CSG at least 1 USA Destroyer(Not Cruiser) because of the NATO thingy GR. French CSG have US ships with it same thing about the UK CSG in real life but because UK won last time, they will be full UK CSG again. So it would look like this: Rafale with 0.5 RCS, and French CSG with 1 USA Destroyer vs UK CSG with F-35B with Meteors. The US Destroyer should deployed with their anti-shipping SM-2 and SM-6. :) This will give a chance for France to win vs the UK CSG. Ohh and no anti-shipping Rafales only air-to-air. And change the UK AWACS to 3 Merlin Crowsnest helicopters, UK does not have any apart from that helicopters at the moment. The Wedgetail will be available in the future, but not for the navy i think. So yeah, no E-2D for UK.
@@grimreapers 😒🤔
We’ve gotta build the three Type 26 variants for the game.
@@grimreapers Another thing to consider. The CdeG has E2. QE only has the lacklustre Crowsnest which is for spotting periscopes and low flying missiles. No theatre wide control of BVR missiles.
That river in France (Seine) was the one used by Ragnar Lothbrok when the Vikings besieged Paris.
thx
That 0.5m2 RCS for the Rafale is almost certainly in a clean configuration. With external stores, its probably got the same RCS as the Typhoon.
I believe the external stores do increase the RCS in DCS
But then Typhoon has the option of a conformal fuel tank giving it a RCS advantage over a tanked up Rafale.
@@coreysuh6502 as far as I know, the RCS is whatever it's set too, with or without external stores.
@@LondonSteveLee maybe a slight advantage, but as long as it's carrying missiles on pylons, it's RCS is not going to be significantly different from the Rafale, even if the Rafale has fuel tanks and the Typhoon doesn't.
@@djzoodude Perhaps - the advantage would still be with Typhoon and of course in combat trim Typhoon could enter the battle with a 10-15,000 foot ceiling advantage giving its Meteors much longer legs - this advantage alone would be decisive in handing the battle to Typhoon. The Rafale is a great all-rounder though - I would rather the British had the M-variants on their carriers over F-35B - we could have more than 12 per carrier to begin with - and they'd actually function rather than being below deck under repair - again.
Absolute kudos to the gent acting as AEW&C in second round!! Excellent work! Best I've seen in sims!
i remember one of these where Matrix fought 3 raptors alone, while just casually commentating. You can tell the real pilots...
Which he is (or was) btw.
I've never considered how modern aerial battles over France can take place without even leaving England... How different WWII would have been with this technology...
I can't remember now how many times I've had a chuckle when you've gone from an overview of the battle and back into your cockpit only to be killed a few seconds later from a missile or miss hap. But please don't change and rob me of 1 of my minor enjoyments.
Yeh I have a habit of doing that.
A few quick comments on the starting planes: both RCS are wrong if the planes have external tanks, you should probably multiply by at least 3 the proposed numbers... In terms of loadout, Eurofighter would normally take 6 meteors max (or a mix mix of meteor and AMRAAM) and 2 ASRAAM, the latest Rafale F4 version would take 2 meteors, 4 MICA EG and 2 MICA IR; There are tremendous differences for each planes between versions (regarding their radar, electronic countermeasures, helmets etc.) and that would have a massive impact on the results. If Rafale are in pairs, the standard practice is that the front plane that fires missiles does not turn on its radar, to be a more difficult target, the Rafale behind can guide the missile fired by the front plane. The MICA IR is a medium range IR missile that can be fired without IR lock, the missile then searches its target, so it is essentially a BVR IR missile which launch is very hard to detect by the enemy plane. Eurofighter should be expected to dominate at high altitude, and Rafale at low altitude.
I don't think SPECTRA is modelled in this mod
@@octavia200 No of course not, and neither is the equivalent system of the Eurofighter, but even so, lots of variables
ASRAAM is also a BVR missile when fired from an initial high speed and altitude. As part of Sky Sabre even ground launched ASRAAM is achieving 25+mile kills - they must have a range of nearly double that if fired at 50,000 feet. The Wikipedia range on them is way under-rated. Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of a conformal tank improving RCS over a tanked-up Rafale. It would also have an at least 10,000 foot ceiling advantage (conservatively!) over Rafale in combat trim giving its Meteors much longer legs. Typhoon would just have to fly in at maximum altitude - that would give it enough of a range advantage to defeat Rafale given the same missiles.
@@LondonSteveLee All real characteristics are classified so let's avoid making guesses here. ASRAAM certainly has longer range than IRIS-T for example, but it is also a smaller and lighter missile than MICA IR (and also slower, with a speed of about Mach 3 vs Mach 4 for MICA) so its range is still probably less. Let's remember that MICA IR and ER are identical save for their guidance system. Conformational tank would certainly help, but there are so many factors involved in detection range... Typhoon are better than Rafale at high altitude, but the reverse is true at low altitude, so if Rafale evade the initial salvo, table are turned... Overall, this would be a tight fight, and this test, despite all the caveats, does show this rather well, well done to the teams !
@@VoltaireVoltaire-zq4zh Indeed, I didn't say ASRAAM matches MICA for range - I said it's also a BVR missile. Low altitude performance would very much depend on whether the Typhoon has the 2015 aerodynamic enhancement kit fitted or not which tremendously improved nose authority and lift with no additional drag. (I don't think the Brits have fitted this.) the bypass ratio of the Rafale engine (suited for marine operation) gives it great responsiveness at low altitude making it a good dog-fighting engine. On the EJ200 side, RR have recently unlocked a staggering 30% (THIRTY PERCENT!) extra thrust from EJ200 (though a software update) as the engines are lasting well beyond their expected service life (doubling it to be precise) - which is costing them millions in lost (projected) revenue. This turns what is already a hot-rod into the power-to-weight king of the skies in interceptor trim - all that extra power sups fuel of course.
Typhoon has a lower RCS than Rafale.
Source: Indian fighter pilot involved in MMRCA evaluation.
Yeah I knew that guy aswell, his call sign was "trust me bro" if I recall correctly
Is there an A-6 Intruder in DCS nowadays? Just watched your "Flight of the Intruder" video from 4 years ago, was hoping you might be able to redo it with the correct aircraft - not to mention, all your additional accumulated experience in modding and mission building in DCS - could be a real blast.
Not an official one, no
They are making an AI A-6 right now that is suppose to lead into a flyable one.
You guys should put together the ghost bat or some other low observable drone for some battles.
Hey GR, doesn’t the Rafale carry an additional pair of MICA RF BVRAAMs?
So do you mean 4 x Meteor + 4 x MICA? I was not aware of this.
@@grimreapers 2 meteor, 2-4 MICA ER (radar fox3) and 2 MICA IR
@@grimreapers Yep, 4 Meteors, 2 MICA RFs and 2 MICA IRs.
Kudos to Bird, holding in reserve so he could be the clincher if needed. A+ strats.
Hell of a fight there. How about a dogfight with between all of the jet trainers from the past forty years.
Lol, tiny RCS, but a fixed external refuelling probe....... makes sense.
You can take the pilot outta the Jaguar, but yer canna take the Jaguar out the pilot 😁 Luv that Matrix is low flying around Brighton and finding ‘mountains’ in the South of England.
I'm surprised cap didn't know about the south downs Butser hill (about 900feet about sea level) being a well known land mark and north downs punchbowl area (900 Feet OD)and Box hill (700 feet OD) also well known not mountains but good height considering how flat south England generally is.
Fair comment, I will try to make use of it.
The best tactical setup would be two up high and two about 10k lower as bait.
@@flashgordon6670 yep. Though the only real way to really catch the bandits off guard is to add a stealth like the F-35 in with a basic internal loadout nothing external. Though I would prefer the F-22 in the role, for the obvious reasons.
Watching these videos makes me want to get DCS and work out different scenarios of current tech during the height of the cold war. Would be even better if was over the arctic circle for more realistic feel. Crazy thing is the US is still using one main airframe the b-52 bomber. Just wished there was a dcs Avro arrow in Mk II or even a modern version. If one of the original use the radar and fire control system from an a model Tomcat as it would be the closestin set-up to the arrow
Typhoon has such a huge altitude-celling advantage (in combat trim) over Rafale (at least 10,000 - probably 15,000 feet in reality), it could simply fly in at maximum altitude giving its Meteors a considerable kinetic and range advantage. This "simulation" is nonsense - the less said about the laughable RCS modelled for Rafale the better. The considerable altitude disadvantage for Rafale would be further exacerbated if Typhoon was wearing its conformal tank against Rafale carrying drop-tanks (and a RCS disadvantage to-boot). Of course Rafale in clean trim has much better range than Typhoon. The already considerable celling advantage for Typhoon has recently been theoretically increased thanks to Rolls Royce unlocking a staggering 30% increase in thrust for the EJ200 as they are doubling their expected mean time before failure in service. The engines are too damn reliable which is costing RR a lot of money in reduced sales! (meanwhile we reduce the available thrust for our F-35Bs due to engine fragility!)
@@LondonSteveLee everything I hear about the F-35 engines has been positive. The only issue people seem to have that there is only one engine in the F-35. As with anything new to aviation it takes time to figure out what are the issues to watch out for. Most F-35 issues I am aware of have all been software related.
@@everydaycarrycanada951 It's a fragile engine being operated below maximum thrust in normal service - there isn't tonnes of talk about a new engine for nothing - the huge expense and time overrun of the F-35 project meant staying with the current compromised and over-stretched engine design to avoid igniting further political backlash. If the project demanded a new engine I wouldn't be surprised if an angry congress canned the project when looking for cuts! Hopefully the export success will mean it actually DOES get a new engine when the dust settles - they've got to break the bad news that it needs a total avionics refit first. Again a legacy of the project being so late causing design freezes to reduce risk means that everything under the skin is nearly 20 years out of date. Block 4 is a sticking plaster and really is the end of the line for the current F-35 computing infrastructure. Yes (whisper it) F-35 is already obsolete until it's completely refitted.
That was epic!
Vikings used that river like a freeway to get to the Paris peasants and pillage them!
Nice. I wish I was a Viking.
Hey Super Cap, did Fly teach you that Eiffel Tower attack strategy?
yes!
Would a vertical saw tactic work in a long range flat terrain situation like this? The guy at the top of the climb fires at the baddies, and drags the incoming missiles back down into the thick air as the next guy is climbing into the top position. Would it burn too much fuel?
They wouldn't need to do any of this - In combat trim Typhoon has an (at least) 10,000 foot ceiling advantage over Rafale - that would give its Meteors a decisive kinetic and range advantage. The Missiles have AI, they won't track a low altitude target at low altitude - they'll stay up high to maximise range until they HAVE to dive.
The ground textures look like a cartoon, the UK isn't that colour.
UK is just grey. I prefer it like this though. Gives me some hope.
@@grimreapers 😂🤣😂🤣
@@grimreapers hope you rigged it so the frogs don't win. Didn't get to the end to find out.
Nothing with a single straight up tail/rudder is low observable.
The Rafale with 2 fuel tanks and missiles that don't semi recess does not have a RCS of 0•5m² but way above ( 3m².). Why set a fantasy figure unless it's a guns only with no drop tanks. The Eurofighter does semi recess it's missiles so although it is 10% larger than Rafale it has more composites in its structure and so both aircraft would have similar RCS.????
👏👍
How can it be semi stealthy with two bags?
agree
Are there going to be anymore cold war jets coming to DCS e.g EE Lightning, Javelin, Hunter, Jaguar etc?
No. At least not in the near future. I believe that the modules which are the closest to completion are the F-15E, the F-4, and the A-6(?)
They will all come eventually but we are talking years away.
@@grimreapers its such a shame. I would love to see a f6 lightning vs foxbat.
with external stores I think both will have a RCS close to F16. no way those big ass fuel tank doesnt reflect radars
Correct, and later Typhoons have the option of a conformal tank which will give it an RCS advantage.
Apparently, Cap has never seen The Vikings. That is how they got to Paris. That main vein right through the country. 120 ships.
thx
@@grimreapers You guys are great tho. Thanks for your work.
How do you make a flight model?
It's just a data table in the main plane LUA. Just change the numbers. Takes a long time.
Not seen anything to support Rafale at 0.5m, it has the same advances in composite materials and RCS optimisation as the Eurofighter with no special stealth coatings. F4 version is supposed to be a bit more radio quiet as its been upgraded with secure communications and still has the pretty powerful active radar jammer in the SPECTRA suite (more powerful version than Praetorian DSS on Eurofighter and F-35's AN/AAQ37), SPECTRA has been upgraded for F4 has recently had missile infrared guidance jamming capability added as well as an expansion of its jamming frequency range (rumoured to include millimetric radar as used by active radar homing missiles).
thx
Wonder which of the 4th gen/+ fighters would perform the best in Ukraine?
Gripen - the one able to operate from the shortest and roughest runways with the fewest number of support staff for turn-around. Exactly the scenario it was designed for.
Rafale RCS is NOT less than the Typhoon. Who on earth suggested this nonsense? Typhoon is roughly 0.5, Rafale is roughly 1.0 when running clean.
I just been reading comments on previous GR Rafale vids.
@@grimreapers more interested in where they got their information from than any slight at you guys. Hope it didn't come across that way.
And definitely not when "tanked up" as Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of a conformal tank which gives it an RCS advantage over Rafale with drop tanks.
SS gonzalo alejandro >= purple hud baguette
0.5 defo too small 4 raffle with all weapons
thx
i still feel like the RCS should be below 1 m²...
With bags and a full combat load?
@@Utubesuperstar they do not account for stores. if they did, the rafale's RCS would be much larger.
It’s not a stealth aircraft. It’s not even considered low observable
@@keeganhenderson24 neither is the rafale.
both of these are in the same class as the super hornet
@@zahnatom You seem to be contradictory. Do you want the RCS to be smaller because the real version is stealthier?
Rafale with external weapons mounted having an RCS of 0,5m² ? Yeah, I am going to call bullshit on this.
No way with weapons on hard points does a rafale have a radar cross section of 0.5, no way in hell!
No, with fuel tanks this climbs up quickly, same for the Eurofighter as well... then the electronic countermeasures do play a critical role and those are not really modeled, so all in all, this is a decent compromise
Indeed it's utter nonsense - also Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of conformal fuel tanks which actually swings the RCS the other way in maxed-out configurations.
@@LondonSteveLee Conformal tanks have been tested on both aircraft but neither is used in service. The latest Captor E has a repositioner swash plate so the Eurofighter can notch and still guide it's Meteors while the Rafale has no ability to perform that.
@@NATObait I quote "Defensive Counter Air -> Need some improvements in EW and identifications domains" , Recon -> Minimum capabilities not achieves, Air to Ground -> Minimum capabilities not achieves, Air policing -> "Moderatly objectable deficiencies". The opposite as you can see on the test in the link, Rafale Achieved all Minimum or Maximum capabilities and Best pilots impression / Effectivness.
@@thelemega9476 Correct statements were made 1: No way has a Rafale got a RCS of
0•5 m² with weapons and tanks!!!
2: Absolutely Rafale can't match Eurofighter and F22 in acceleration or climb.
With internal weapons and big fuel reserves an F35 does not have drag and no change to RCS also it's Radar is double the size with more power available for EW , it has 360° field of view Rafale has 140° . Missile approach warning is served by 10 censors on F35 and 3 on Rafale. Basically it is not a contest due to modern design v previous generation.
watching a rafale slowly tearing a eurofighter apart is certainly an amazing airshow
Very uncomfortable as a Brit...
Rafale is deadly against all known gliders.
Cap, did you not hear about the Parisian guy who jumped off one of the bridges into the river?
He was said to be in Seine.
I see what you did there!
Lol
I assume that those telling you that the Rafale has such a small RCS are French :)
It does have a pretty low RCS, just not as much as an F-22/F-35. Unlike the Eurofighter, the Rafale had extensive work done to reduce intake's RCS for example with inclusion of S-ducts. And I'm not French :)).
@@warthundershowcasing8905 the Eurofighter Typhoon uses S-Ducts as well
@@warthundershowcasing8905 It has the same RCS as a Super Hornet (both clean). As soon as you add a bag or two and any weapons, it stands out on radar like a big pair of dogs whatsits!
Mais oui, bien sur!
@@clangerbasher Yep, Ben Hur was a great movie?? 😅
You guys need to do England and France vs Russia and China Carrier group.
Yup that's def poss.
Except there is no real Russian carrier anymore though... I would put 2 Chinese carriers instead, but first nerf the PL15 missiles though
Yes please!!
Did I hear a rumor that DCS is working on a Eurofighter or was this the one I was hearing about?
Yes sir, they are making a proper full euro fighter for dcs, same quality as the f-16 or tomcat. But the release date is unknown and it might not be out until next year
@@master_shifu4208 TY Sir, salute!
Full fid EF will be really useful.
@@grimreapers Nothing about a Rafale ? :(
Very good video, we always love to see some EuroCanard on the channel. The 0.5m come from a director at Dassault that said that the requirement for the plane was to have the same radar signature as a small bird (hummingbird). But with fuel tank and missile it would be a lot more (at least going up to 1.5m). Same for the Typhoon. Loadout wise, the rafale can carry up to 4 meteors, 2mica em and 2 mica IR. Mica EM have a small range increase over the mica Ir thanks to better aerodynamics (maximum range is up to 80km for the radar variant and up to 65km for the IR one).
Anyways i loved the video and hope to see another video with the rafale soon!
A Rafale FAN
Thanks
Normandy 2.0 map is brilliant, and I have even been able to pick out my own house, west of London, between Heathrow and Farnborough....
If you jump off a bridge in Paris, you're in Seine.
Thanks for the sonic boom in Brighton, Matrix… you can actually see my “sort of represented” street near the train station.
Sorry for the windows.
If you ever want to tweak the Rafale specs to GR standards you might want to have it tested by Ate Chuet (a french youtuber that flew Rafale and pretty unbiased in regards to equipment quality). Afaik the Rafale "stealth" mostly comes from its spectra system which is classified but apparently very efficient (though not as good as Gen5 packages).
I would actually LOVE that! Spoken to Ate before, properly nice guy.
We'll save you London, as someone drops flares into a neighbourhood lol.
Someone will put it out for me.
Hey Cap do you think you could work on a Peregrine missile for the game?
The concept is essentially a small "half-raam" shaped a lot like the SM-2 with the range of an AMRAAM-C or so but the maneuverability of an AIM-9X. It's being made for the F-35 because it's small enough that 2 can fit on a single rack and the seeker head has a radar, IR seeker, and a HARM's passive receiver for homing on jam or maybe SAM arrays.
Will pass on to CH now.
Could you make a scenario where the three eurocanards (Gripen, Rafale, and Eurofighter) teaming up to face the Russian fighters (Su-35, Su-30, and Mig 31)?
Cool
Plase do a UK CSG vs US CSG :) Iam just curious how long the UK CSG can survive vs the US one. :D Ohh and please give UK a little bit help. The battle will take place in the English Channel. So in that way 20+ Eurofighters from UK can join in 10(air-to-air) and 10(With Storm Shadow missiles used as anti-shipping) from London(Why from London? Why not.. Lets say they are already refuelled mid air somewhere above London before the big battle). So fair amount of aircraft each side in this way... :D And these 20 Eurofighters will spawn into the battle after 5 minutes have passed. So in this way it is fair.
Things you can count on 100% in life. Death, taxes and a GR video where Cap starts off assuring us there will be no dogfights, and there are dogfights.
Accurate af
It just doesn't make any sense how these go down to DFs. Shouldn't happen.
@@grimreapers tell the boys to stop dodging missiles and accept their fate like men 💀
The stuff about reducing altitude to reduce the range of the missiles is a joke - yes - if BOTH aircraft are down there, but if someone is up high the missile will stay up high until it HAS to dive to engage the target - modern missiles don't blindly aim at their target at the target's altitude - particularly if the target data is coming from an external source (including the aircraft itself) so the missile doesn't need to keep its target in its RADAR cone - the missile's AI will calculate the best flight profile in real time to maximise range. So somebody sitting at 55,000 feet will have a HUGE advantage over someone at 10,000 feet. Another area where Typhoon has the upper hand - Rafale's engines are a compromise for carrier operations - Typhoon is much better at high altitude - fuel burn and actual fight ceilings - so forget wikipedia figures - in real combat trim Typhoon will have an (at least) 10,000 foot operational ceiling advantage as a starting point for launching its Meteors - that would turn into a decisive kinetic and range advantage for Typhoon's Meteors. These so-called simulations are so far from reality it’s mind-boggling. Great game but GIGO nonsense. As for less than half the RCS for Rafale - what utter trot.
A river in Paris...you mean the Left Bank and Right Bank aren't financial institutions? "You want a loan? Sorry, that's Right Bank. We only do deposits and wealth management here at Left Bank."
IMO if the best plane was based on looks alone the Rafale would be the F22. I saw the Rafale when I visited Paris and its just a cool, beautiful, lethal, looking Jet. The French did a great job with it.
and Ive watch F22s do take off and landings at our local airport here in Billings, MT. Like a little airshow. also a cool looking jet..just not as.
ROFLMAO.... celebrating a kill without situation awareness...lol
Lovely mission and the dog fighting at the end was outstanding, Thank you to all that participated.
Why is that the Meteor performs worse at lower altitudes compared to solid rocket motor missiles? Intuitively, I would think it would be the other way around. Here’s my logic. Because the Meteor requires atmospheric oxygen to produce thrust, there is a point in which the thrust/drag ratio begins to decrease as altitude increases. Seeing how conventional missiles contain their own oxidizer, there is no such constraint. Therefore, thrust would not change depending on altitude, just drag. Accordingly, a conventional missile becomes more efficient the higher the altitude where’s the Meteor may prefer relatively higher air density to produce optimal thrust.
This would be my logic, but I am not an aerospace engineer so I am not be understanding ramjet physics properly.
Any explanation would be greatly appreciated!
It doesn't, it's Grim Reapers/DCS nonsense based on historical compromises that you used to have to make with ramjets. With modern compact computing power and advanced sensors calculating the throttling of the intakes in real time to generate the required air speed through the ramjet engine to maintain the burn is trivial - what was a electro-mechanical nightmare to keep ignition going is a few sensors, some lines of code and some servos away. Guess what you get loads of down low? That's right, oxygen! Meteor will be a demon at low altitude - able to accelerate and steer under power when the solid-fuelled missiles are already slowing. You certainly won't be out-turning Meteor in piloted aircraft at ANY altitude while they are still burning - as they ridiculously did in this video!
Wonderful just really freaking wonderful! And Cap I’m enjoying the modified cursing but it’s ok to rip some swear words off in the heat of battle. Please continue to put out such great content
I got this from an A.I. bot :The Dassault Rafale is generally considered to be more stealthy than the Eurofighter Typhoon due to a number of design features that help reduce its radar cross-section. These features include:
Shape: The Rafale has a highly streamlined shape with a flattened nose and a smooth, curved body. This helps to reduce the aircraft's radar signature by deflecting incoming radar waves away from the source.
Composite Materials: The Rafale is constructed with a high percentage of composite materials, which are much less reflective to radar waves than traditional metal materials. This helps to further reduce the aircraft's radar signature.
Internal Weapons Bay: The Rafale has an internal weapons bay that can be used to carry weapons and fuel tanks. By keeping these items inside the aircraft, the Rafale can maintain a lower profile and reduce its radar signature.
Advanced Coatings: The Rafale is coated with advanced materials that help absorb and scatter radar waves, reducing the aircraft's signature even further.
Engine Design: The Rafale's engines are designed with reduced infrared signatures, which makes it more difficult for heat-seeking missiles to track the aircraft.
While the Eurofighter Typhoon also has some stealth features, such as a curved shape and the use of composite materials, it is generally considered to have a larger radar cross-section than the Rafale. However, it's important to note that stealth is just one factor in the overall performance of a fighter jet, and the Typhoon is known for its superior maneuverability and high-speed performance, which are also important factors in air-to-air combat.
I don't know if its accurate, I just got it from an A.I. bot but it did say its source included government reports as well as the official websites of Dassault and of the multitude of companies that worked on the Eurofighter like Airbus, BAE systems and Leanardo. Also once again I don't know how accurate this is as I'm pretty sure some people prefer the Rafale over the Eurofighter because of superior maneuverability and energy management at high speeds while maneuvering but I could be wrong.
(Edit): Also thats not saying thats even nearly enough for a cross section to be that low
the low RCS of the rafale is thanks to it's SPECTRA system, awesome things but REALLY classified, and it has no internal bay
Where do I send the bill for my shattered windows caused by Matrix' sonic boom?
Matrix_GR@gmail.com
Cap: I really want poosh.
Maverick: Find viper, I want viper.
LOL
Hell yeah! Thanks for this one Cap!!😁👍👍
The RAF is supposed to have the E-7 wedgetail in 2023. Does DCS have the E-7, yet?
Neg, but TBH I just use E2D for all AWACSs in game anyways.
Do you guys actually answer Patreon messages? Doesn't look like Patreon has seen attention in a while. If I can get the same value by posting in here for free, I'll save my money. 😂😂😂
Just looked. All Patreon msgs answered that I can see.
@@grimreapers is there more than one?
Should try an Argentine surprise attack on England. War era of course.
I can already hear the intro. "For reasons, the entire Argentine fleet has managed to get within 100 miles off the British coast without anyone knowing".
Climb out on the ladder while it's in-flight, ghostride it!
Idk if DCS has the night hawk but it would be so cool if you could use it or include it in future videos
Yup got something planned with it.
That was a great, GREAT high-tension battle! THIS is the kind of shiz that I watch GR videos for. Kudos for all involved. Keep it up! 👍
thx
Hey cap, i heard or see on the previous comment saying that you were going to make a video about the new RCS of SU57 that has changed the RCS from 0.12m2 to 0.017m2, that i saw on the comment, that you were saying on it, right. So, can you make a video about the change in the RCS of the SU57.
9:10 Supercap, Meteor’s propulsion seems better than SRM missiles like AIM260 when fired down low. The missile has both the ability to modulate its throttle and energy dense oxidant free propellant. This should allow Meteor to conserve fuel and keep its motor going longer, maybe even flooring it in terminal phase. Thicker air offers the motor more oxidizer which might also increase maximum thrust.
The downside of air breathing propulsion is the inability to exit atmosphere. GR’s imaginary AIM260 uses bow thrusters to maneuver in space, it might hit targets up high that are tough for Meteor.
TL;DR
Fox 3 Weeds: Meteor propulsion seems better
Fox 3 Very High: AIM260, PL15, R-77 propulsion seems better
Roger noted. I;m not sure we can change it anyway TBH. Due to current game restrictions, our Meteor actually has a VERY long burning but low impulse SRM. This is why it's so bad low down. So I guess we have to accept this as an innaccuray.
Correct, someone actually gets the massive step forward modern computing and sensor packages give ramjet motors. The days of fixed ramjet configurations compromising performance are long gone. Meteor will throttle the intake maintaining the intake velocity required to keep the motor ignited for maximum efficiently and power regardless of altitude - there's plenty of oxygen down low! Meteor will thrive at low altitudes.
Why such the delta wings?
Cap this is a great video to watch after getting off work
Hey Cap, I was just in Hong Kong yesterday, and when I logged in to your channel, I was like WTF...what happened? Most of your videos were gone, with the last video 3 months old. Not only that, but all videos had commenting turned off (and no comments visible)
I thought you had a big spat with YT and was trying to download Rumble. Today, I landed in Australia and checked...all your videos are back with comments. Unless you did something major yesterday, I think YT does some SERIOUS censorship of your vids in certain countries.
5:38 - Spent several seconds looking for the town/city of "Unglay" that you ordered the team to stay over before it dawned on me what you meant. . . ;)
According to Google, Dassault Rafale has a RCS of 1.25 meter square.
That sounds a bit more like it to me.
i have a request i dk if its modeled but can you guys do the mach loop for a fun little video i see mountains are modeled on map idk if they are in game
We don't have that part in game sadly :(
@@grimreapers that sucks would be a great part of map
@@grimreapers is there an arctic circle map to go over cold war themed missions like bomber interception with dew line stations. Would be interesting if you could set up a battle that lasts as long as certain key strategic centers and factories are not destroyed. Using ai bots and humans.
Sorry to say my dudes, but there is no way the Rafale has a radar cross section on 0.5. I'm not sure where your peeps got that info from, but I call bullshit on that. If I'm wrong and someone can prove it then I apologise, but I still call bullshit. It may have a slight advantage in cross section due to it intakes and I don't think it carries as many missiles, but they are very similar in size and shape. You gave yourselves a massive disadvantage, and I mean massive. Should do this again with the correct cross sections. Look at what you set the crappy looking J-20 and the nice looking SU-57 at. No way the Rafale is close to them. I might be wrong. And I know cap you love the look of the J-20 but let's be real, it is a liquorice allsorts of jets between F-35, F-22 and even the SU-57, it's big and ugly, we will just have to agree to disagree on that one. Anyway, I love your channel and keep the vids coming. Lot of respect for you dudes because I know you put a lot of time into your channel.
Missed Guernsey’s 🇬🇬 airdrome by a mile or two there cap 😝 cheers for the content guys keep it up!
Best match I ever watched.
Love to see Iron Dome? CH? 🧡
Does the eurofighter not also have electronic technologies that reduce its RCS? Are the Rafale’s just better?
In real life Meteors can be launched at low altitude and be effective. When fired at low alt they would have to throttle up and spend much fuel climbing up high and accelerating but the result would be a Mach 4 missile at 40-60k ft ready to dive on target - only with less fuel left so less range. But Meteor would still have MUCH longer effective range than a conventional missile launched from low alt.
Of course low launched Meteor would lose with high launched Meteor :).
In that case, maybe it's just a game thing. Not sure there's much we can do about it.
Indeed, with modern computing calculating the throttling of the intakes in real time to generate the required air speed through the ramjet engine to maintain the burn is trivial - what was a electro-mechanical nightmare to keep ignition going is a few sensors, some lines of code and some servos. Guess what you get loads of down low? That's right, oxygen! Meteor will be a demon a low altitude - able to accelerate and steer under power when the solid-fuelled missiles are working on kinetic energy alone. You certainly won't be out-turning them in piloted aircraft while they are still burning.
The Meteor has a NEZ of 60k that means if you are flying at 3000m at Mach 0•9 and launch at a target at 15000m at Mach 1•3 even if it manoeuvres the Meteor will hit ( this is it's worse case scenario). Likewise if you launch from height/speed at a low flying target you have a kinetic advantage giving a 30% range increase. AIM 120D managed to achieve a test hit at 100+ miles and that has shorter range than a Meteor.
@@NATObait Some simulations based on known performance like above suggest that with high altitude launch Meteor could reach 200+ or even 300km with Mach 3 cruise speed. On high altitude It's rather limited by things like battery time, datalink range or launching aircraft's radar range than it's propulsion.
Some other simulations suggested that AIM-120C in anti-radiation variant launched from 5000ft against ground radar target could reach maximum of 30-40km with below 1.5 Ma terminal speed. I believe the lower number is more realistic. In the same conditions simulated Meteor launched from 5000ft climbed into stratosphere, cruised at high speed and then dived reaching 80-100km against ground target with also 1.5Ma terminal speed. It would mean also it's max range in Lo-Lo scenario against non maneuvering cooperative target (helicopter, transport, cruise missile). That also fits to your 60km NEZ against fighter aircraft from low altitude launch. I think there is no other A2A missile that can do that, to reach so far from low altitude. Maybe some with dual pulse rocket propulsion, but would have to be really modern and have a big/long engine. So maybe AIM-260. There are missiles that can reach very long ranges when launched high and fast against non-maneuvering target, but none with NEZ parameters similar to Meteor.
Yeah seems that missiles in DCS can have a single level of thrust, or rather thrust can't be modified depending on altitude or speed. So with thrust set such that it reaches 4 or 5 mach at high altitude, it could ho barely supersonic at low altitude where air is 10x as dense. If thrust was set to reach Mach 2.5 at low altitude then it would probably went Mach 10 at high alt.... I hope when the official Eurofighter module is released we get properly modeled Meteor... Or maybe it is going to be Tranche 1 armed with AMRAAMs only ?
Su33 next?😅
Let's get this RCS sorted. Look up the article: “It's Like Fighting Mr. Invisible”: I Fought Against a Stealth F-22 (And Lost)
The RCS of a Rafale is certainly not something that is set in stone, outside of the amount of composite used in the plane and the revised aerodynamics, the SPECTRA suite also act in a way to reduce the RCS but all that part is classified, on the other hand, add some missiles or pods and that RCS is going to grow.
My question is would french pilots bring 2 fuel pods for a flight over home ground when faced with peer to peer level threats ?
Poosh? As in the lost moon of poosh??
yup
The Rafale RCS is utter nonsense - also Tranche 3 onwards Typhoon has the option of conformal fuel tanks which actually swings the RCS the other way in maxed-out configurations.
If you crash into the river, does that mean you're in Seine?
oof
What is all this guff about ramjets not working a low altitudes? What do you think Sea Dart was? With modern computing the throttling of the intakes to generate the required air speed through the ramjet engine to maintain the burn is trivial - what was a electro-mechanical nightmare to keep ignition going is a few sensors, some lines of code and some servos. Guess what you get loads of down low? That's right, oxygen! Meteor will be a demon a low altitude - able to accelerate and steer under power when the solid-fuelled missiles are working on kinetic energy alone. You certainly won't be out-turning them in piloted aircraft while they are still burning. Ramjets were a huge compromise set to operate efficiently at certain altitudes, now with modern sensors and computing they can trim themselves to work efficiently at all altitudes.
Ok lets be honest no way in hell the rafale has a 0.5 rcs. The canards alone are going to bounce back
Cutting thru the Eiffel Tower hard enough in a spitfire in Blazing Angels(Xbox) at full throttle so most probs even harder in a fast jet.
That was excellent.
Now you all will need to model the Storm Shadow missle that the UK is giving to Ukraine. Possibly could hit the Kerch Bridge from the front lines now!!
I want o see J10c vs Rafael Dog fights and BVR fights Please Bro Make it one 🙌👌😘😘
Every thing I've read online shows the Raffa at between 1-2 RCS. Thats both general chat and published science.
thx
So, question. I haven't done DCS. When you set the Rafale's RCS to .5, was it .5 with the bags? Or was it .5 + the bags? Feels like 1.5 + 1 bag = 2.5 (assuming a 1 m add for the bag) and .5 + 2 bags = 2.5.... Again, having not played DCS, I have no idea. Just curious.
It's a bit crap in game. You set a static RCS at the beginning of the battle, and it never changes, despite which payload it has.
Hum I’m pretty sure the Typhoon only carries 6 meteors max in air-to-air configuration
Huh? The Rafale is available in DCS?
mod link in vid description.
What were those tactics at the end by 2 typhoons? Looked like a throw to me.