F-22 VS. Eurofighter

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT

JFKY A Homey Final Analogy 12/28/2008 7:21:45 PM

My partner and I frequent a small chain restaurant. A meal costs US $30. Is it a great meal, is it a Morton's of Chicago or a Maxim's (assuming Maxims still exists)? No, it isn't....but it only costs 10-15% of the cost of going to the "high end" restaurant, too. And the value is certainly GREATER than 10-15% of the high end, so when you do the cost v. benefit, it works out that the $30 meal is a really good value...

On the reverse, there is another chain restaurant we will NOT go to. It cost us $50 for a meal there. It was a good meal, but not a $50 meal...and in analysis, it follows that $50 spent here is not $50 well spent. In comparison to the $30 meal it IS better, but not 66% better.

And that seems to be Rafale's problem...it IS better than many competitor's, but not say 66% better...and so many opt for the $30 meal rather than the Rafale.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 The F-16 MLY happened, JFKY. 12/28/2008 7:45:35 PM

It delivered as promised.

I already wrote that I don't have to be polite, when I don't respect the individual at the other end of the discussion.

The Rafale FAILED outside of France against the FALCON MLU option across the board when professionals assessed it.

As you said, similar is NOT better.

And as I said, the French screwed up the upgrade path in that bird.

We will see if their T/Rs in the RBE2 AESA actually WORK. That is a quality control problem which THALES is not to0o good at.

Remember the RUSSIANS are now actually ahead of the French when it comes to airborne AESA fighter radars.

Epaulet A was out in breadboard about 4 years ago-100% RUSSIAN with no outside help and from what I can find out, it works.

Think about that.

I do.

Herald

Quote Reply

JFKY Herald 12/28/2008 9:39:56 PM

Yes, I never said the MLU DIDN' T happen....I merely point out that the CORE of your argument was in the very first part, the part you bolded...that the Danes opted for MLU over Rafale, because the cost of a Rafale did not match the performance of the Rafale. The rest was interesting, but not necessary...and it WAS a blurb touting the MLU program, an advertisement, if you will. Simply because something is propaganda doesn't make it untrue, just one-sided.

I liked your blurb because the opening paragraphs encompassed the problem with Rafale, not worth the increased cost versus the increase in performance that Rafale gives, either versus an F-16 MLU or a Gripen or an F-35.

I don't doubt the Russian ability to develop an ASEA...Is your point if Russia, not a world-class economic power, can do it, why not France? If that's the question, I'd say because France seems to have adopted "the one company" solution...you know Thales is the ONE Company that's going to do the ASEA R&D? Am I right? And that may be because France is limited in the number of companies it CAN support in this area?

If so, that's the European conundrum. The EU, collectively, has more people, and more money than the US...BUT a EUROPEAN program rapidly devolves into a scramble for individual nation's to employ their factories and workers, at the expense of the program as a whole. France withdrew from the EuroFighter, to develop Rafale, because France didn't think France was going to benefit from the program, enough. I think that the Typhoon is the poorer for it and so is France...after all Britain, Italy and Germany can afford a better a/c than France, alone.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 Typhoon was the better for it 12/28/2008 10:15:11 PM

WITHOUT French input.

Otherwise Eurofighter Consortium, would be stuck with MICA and the CRAP RBE2 radar.

The Typhoon was brought to a screeching halt when the Germans finally looked at some Russian aircraft and A2A rockets first hand. Call it the East German Windfall. The Russian AA 11 and AA 12 rockets aren't half bad.

The AA 11, R-73 is actually a truly terrifying RH missile. It WORKS.

The AA 12 R-77 would also work but the Russians lag about a half generation in telemetry update and computerized FCS software as well as have an inferior active radar seeker in that rocket. On the other hand, the rocket's agility thanks to its nocvel steering lattice fins is phenomenal. Its hard to dodge at the last munite when it does acquire a lock

The Russians make do with the R-77s (RH and IR) by adjusting their tactics and salvo firing their rockets in chase pairs to try and get at least one through Western countermeasures.

The French adopted much the approach; but unlike the Russians, they screwed MICA up so badly, I'd rather they go back to the Super 530, until the British get METEOR to work.

Herald.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 BRAINFART! 12/28/2008 10:33:48 PM

WITHOUT French input.

Otherwise Eurofighter Consortium, would be stuck with MICA and the CRAP RBE2 radar.

The AA 11, R-73 is actually a truly terrifying RH missile. It WORKS.

CORRECTION: the R-73 is an infra-red homing missile, not a radar homer.^1

The Russians make do with the R-77s (RH and IR) by adjusting their tactics and salvo firing their rockets in chase pairs to try and get at least one through Western countermeasures.

The French adopted much the approach; but unlike the Russians, they screwed MICA up so badly, I'd rather they go back to the Super 530, until the British get METEOR to work.

Herald.

I make some stupid careless mistakes when I'm tired and in a hurry. I try to catch them when I can.

Herald

Quote Reply

Phaid 12/28/2008 11:47:57 PM

Just to clear up a couple of BS items. Item 1:

- The OSF+TV cam has not been matched in any operational fighter yet

Sure it has:

Pictures :

Do you both have anything like that to show me from a US fighter ?

Hey, that's a nice site you found there. I know you like to try to hide your sources, but it is an interesting site about IRSTs in general and I'm sure others here would like to share:

History of IRSTs Page 1

History of IRSTs Page 2

Not that the information on that site is particularly groundbreaking -- everyone knows OSF is far from the first IRST system on a fighter -- but I do like the screenshots.

In particular, the shots showing US fighters' systems from the 60s and 70s are pretty good. The pic of a MiG-23 taken by an F-14A 24km away over the Gulf of Sidra in 1989 is not too bad:

Item 2:

- MICA has shown some skills an AMRAAM and a Sidewinder can only dream of (180deg offboresight shot killing a 35km away target , behind the launching aircraft with tracking provided by another fighter) . Phaid is simply lying bluntly , MICA 's up-link works perfectly thank you .

You once again simply have no idea what you are talking about. I never said the data link did not work. I said that it was optional, meaning that the MICA can be used on aircraft which cannot support the datalink, and even on aircraft like the Mirage 2000D which cannot support BVR weapons of any kind.

Quote Reply

Beryoza OSF... 12/29/2008 12:47:12 AM

Forgive my ignorance but would it not be possible to use SNIPER, LANTRIN, and other podded FLIRs in the air to air role? I mean, if ROE in a certain scenario would make visual ID critical, I would think an American aircraft like the Super Hornet or Falcon could use its FLIR in that role quite effectively....

And the SNIPER is far superior to OSF in imaging and resolution........

Quote Reply

leroy 12/29/2008 2:00:47 AM

Wow, all I can say about bluewing's most recent post is that this sort of thing is why children should not be allowed on the internet unsupervised.

I will probably point out some of his errors later, but I don't have time to waste right now.

"Forgive my ignorance but would it not be possible to use SNIPER, LANTRIN, and other podded FLIRs in the air to air role? I mean, if ROE in a certain scenario would make visual ID critical, I would think an American aircraft like the Super Hornet or Falcon could use its FLIR in that role quite effectively....

And the SNIPER is far superior to OSF in imaging and resolution........"

That is certainly possible and is already practice.

I can't say honestly whether SNIPER has better resolution than OSF because I honestly just don't know, but I do know that these pods are perfectly capable of being used in such a manner and many forces make use of these abilities..

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 12/29/2008 3:03:58 AM

Maximizing Missile Flight performance.

It calls you a liar, Blue Wings.

Herald

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 12/29/2008 8:39:15 AM

First , I would like to apologize to Phaid . I said :

"Phaid is simply lying bluntly , MICA 's up-link works perfectly thank you ."

It is in fact Herald "brainfart" who said that , not Phaid . (Phaid , I am sorry)

*********

JFKY , I tend to agree with what you say . Indeed , France needed to design and build the Rafale because of our technological independance . It was a must , we both agree . However , when you say :

""The result is an a/c whose performance is NOT equaled by its cost. "" , I disagree strongly and here is why :

French aircrafts tend to be better and stronger built than their Russians and Americans counterparts . Migs , SUs , Eagles , Hornets , F-117s (to cite just a few) are known to decay rapidly with time , we never had to ground any Mirage because of 'cracks' , wing loss during a flight , weak undercarriage , etc . That has a cost because you employ better materials to start with and you design the aircraft with a better safety margin . In France , we don 't cut corners during design and fabrication . We use the best alloys and the best synthetics and it is expensive . Did you know that the Rafale 's airframe and mechanical components were tested at 185% (!) which is nearly twice stronger than the aircraft will ever need to be ? Check the FoxThree publications , it is clearly said and explained . That has a cost but you 'll never had to ground the fighter to repare , fix or change anything which is a very expensive (and annoying) thing to do . Our fighters don 't rust away easily .

It is true that the French stuff is in general expensive but hey , you know what you get .

Regarding the performances , this also has a cost and one good exemple is the high price tag of SPECTRA , MICA is another good exemple .

""You have produced a fairly expensive Super Hornet""

***************

One again , Herald "brainfart" is spreading BS ... It 's getting tiring .

""they screwed MICA up so badly, I'd rather they go back to the Super 530""

Are you out of your mind or simply stupid ? Moreover , you gave us an excellent datasheet who 's proving you wrong ! Then you go :

""it calls you a liar, Blue Wings.""

That 's the best ! Simply amazing ... Let 's check together :

h*tp://www.dbf.gatech.edu/performance.ppt

Page 4 to 7 is clear enough , page 10 validates MICA 's high impulse , page 21 shows the excellence of MICA (and also the R550) , same on page 22 for the ASMP , page 23 shows why a missile like MICA is of a good design , page 34 and 35 also explain the reason why the French designed MICA with a HUGE initial boost and acceleration , same on page 37 , page 52 validates the chord wings for extrem gliding .

Just check few videos of missiles leaving the rail :

MICA :

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnuMXLMvkx8 , look at 1:35 and after

AMRAAM :

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaARvDSPbYY&feature=related

See the boost difference ?

I 'll post more this afternoon .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Phaid 12/29/2008 9:48:48 AM

That is laughable. As just one example, the ROCAF mothballed half their fleet of Mirage 2000-5s because those 60 aircraft were consuming half of the entire maintenance budget of the Air Force. Meanwhile, their older Block 20 F-16s keep right on flying.

As far as maintenance, Mirages and Rafales are constantly undergoing major overhauls. The availability numbers speak for themselves:

Évolution du taux de disponibilité des aéronefs
Type d?aéronef	DISPONIBILITÉ
Type d?aéronef	Avions	Année 2005	Année 2006	1^er sem. 2007
Avions de combat	Rafale		44,8 %	45,6 %
	Mirage 2000 B/C	59,5 %	49,7 %	53,1 %
	Mirage 2000 -5F	53,0 %	54,8 %	45,8 %
	Mirage 2000 D	54,0 %	47,1 %	43,4 %
	Mirage 2000 N	69,5 %	63,8 %	60,0 %
	Mirage F1 B	61,5 %	66,2 %	53,1 %
	Mirage F1CR	55,8 %	58,1 %	51,2 %
	Mirage F1 CT	65,6 %	62,3 %	60,9 %
	TOTAL	60,1 %	54,6 %	51,7 %

The "loi de programmation militaire 2003-2008" (the armed forces budget) specified an availability rate of 75%. And if you think this kind of thing only affects non-deployed aircraft, guess again: the only way the Rafales sent to Red Flag this past summer could meet all their mission commitments was by grounding one of them and using it for spare parts.

The idea that the serviceability of French aircraft can even compare to American ones is ridiculous. The USAF F-15 fleet includes fighters built in 1976 that are still flying today and still pulling 9Gs today. The missions over Afghanistan in 2001 saw F-14A Tomcats built in 1974 flying around the clock and matching the availability rates of F/A-18C squadrons. There simply aren't any French-built aircraft with those kinds of flight hours still performing high operational tempo front line service after that many years.

Quote Reply

HERALD1357 Reply to fanboy 4 12/29/2008 10:34:32 AM

First , I would like to apologize to Phaid . I said :

"Phaid is simply lying bluntly , MICA 's up-link works perfectly thank
you ."

It is in fact Herald "brainfart" who said that , not Phaid . (Phaid , I am sorry)]

*********
You'll have to do more than apologize when I'm done with you, fanboy.

JFKY , I tend to agree with what you say . Indeed , France needed to design and build the Rafale because of our technological independance . It was a must , we both agree . However , when you say :

Your technological indcpendence is NOW a myth. You no longer have the means to build a complete first class aircraft or even DESIGN one.

""The result is an a/c whose performance is NOT equaled by its cost. "" , I disagree strongly and here is why :

This is a lie. Fact is that Dassault aircraft are notorious for faulty construction and poor design safety. Ask the Australians and the Israelis. or the Iraqis, or the Greeks. As to that figure of 185%? Where did you pull that FAKE figure? Materials engineers don't measure MTBF that way. The measure is stress loading defining its never to exceed live load in flight-not its material fatigue faulure limit. There is a difference between dead and live loads, poseur 2 or didn't you know this? Aircraft enginners combine these loads to obtain predicted fail limits when they want overbuild limits where they hang a dead load on a weight bearing structure such as a WING BOX. Such "safety margins" or limits are set as operating parameters where you set Not To Exceed parameters. In a fighter this would be known to the fanboys as G-loading.limit on the airframe. Ut changes values with the dead load you hang on the aircradft or as you drop dead loads. Didn't you know this? One more thing. Put 6000 hours on a fighter in COMBAT style type evolutions and then come back and tell me its equal to an Eagle or a Hornet. This shows the FOOL Blue Wings' imagination at work as opposed to engineering REALITY ..

It is true that the French stuff is in general expensive but hey , you know what you get .

CRAP. From the Chuckles de Gaulle to ASTER.

Regarding the performances , this also has a cost and one good exemple is the high price tag of SPECTRA , MICA is another good exemple

If SPECTRA is an example in the class of MICA then you claim the self protection and threat warning suite doesn't work, too? Now I know you are a liar. The French are at least decent when it comes to basic countermeasures.

""You have produced a fairly expensive Super Hornet""

Well , the Rafale is not that expensive when you compare it with other high tech fighters . A Rafale-M(F3) cost 55 millions Euros ( 78.6 millions USD) , it is correct for what you get . We all know now that Rafale should have won many contracts on technical evaluation and package but the USA did all they could to kill the deal , and that includes selling aircrafts without making a dollar .

The cost of a Rafale as offered to Austria in December 2003 was 78 million Euros or at the time around $100 million USD per plane for 18 planes at 1.4 billion Euros. Again BW LIES. Since then the price/plane has gone UP.

***************

One again , Herald "brainfart" is spreading BS ... It 's getting tiring .

Yes YOU as a LIAR are.

""they screwed MICA up so badly, I'd rather they go back to the Super 530""

Are you out of your mind or simply stupid ? Moreover , you gave us an excellent datasheet who 's proving you wrong ! Then you go :

The Super 530 WORKS. The MUCA doesn't.

""it calls you a liar, Blue Wings.""

That 's the best ! Simply amazing ... Let 's check together :

HERALD TRAP like the Leclerc armor bit on that Russian tank thread and you walked into it, fool.

h*tp://www.dbf.gatech.edu/performance.ppt

Still havem't figuired out how to post a link yet?

Powerpoint presentation cited above.

Slides 4-7-NOT pages 4-7 show that a pencil has less drag than a brick, big whoopee, Captain OBVIOUS..

High Specific Impulse Provides Higher Thrust and Reduces Fuel Consumption doesn't mention or graph MICA at all, liar.

Example of Missile Technology State-of-the-Art Advancement: Missile Maneuverability shows that the smaller MICA can outturn the bigger and heavier AMRAAM when MICA works......well so what? So can the AIM9x.

Example of Missile Technology State-of-the-Art Advancement: Supersonic Air Breathing Missiles shows that the ASMP is comparable to a Russian KH-41 as to Mach number and endurance. It says nothing about PK or mechanicakl reliability.

New Technologies That Enhance Tactical Missile Performanceis generic in that it describes desired rocket characteristics. The MICA is NOT mentioned as even having these characteruistics though I know it has a "few"-actually very few.

Flight Envelope Should Has Large Max Range, Small Min Range, and Large Off Boresight shows why your claim of an over the shoulder at 35 kilometers MICA shot was a load of BULL.

For Long Range Coast, Maximize Initial Velocity-shows values for a single thrust motor..

For Long Range Ballistic Flight, Maximize Initial Velocity again shows values for a single thrust motor.

Just check few videos of missiles leaving the rail :

MICA :

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnuMXLMvkx8 , look at 1:35 and after

Mica coming off the rail of a rather pedestrian bomb truck.

And what does that prove, fool? It leaves the rail and has a fast burn propellant indicating a sharp burn time?

AMRAAM

h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HaARvDSPbYY&feature=related

AMRAAM actually hitting something like its supposed to hit.

See the boost difference ?

I saw what matters, fool; the Heinenmann interface worked as designed and the missule ignited and hit at what it was aimed.

Here is what you should have posted fool

F-22 AMRAAM laiunch 1. REALTIME.

F-22 AMRAAM 2 INVERTED

Note the acceleration?

I 'll post more this afternoon .

Don't bother liar.

Cheers .

Get stuffed.

Herald

Quote Reply

leroy 12/29/2008 3:02:33 PM

Ok, now to take a few minutes to play duck-hunt with some of bluewing's lies...

"MICA when used as an IRST can detect and track at 35km (do the maths and find the gimble angle) . Btw , this is actually the main reason why the FAF did not order yet the OSF-NG ."

This is simply retarded. The seeker of a missile is not a substitute for a real IRST.

"Well , show me a 4th generation fighter-striker who has a 360deg EM coverage , AESA ECM antennas precise to one degree , real time deceptive active jamming , without carrying any pod . You 'll not find any ."

blah blah blah... nothing can match your fanboy's imagination bluewings. You don't even understand what the specs mean... you didn't even know the F-22 had an EW system until we told you. So rather than throwing more useless facts at someone who doesn't want to deal with facts I will let you continue to wonder why nobody else seems to want your wonder plane...

"The PESA RBE2 was superior to the RDY found on our M2000-5s"

... and inferior in performance and features to its competitors. The lack of a competitive radar is one of the primary reasons the Rafale hasn't yet won an export contract.

"Excuse me ? The first Pesa RBE2 was operational in mid 90's and we 're now end 2008 , that 's 12 years ."

Operational on WHAT? The Rafale wasn't truly operational until what? 2004? (and even then with only a handful of aircraft) Having a few radars flying around during an R&D program is not "operational."

Even with a new radar, the Rafale will merely be catching up with some of its competitors, not passing them. Those aircraft with space for a larger radar will always out-perform the rafale. The aircraft just doesn't have much potential in that regard.

"lol ! Give me a 4th generation fighter who can visually ID an unknown fighter from 50km+ away ?........... In case you don 't know ~because of the harsh rules of engagement nowadays~ , this is a huge advantage . As I said , we gave up the IR cam because MICA can do it , what we are upgrading is the TV cam , which is already more advanced than anything around right now . In the USA , you don 't have a fighter equipped with this kind of system yet , probably because you are the pro at Blue on Blue and friendly fire (sarcastic joke) ."

Ah, more ignorance from the fanboy... first off, the US is not new to such capabilities. As was already pointed out to you the F-14 had such a capability years ago. Second, any aircraft with a modern targetting pod can perform long range identification of aerial targets. We have such pods on virtually every aircraft we fly. This is one of many examples why people laugh at you when you try to play expert.

"Proof ! We want proof ! But you don 't have any I am affraid ... At the contrary , every test did validate the MICA 's design . We 've been trough this before and you were all unable to prove anything . Me , I say that MICA is better than both Aim-9x and AMRAAM . Prove me wrong ..."

lol, sorry kid, it isn't that easy. Even a basic understanding of the principals at play here would give you the answer, but you don't want a real answer. You prefer your fantasy that the Rafale is something it isn't. I am not going to waste time proving the sky is blue to you.

The same goes for your stupid insistence the Rafale is a "top three" interceptor, lol. You might as well claim it is a bomber as well...

"I know it might be disturbing for your Ego , but the Rafale is not a 4th generation plane ."

Uh huh, yeah... it is what? At least a 7th generation plane, or is it 8th? lol

" I am sorry but we 've got nothing to do over the artic circle . If it 's hundreds of miles away or in the Pacific , we have Rafales onboard CdG ."

I was talking about shooting down incoming aircraft before they saturate your carrier's defenses with cruise missiles. You know, the sort of task you would want an interceptor for.

Quote Reply

leroy 12/29/2008 3:07:45 PM

"I disagree strongly and here is why :

lol, more stupidity...

Quote Reply

warpig 12/29/2008 4:21:32 PM

BW, regarding MICA acceleration and range v. other missiles, here are some observations. First, eveyone here understands that MICA boosts up to very high speed, quicker than does other longer-ranged radar-guided missiles (e.g., AMRAAM). We've agreed with/told you that for years now. That is not in dispute.

Look at Prof. Fleeman's (a former Raytheon employee, by the way, gee I wonder how Herald knew to find that briefing excerpted from Fleeman's book? ;-) ) briefing. Never mind the exact numbers for now, let's just learn from the general principles. On Slide 42, that's the shape of the typical boost + sustain motor in missiles such as AMRAAM. MICA's motor is all boost, and only has the first vertical rectangle. Now look on Slide 46, that's the shape of the typical velocity curve of a boost + sustain missile like AMRAAM. MICA's would be just the boost portion immediately followed by the coast portion. Then Slide 47 is one way to show how that velocity over time translates into distance flown. One problem with defining the "range" of an air-to-air missile is defining the conditions at which the missile's flight is determined to be "over." Personally, I'm wondering if the missile in the briefing is trying to maintain 20,000ft altitude (i.e., tracking a co-altitude target), because it seems more like it's just flying ballistically and is actually ending its flight by impacting the ground, but I'll press on.

Now to stick in some estimated numbers, and to try to point out what they mean. Frankly I couldn't care less if you believe the numbers, they are what they are. These numbers are all approximate, and assume the same initial starting conditions, including no lofting flight profile. MICA will boost for a few seconds and peak at M4+, maybe about M4.5. After that it is coasting toward its target. AMRAAM will boost for a few seconds up to M3.5+, and then sustain for another ten seconds or so, and get up to maybe at most M4. After that it is coasting toward its target. If the AMRAAM curves look like the ones in the briefing, then the MICA curves will peak higher during the boost phase, then proceed to taper off during the coast phase. What will happen if overlayed on Slides 42 and 47 is that the MICA curve initially peak higher than the AMRAAM curve, but then because the AMRAAM is still boosting while MICA is already coasting, MICA will at some point cross over the AMRAAM curve. Translation: MICA can get to the target faster than AMRAAM if the target is relatively close (say maybe out to 5 to 10 miles away at time of launch), but AMRAAM will actually get to the target first if the target is relatively far away at time of launch, and also actually have a longer range overall than MICA. This will still be true if both follow a lofted profile v. a longer-range target (see Slide 16), but I suspect MICA doesn't even do that, and if not then AMRAAM far and away outranges MICA.

Summation: Fired side by side at the same target, MICA will get to it first if it is relatively near, but AMRAAM will get to it first if relatively far, and go much further in total. I am certain Dwightlooi, Herald, Phaid, and Leroy would all back me up on this, and if you had any rational common-sense, that would be enough for you to accept it's true, regardless of whether you think it should be true or not.

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 NEXT

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us