I never cease to be amazed by the energy people expend in those flamewars.

And the in-depth knowledge by so many people of classified information is truly impressive.

 

Why, every time I've talked to people involved in serious defense projects and started asking even remotely interesting  questions, they've shut down like clams. Even after three double straight whiskeys, it's amazing how these people sober up when you ask about, for instance, the maximum spread of a single missile's mirvs.

 

I don't know anybody involved in EW, but I note that every time I read about air exercises, critical systems are never turned on when another country is present and might listen.

 

I have no doubt that the US is very good at EW and that France is pretty good at it. But I also note that the Soviet/Czech passive tracking system was a shocking discovery for NATO when details about it surfaced in the 1990's.

 

And I also note that the next really innovative and/or complex weapons system which performs as advertised on its first actual battlefield use will be the first.

 

 

 

 

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 .

Congratulations. I am glad that the French aerospace industry has come along way since the utter rubbish designed and sold during the 1960s-1970s. Unfortunately, not all your Miracles survived without cracks, faults, fatigue etc. Curiously though, the over-engineered Bug (to cite but one), which was designed for demanding maritime environs has outlasted and outperformed many a Miracle and its ilk.

 

I'm glad you didn't mention the Atar. Surely one of the worst turbojet engines this side of 1945.

 

Warpig , I like your last post very much . I wish the other known and usual posters would do the same , I mean thinking before typing , taking the time to do research and understand what is at hand . We must thank Herald (I already did) to give us such usefull material with that study . I did not know of Prof. Fleeman but he is obviously an expert . His maths are well beyond mines , light years away I must say . But I understand the study good enough to be able to talk and argue about it .

Back to the topic .You said :

 

 The unit embarked on the Charles de Gaulle in 2002, becoming fully operational on 25 June 2004, following an extended opeval (operational evaluation) which included flying limited escort and tanker missions in support of Operation Enduring Freedom... over Afghanistan....

The Armee de l'Air received its first three Rafale Bs (to F2 standards) in late December 2004.

Important dates from Rafale programe include:

• 1983 April: Dassault awarded contract for ACX (Rafale A) technology demonstrator
• 1985 France formally withdraws from Eurofighter programme, committing to Rafale project.
• 1986 July 4: First flight of Rafale A; December: Development of SNECMA M88... engines commences
• 1988 April: First order signed (for Rafale C prototype).
• 1990 February: Flight tests of M-88 begin
• 1991 May 19: First flight of Armée de l'Air single seat prototype (Rafale C); December 12: First flight of Aéronavale prototype (Rafale M)
• 1992 Rafale M carrier trials programme begins
• 1993 March: First contract for production aircraft signed. April: Start of carrier compatibility trials with Foch. April 30: First flight of Armée de l'Air twin seat prototype (Rafale B)
• 1995 June: First MICA fired from Rafale in self guided mode. July: OSF system and helmet-mounted sight/display installed and tested. September: Rafale M tested on board carrier (4th series). November: First non-stop long-range flight by Rafale B01 (3,020 nm in under 6 hours 30 minutes). October: Final land-based carrier test series of Rafale M in the USA.... December: First production model fuselage assembly.
• 1996 March: M88 engine "flightworthiness" qualified. April: Production suspended, restarted in January 1997 following cost reductions. May: Low level tests with digital terrain database. July: Spectra... electronic warfare system integration tests in anechoic chamber. November: Spectra flight tested. December: First deliveries of production standard engines.
• 1997 February: Rafale B01 flight tested in heavyweight configuration (2 Apache ASMs..., three 2,000l drop tanks, two Magic... and two MICA AAMs). May: First inertially-guided MICA firing. June: Flight testing of Spectra countermeasures system. October: First production RBE2... radar flown for the first time. November: Inertially-guided firing of missiles against two targets, with aircraft-to-missile link, with countermeasures.
• 1998 June: Qualification of MICA fire control system. Proposed initial operational capability evaluated by Navy and Air Force pilots flying Rafale B01 and M02 development aircraft. November 24: First flight of production Rafale (a Rafale B)
• 1999 May: First test launch of SCALP EG cruise missile. July 6: First deck landing of Charles de Gaulle afgan. July 7: First flight of production Rafale M
• 2000 July 20: First Rafale M delivered to Flotille 12F
• 2002 Rafale M entered service with 12F (Aeronavale, evaluation)
• 2004 Full service entry with 12F (Navy); September 9: First

I know that I deal with a fanboy, and someone who has trouble with something called the truth, but what the hey, I'm bored.....  

 

Bluewings12       12/29/2008 8:02:29 PM

 

This is of course correct, as you said it is more or less common sense.   When dealing with a short range missile a shorter burn profile is preferable.  It allows the missile to reach its target more quickly and with more energy.  An AMRAAM would still be accelerating in some short range shots, but that isn't really what it was designed to do.  This is just one example of a case where a trait that is desirable in a short range missile is not in a longer ranged missile.  The whole point is that  in order to save money and effort France decided to design a missile capable of performing as both a WVR and BVR weapon.  Such an approach is not without trade-offs.  Anyone with even a little actual knowledge recognizes this.

 

For a look at a similar but somewhat better executed approach to the same problem, look up the Israeli Python and Derby missiles.  The Derby was produced by adding a larger motor and an active radar seeker to what is otherwise more or less a Python-4/5.  The end result in this case was two different missiles rather than a single missile that tries to act in both roles, but it still allowed the Israelis to save a great deal of time and money.  The Derby is limited by its relatively small size for a BVR weapon, but it is better optimized for its mission than the Mica.

 

 

"I just explained why I disagree on some points . The fact is that France did not try to beat the US missiles (others already did) but tried to build a missile good at everything . Don 't give me the "jack of all trade" BS , MICA is as good at WVR than at BVR . Very few missiles are better than the AIM-9x and AMRAAM , MICA being one of them ."

 

lol, that must be why the Mica is in such great demand right?  Think about it, a single missile that beats the US's best short range missiles and long range missiles at the same time. 

 

...and yet there isn't exactly a line at the door to buy it.

 

According to Janes, Mica was exported to Taiwan in 1996, Qatar in 1998, UAE in 1998, and Greece in 2000. (and that is it so far, with Pakistan a possible future buyer)

 

You know what I notice about those countries? Three of the four went on to buy AMRAAMs later.  

 

Taiwan in 2000 and 2007, UAE in 2000 and 2008, and Greece in 1998 and 2003.

 

You know what else is interesting?  The AMRAAM has been purchased by ~35 different countries... that is quite a few countries spending quite a few billions of dollars on missiles, and that doesn't count the AIM-9x, just the AMRAAM.

 

Why don't you go ahead and ponder on the implications of that a little bit kid. 

 

 

Warpig , I like your last post very much . I wish the other known
and usual posters would do the same , I mean thinking
before typing , taking the time to do research and understand what is
at hand . We must thank Herald (I already did) to give us such
useful material with that study . I did not know of Prof. Fleeman
but he is obviously an expert . His maths are well beyond mines ,
light years away I must say . But I understand the study good enough
to be able to talk and argue about it .

Back to the topic .You said :

CREF bolded:Take your own

advice, fan boy

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.""

Your analysis wouldn't be complete
without looking at the slide 51 and 52 which show the gliding . Then
, you have to add the slide 34 and 35 about initial velocity . It is
the reason why I (and the numbers) can 't entirely agree with you . I
explain by using your words :

""MICA will boost for a few seconds and peak at M4+, maybe
about M4.5.  After that it is coasting toward its target.""

Specifically 6-7 seconds, then
flame out. After that it is lift drag, gravity and that is all. The
rocket begins falling immediately and loses energy once thrust
ceases.

What people should take into account is
HOW a missile is coasting to its target . In
this regard , all missiles are different . Different diameters ,
different weight , different size to length ratio , different
surfaces , different canards (if any) , different wings (if any) ,
etc . It is very complicated . MICA has its advantages and they are
not just only few . More on this in a moment .

A missile falls using the same
physics (ballistics) that every falling object uses.

I will discuss why BW is full of
horse manure at that time-since it is obvious from reading this CRAP
that he got someone to explain to him these charts and generic
graphs, that he doesn't understand at all. What he's apparently done
is talk to someone with just a bit more knowledge than he has, and he
has latched onto a few concepts and buzz words without realizing
exactly what the other person tried to explain to him. .

""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 l

It is both classic and ironic that a thread titled F-22 v. Eurofighter ends up with BW twisting the subject back to his favorite fantasy plane - Rafale.

 

BW - I thought you left for good?  Apparently I was either mistaken or you changed your mind.  However, for the gazzillioneth time - 3 items about Rafale that you simply cannot avoid:

 

1 - NO sales.

2 - NO AESA radar.

3 - NO laser targeting pod.

 

The first item on the list is the killer.  Face the facts - Rafale is rapidly becoming a footnote in aviation and has little prospect of exceeding a production run of 200 units.  Even Libya turned it down.

 

While the F-22 may very well be limited to near 200 in its production run - that is not without a load of potential foreign buyers trying everything short of bribery to get the USAF to change its mind about exporting the Raptor. 

 

I don't see Australia or Israel lining up to buy the Rafale - and both were Mirage users - one unhappy and one quite happy.  In fact, I don't see any Mirage owners kicking the tires except India and the UAE.  They don't appear to be thrilled either.

 

It's a 1980s Cold War - GEN 4 - design.  The kind of stuff you have hanging on it makes the plane a SA-10 crew's wet dream in terms of radar returns.  The only combat experience it has is acting as a bomb truck for the M2K - something that even a C-130 could do.

 

Don't bother to reply - make a new thread if you want to discuss Rafale.  Otherwise stick to the subject line.

"I don't see Australia or Israel lining up to buy the Rafale - and both were Mirage users - one unhappy and one quite happy.  In fact, I don't see any Mirage owners kicking the tires except India and the UAE.  They don't appear to be thrilled either."

 

According to bluewing's version of reality... the Rafale is just the most amazing aircraft ever designed, and it carries the most amazing missile ever designed, and the most amazing EW suite ever designed, and the most amazing IRST/TV system ever designed.

 

Sounds pretty cool huh?

 

...but there is a problem...

 

Nobody seems to agree with him.

 

Even France has cut its production rate back to roughly 1 aircraft per month, a trickle that suggests even France doesn't know what to do with its wonder plane.

 

Despite France's best efforts to sell the Rafale, it hasn't gotten even a single sale.  Not one single third rate force has chosen the Rafale.  According to bluewings that is because the big mean US cheats and pressures potential buyers not to buy his favorite airplane... and yet the EF has sales... the Gripen has sales... the Su-27 has sales... even Chinese jets have sales... Funny how that works isn't it?

 

While I am at it... his wonder missile that is better than both the AIM-9x and the AMRAAM... has only been exported to a handful of countries  Why is that?  Is it the big mean US pressuring buyers again?  What about all the forces still operating the Mirage?  Why aren't they rushing to buy this amazing new missile?  Why aren't the various European air forces begging to have the MICA integrated onto their jet of choice?