The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 23, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use
How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Thread
Softwar    3/9/2009 9:47:25 AM
Started with hope that BW will limit his comments here instead of in every other Fighter thread. I'll start off with:

1 - no export sales
2 - no laser designator
3 - no AESA
4 - overpriced 4th gen fighter
 
Quote    Reply

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 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34   NEXT
DarthAmerica       3/17/2009 4:09:03 PM

No apologies necessary Darth - you are an Army instructor in electronics - that's a fine profession but certainly does not make you the member of the General staff you pump yourself up to be.  What - E5 maybe?  Okay - I know plenty of E5s they are great guys to work with.

 
Again, you are demonstrating more ignorance. Tell me what Army MOS is electronics instructor? Its clear your ignorance extends into not understanding the way the Army trains soldiers but I digress. I have been an EWO before though. Again, that was an additional duty assignment where I got to work with USN EA-6 and F/A-18 crews who got assigned to the U.S. Army as attachments to help in the counter IED fight. I've also been an E5. I've been a Commissioned Officer too. So while you are struggling to insult and belittle me, all you are really doing is showing how far removed from you are from reality and how diverse my experiences are. I guess that I'm a successful EE in the private sector who also runs his own small business now sort of makes me an electronics geek and I wear that title proudly. But for all your insults you are nothing more than a cubicle worker who never actually gets to see what happens when theory is applied...

...Thats why you didn't know that we use touchscreens in combat vehicles from Humvees to Fighter jets. But why would you? 

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

Softwar    You Are a Riot Darth   3/17/2009 4:48:24 PM
Oh Daaarrrtthh... I know about touch screens and a host of other things about touch screens you might not even know about.  Dude - I can take apart an ELO or Planar with my eyes closed. 
 
Hey I can also tour the F-35 and F-18 websites with the best of them...  Nice pics but not what Herald was talking about.
 
So sweet that you bent your Army instructor fingers today to try and dispell the impression that you are nothing but a lowly electronics tech.  I find your humor both amusing and enlightening.
 
Of course, the fact remains that such screens are not mounted with 8 g turns in mind - simply physics dear lad.  Thus the reason for push buttons. 
 
Of course, if we were talking about electronic jokes it woudl be something like this...  So an NPN transistor walked into a bar and the bartender said ... why the long face?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/17/2009 5:00:26 PM

Oh Daaarrrtthh... I know about touch screens and a host of other things about touch screens you might not even know about.  Dude - I can take apart an ELO or Planar with my eyes closed. 

Hey I can also tour the F-35 and F-18 websites with the best of them...  Nice pics but not what Herald was talking about.

So sweet that you bent your Army instructor fingers today to try and dispell the impression that you are nothing but a lowly electronics tech.  I find your humor both amusing and enlightening.

Of course, the fact remains that such screens are not mounted with 8 g turns in mind - simply physics dear lad.  Thus the reason for push buttons. 

Of course, if we were talking about electronic jokes it woudl be something like this...  So an NPN transistor walked into a bar and the bartender said ... why the long face?

I find it amusing that you would insult people who are actual techs in various branches of service when you have never done so yourself. Again, what I do gives me leaps and bounds advantage over you in terms of understanding these subjects. You are a cubicle worker and based solely on your replies you are no in any position that would give you an advantage in these debates. 

Bottom line through all your nonsense, personal attacks and general stupidity you are claiming that touch screens aren't mounted with 8g+ platforms in mind, I showed you the opposite and explained how they are used. Egg on your face. Go clean up your reputation and come back, Ill shed more light on the darkness that represents your knowledge of military affairs. 

 -DA
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       3/17/2009 6:49:44 PM




Oh Daaarrrtthh... I know about touch screens and a host of other things about touch screens you might not even know about.  Dude - I can take apart an ELO or Planar with my eyes closed. 




Hey I can also tour the F-35 and F-18 websites with the best of them...  Nice pics but not what Herald was talking about.




So sweet that you bent your Army instructor fingers today to try and dispell the impression that you are nothing but a lowly electronics tech.  I find your humor both amusing and enlightening.




Of course, the fact remains that such screens are not mounted with 8 g turns in mind - simply physics dear lad.  Thus the reason for push buttons. 




Of course, if we were talking about electronic jokes it woudl be something like this...  So an NPN transistor walked into a bar and the bartender said ... why the long face?





I find it amusing that you would insult people who are actual techs in various branches of service when you have never done so yourself. Again, what I do gives me leaps and bounds advantage over you in terms of understanding these subjects. You are a cubicle worker and based solely on your replies you are no in any position that would give you an advantage in these debates. 




Bottom line through all your nonsense, personal attacks and general stupidity you are claiming that touch screens aren't mounted with 8g+ platforms in mind, I showed you the opposite and explained how they are used. Egg on your face. Go clean up your reputation and come back, Ill shed more light on the darkness that represents your knowledge of military affairs. 






 -DA


DA,
I guess maybe I am not understanding what exactly it you are saying through all this. Are you actually saying that a pilot could actually have the wherewithall to be able to reach out and touch a screen and hit the spot he wants on top of it while in the middle of an 8G turn? I understand the *platform* may be capable of it, but come on, you can't honestly think a human being could actually do that? I may not be a pilot, but I have watched videos of these guys while in these high G manuevers and it seems to be it's all they can do to stay concious and fly the plane. Even pushing a button on a HOTAS would be a major feat it seems to me and reaching out and hitting a screen where you want to seems outright beyond the abilitys of any human being I have even known.
 
Again, maybe I just am misunderstanding what you are saying though.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/17/2009 7:03:52 PM









Oh Daaarrrtthh... I know about touch screens and a host of other things about touch screens you might not even know about.  Dude - I can take apart an ELO or Planar with my eyes closed. 










Hey I can also tour the F-35 and F-18 websites with the best of them...  Nice pics but not what Herald was talking about.










So sweet that you bent your Army instructor fingers today to try and dispell the impression that you are nothing but a lowly electronics tech.  I find your humor both amusing and enlightening.










Of course, the fact remains that such screens are not mounted with 8 g turns in mind - simply physics dear lad.  Thus the reason for push buttons. 










Of course, if we were talking about electronic jokes it woudl be something like this...  So an NPN transistor walked into a bar and the bartender said ... why the long face?












I find it amusing that you would insult people who are actual techs in various branches of service when you have never done so yourself. Again, what I do gives me leaps and bounds advantage over you in terms of understanding these subjects. You are a cubicle worker and based solely on your replies you are no in any position that would give you an advantage in these debates. 










Bottom line through all your nonsense, personal attacks and general stupidity you are claiming that touch screens aren't mounted with 8g+ platforms in mind, I showed you the opposite and explained how they are used. Egg on your face. Go clean up your reputation and come back, Ill shed more light on the darkness that represents your knowledge of military affairs. 
















 -DA






DA,

I guess maybe I am not understanding what exactly it you are saying through all this. Are you actually saying that a pilot could actually have the wherewithall to be able to reach out and touch a screen and hit the spot he wants on top of it while in the middle of an 8G turn? I understand the *platform* may be capable of it, but come on, you can't honestly think a human being could actually do that? I may not be a pilot, but I have watched videos of these guys while in these high G manuevers and it seems to be it's all they can do to stay concious and fly the plane. Even pushing a button on a HOTAS would be a major feat it seems to me and reaching out and hitting a screen where you want to seems outright beyond the abilitys of any human being I have even known.

 

Again, maybe I just am misunderstanding what you are saying though.


It's certainly not what I'm saying. What I mean is that just because the platform is capable of violent maneuver, that doesn't mean you can't use a touch screen interface. Quite obviously while the vehicle/aircraft is in violent motion, the user will be braced and not touching a display but rather using the controls. However, when performing battle management or other activities, the touch screen can be utilized. Thats what I meant when I said originally that touch screen is for some situations while in others the controls need to be more immediately accessible such as a HOTAS configuration. In any case, the vast majority of the time in any platform is not going to be spent in violent maneuver.


-DA 
 
Quote    Reply

JP Bergerac    Touchscreen views (polite)   3/17/2009 7:18:42 PM
The discussion on touchscreens seems to have taken the lead on the "Rafale vs rest of the world" pissing contest (Rafale wins that one, in my opinion :-) ). Let me join in: I fully agree with DA et alia.
Of course, the fact remains that such screens are not mounted with 8 g turns in mind - simply physics dear lad.  Thus the reason for push buttons. 
BS
It has been said before, and I concur: touchscreen is just one of the interfaces available to the pilot, used in straight and level flight or in gentle manoeuvering, just like the pushbuttons around an F-18 MFD or an UFC (up-front controller: buzzword for keyboard). The developpers of Rafale and other systems including fighters are obviosuly aware that touch screen won't work under 8g (9g on Rafale). Same for voice control, by the way (from approx 5gs up the voice turns into a grunt : not easy to simulate in a software designer's armchair maybe?). That's why even Rafale has HOTAS ("Dhaaa!!") :-). Somebody made a comment on supersonic flight and BVR intercepts? Typical flight phases where touchscreen is perfectly usable, as you're not yanking and banking all the time.
 
In my first Rafale flights I hated it because I kept hitting the wrong buttons, until a colleague gave me a useful tip : the designers had - at the request of test pilots - added a "finger rest" on the bottom of the screen's frame, and placing the idle fingers on this fixed reference greatly increased the stability and precision of the forefinger which did all the punching, turning its use from near impossible to quite easy even in bumpy air or moderate manoeuvering.
 
There was a question about keeping the screen clean: its part of the mechanic's preflight check. In addition, the French air force has devised very neat flying gloves: the top surface of the fingers is padded with a special cleaning surface which the pilot can use to wipe the screen clean anytime he needs to.
 
Depending on its implementation the touchscreen has its limitations. One area where it still does suck is when used as a keyboard (e.g. for punching in frequencies or coordinates). Funny thing, it seems to be its only implementation in the Superhornet, judging from the cockpit image posted a few pages ago, where you can see that the pushbutton UFC of older models (F/A-18s A to D) has been replaced by a touchscreen UFC.

Last comment: having discarded the 8 g argument (not a touchscreen environment anyway) I consider absolutely valid the extrapolation from experience in tactical land vehicles or attack helicopters. The difficulty is not so much with the G but rather with the "jolt" (G derived over time) i.e. being shaken around, which may happen in both. Having started my military career in the mechanized infantry, I can testify I've never been jolted in a fighter jet as much as I've been in my AMX10 armoured personnel carrier, when driving over rough terrain. To me that would constitute the ultimate trial for touchscreen usability.
 
So, I'm with you, DA. No need to lose your nerve on some ill inspired comments: barking geeks don't bite.
 
"Honni soit qui mal y pense".
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       3/17/2009 7:21:06 PM



















Oh Daaarrrtthh... I know about touch screens and a host of other things about touch screens you might not even know about.  Dude - I can take apart an ELO or Planar with my eyes closed. 






















Hey I can also tour the F-35 and F-18 websites with the best of them...  Nice pics but not what Herald was talking about.






















So sweet that you bent your Army instructor fingers today to try and dispell the impression that you are nothing but a lowly electronics tech.  I find your humor both amusing and enlightening.






















Of course, the fact remains that such screens are not mounted with 8 g turns in mind - simply physics dear lad.  Thus the reason for push buttons. 






















Of course, if we were talking about electronic jokes it woudl be something like this...  So an NPN transistor walked into a bar and the bartender said ... why the long face?


























I find it amusing that you would insult people who are actual techs in various branches of service when you have never done so yourself. Again, what I do gives me leaps and bounds advantage over you in terms of understanding these subjects. You are a cubicle worker and based solely on your replies you are no in any position that would give you an advantage in these debates. 






















Bottom line through all your nonsense, personal attacks and general stupidity you are claiming that touch screens aren't mounted with 8g+ platforms in mind, I showed you the opposite and explained how they are used. Egg on your face. Go clean up your reputation and come back, Ill shed more light on the darkness that represents your knowledge of military affairs. 




































 -DA














DA,



I guess maybe I am not understanding what exactly it you are saying through all this. Are you actually saying that a pilot could actually have the wherewithall to be able to reach out and touch a screen and hit the spot he wants on top of it while in the middle of an 8G turn? I understand the *platform* may be capable of it, but come on, you can't honestly think a human being could actually do that? I may not be a pilot, but I have watched videos of these guys while in these high G manuevers and it seems to be it's all they can do to stay concious and fly the plane. Even pushing a button on a HOTAS would be a major feat it seems to me and reaching out and hitting a screen where you want to seems outright beyond the abilitys of any human being I have even known.



 



Again, maybe I just am misunderstanding what you are saying though.







It's certainly not what I'm saying. What I mean is that just because the platform is capable of violent maneuver, that doesn't mean you can't use a touch screen interface. Quite obviously while the vehicle/aircraft is in violent motion, the user will be braced and not touching a display but rather using the controls. However, when performing battle management or other activities, the touch screen can be utilized. Thats what I meant when I said originally that touch screen is for some situations while in others the controls need to be more immediately accessible such as a HOTAS configuration. In any case, the vast majority of the time in any platform is not going to be spent in violent maneuver.







-DA 




Ok I get that. But seems to me that is about what Herald and the rest are saying to isn't it? I don't think anyone said touchscreen could not be used in a fighter. But rather, it would not be used during high speed combat manuevers and therefore not all the rave that BW is trying to make it out to be is all. At least that is the way I took it all from ths start.
 
IOW, BW seemed to be saying that the wonder jet Rafale in all it's glory is so far ahead of everything else on the planet with it's fancy displays that they just tuch and go and dont have to be bothered with a button or switch and the others on here were simply saying that as cute as that may be, in combat type high speed maneuvers thats not practical and therefore BW is full of it? I think all those that you have been back and forth with very well know that tuch screen tech is in the cokpits of many fighters and used in certain situations just as the buttons and switches are used in other situations. BW is trying to make this seem as though the Rafales tuch screens somehow places it in a  league of its own because of them and most think that
to be rubbbish is all.
 
That's how I took this whole thing from the get go anyhow.
 
Quote    Reply

JP Bergerac    Touchscreen views (polite)   3/17/2009 7:23:47 PM
The discussion on touchscreens seems to have taken the lead on the "Rafale vs rest of the world" pissing contest (Rafale wins that one, in my opinion :-) ). Let me join in: I fully agree with DA et alia.
Of course, the fact remains that such screens are not mounted with 8 g turns in mind - simply physics dear lad.  Thus the reason for push buttons. 
BS
It has been said before, and I concur: touchscreen is just one of the interfaces available to the pilot, used in straight and level flight or in gentle manoeuvering, just like the pushbuttons around an F-18 MFD or an UFC (up-front controller: buzzword for keyboard). The developpers of Rafale and other systems including fighters are obviosuly aware that touch screen won't work under 8g (9g on Rafale). Same for voice control, by the way (from approx 5gs up the voice turns into a grunt : not easy to simulate in a software designer's armchair maybe?). That's why even Rafale has HOTAS ("Dhaaa!!") :-). Somebody made a comment on supersonic flight and BVR intercepts? Typical flight phases where touchscreen is perfectly usable, as you're not yanking and banking all the time.
 
In my first Rafale flights I hated it because I kept hitting the wrong buttons, until a colleague gave me a useful tip : the designers had - at the request of test pilots - added a "finger rest" on the bottom of the screen's frame, and placing the idle fingers on this fixed reference greatly increased the stability and precision of the forefinger which did all the punching, turning its use from near impossible to quite easy even in bumpy air or moderate manoeuvering.
 
There was a question about keeping the screen clean: its part of the mechanic's preflight check. In addition, the French air force has devised very neat flying gloves: the top surface of the fingers is padded with a special cleaning surface which the pilot can use to wipe the screen clean anytime he needs to.
 
Depending on its implementation the touchscreen has its limitations. One area where it still does suck is when used as a keyboard (e.g. for punching in frequencies or coordinates). Funny thing, it seems to be its only implementation in the Superhornet, judging from the cockpit image posted a few pages ago, where you can see that the pushbutton UFC of older models (F/A-18s A to D) has been replaced by a touchscreen UFC.

Last comment: having discarded the 8 g argument (not a touchscreen environment anyway) I consider absolutely valid the extrapolation from experience in tactical land vehicles or attack helicopters. The difficulty is not so much with the G but rather with the "jolt" (G derived over time) i.e. being shaken around, which may happen in both. Having started my military career in the mechanized infantry, I can testify I've never been jolted in a fighter jet as much as I've been in my AMX10 armoured personnel carrier, when driving over rough terrain. To me that would constitute the ultimate trial for touchscreen usability.
 
So, I'm with you, DA. No need to lose your nerve on some ill inspired comments: barking geeks don't bite.
 
"Honni soit qui mal y pense".
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/17/2009 7:40:25 PM
Ok I get that. But seems to me that is about what Herald and the rest are saying to isn't it? I don't think anyone said touchscreen could not be used in a fighter. But rather, it would not be used during high speed combat manuevers and therefore not all the rave that BW is trying to make it out to be is all. At least that is the way I took it all from ths start.


Not quite, but only after a bit of discussion. I chimed in to offer a little practical experience and knowledge of touch screens where is seemed that people were implying intentionally or otherwise they are invalid. Instead of politely clarifying himself, Herald chose to be disrespectful and suggest I "Butt out". So I proceeded to demonstrate his ignorance with real world examples and photos. He didn't like that so for lack of a valid counter and having no integrity he and softwar proceeded to be insulting and both were found wanting as I and others have explained the true nature of touchscreens in these environment. I've discussed Rafale with BW enough to know we will not agree on that platforms capabilities or limits so I will hold my thoughts on his post except to acknowledge that I do find some of his comments over the top. But again, he has his opinion, I have mine, I respect that and do not find it necessary to lower the maturity of the board by calling him names and insults as others seem to enjoy doing.
 

IOW, BW seemed to be saying that the wonder jet Rafale in all it's glory is so far ahead of everything else on the planet with it's fancy displays that they just tuch and go and dont have to be bothered with a button or switch and the others on here were simply saying that as cute as that may be, in combat type high speed maneuvers thats not practical and therefore BW is full of it? I think all those that you have been back and forth with very well know that tuch screen tech is in the cokpits of many fighters and used in certain situations just as the buttons and switches are used in other situations. BW is trying to make this seem as though the Rafales tuch screens somehow places it in a  league of its own because of them and most think that to be rubbbish is all.

That's how I took this whole thing from the get go anyhow.

BW is simply a fan of the Rafale and he lets his enthusiasm show. I've discussed it enough with him to know we will probably not agree on most of his assessments so I choose not to interject my opinion in order to avoid circular argument.

Botton line is Rafale is a decent aircraft with some notable limitations compared to its peers. That's my assessment. However, I also think for French requirements it will at least meet the minimum required to defend French interest. 

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    JP reply   3/17/2009 7:53:28 PM

Last comment: having discarded the 8 g argument (not a touchscreen environment anyway) I consider absolutely valid the extrapolation from experience in tactical land vehicles or attack helicopters. The difficulty is not so much with the G but rather with the "jolt" (G derived over time) i.e. being shaken around, which may happen in both. Having started my military career in the mechanized infantry, I can testify I've never been jolted in a fighter jet as much as I've been in my AMX10 armoured personnel carrier, when driving over rough terrain. To me that would constitute the ultimate trial for touchscreen usability.

 

So, I'm with you, DA. No need to lose your nerve on some ill inspired comments: barking geeks don't bite.

"Honni soit qui mal y pense".



Indeed. I've seen armored vehicles cause catastrophic back and neck injuries from shock absorbtion. I've also seen and had men in my unit killed when these vehicles turn so hard the flip over. So whether in the air or the ground touch screens are operated on very violently moving platforms. And yes, during the violent maneuver, you aren't pecking away at a keyboard or touchscreen. But again, thats only a fraction of the time. As anyone with actual operational experience knows, the majority of the time,  is spent in a much more sedentary manner. Also for battle management purposes, a touch screen is a real gem to use. I wish more in here had an opportunity to see it in action. It would clear up a lot of the misconceptions.

I suspect the time is coming when UAVs will be tethered to platforms more and more. Having a well designed display with a touch interface is definitely going to be a benefit IMHO. Think of the way real time strategy games use a mouse to select multiple units and issue orders. We can partially do this now with FBCB2 except there is a man in the loop at the other end of the tx. 

-DA 


 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/17/2009 9:24:18 PM
Just few things here and there ...
 
To start with , Herald is indeed completely wrong  regarding the touch-screen technology . I 'm going to use a quote from Beazz (sorry Beazz but you 're wrong too) :
""Ground vehicles are simply not subject to the violent manuevers an a/c is""
 
That is pure rubbish . A Fighter pilot is capable to reach the push buttons (if he had to) under 5gs and pressing a button or touching a screen require the same move , but who has ever driven his 4x4 on the country side knows that even reaching the the GPS (or the cigar lighter) when making 35mph off-road is close to impossible . A Tank making 35mph (or more) on the battlefield is experiencing the same but every decent Army has the touch-screen technology onboard , because the Tank is not always bouncing to the left and to the right . This is the same onboard a Fighter . And in case that the push buttons or the touch-screens cannot be reached (like under high Gs and high stress) some Fighters like the Rafale provide the capability through highly developed sticks .
This is also where I disagree with Phaid about his approach of Rafale . If you ask any Pilot how the job 's like up there , he will tell you that it is 80% doing nothing but flying , 10% of high concentration and 10% of "combat stress" . That leaves plenty of time to use whatever display you may have at hand , push buttons or touch-screens . It is just a choice from the aircraft maker because he has reasons to do so . During heavy combat , while the F-18/F-22 driver will have a hard time to reach his push buttons (F-22) or his touch-screens (F-18) , the Rafale driver will use his right stick to ask the aircraft what he wants . The touch-screen technology onboard the Rafale is only there to give more flexibility and an easier interface to the Pilot during the flight , but the Pilot doesn 't have to move his arms at all if needed .
 
Phaid :
""On the other hand, the physical way the pilot interfaces with the displays really not what matters anyway.""
 
I agree .
 
""What counts is the way the information is presented""
 
Indeed .
 
""The F-22 has a big central "God's eye view" screen that overlays the fused data from onboard and offboard sensors into one coherent tactical picture, while the several other screens show defensive systems, offensive systems, navigation, and stores management functions. ""
 
The Rafale works in a very similar way , it comes down to who has the best sensors .
*********************
I have to say that DA has been extremely precise and all he said sounds good to me . Internet addicts shouldn 't mess around with the field experience and Herald (and others) have been put down many times in the past years .
What is amazing and very hard to understand to me is the fact that the internet addicts keep digging a deeper hole for themselves post after post ... They just can 't see .
I also see that the posts from JP Bergerac are not so different from mines and while not being a pilot , my relatively good knowledge on Rafale is holding water :-)
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Beazz       3/17/2009 11:17:52 PM

Just few things here and there ...

 

 During heavy combat , while the F-18/F-22 driver will have a hard time to reach his push buttons (F-22) or his touch-screens (F-18) , the Rafale driver will use his right stick to ask the aircraft what he wants . The touch-screen technology onboard the Rafale is only there to give more flexibility and an easier interface to the Pilot during the flight , but the Pilot doesn 't have to move his arms at all if needed .

So in a nut shell, what you just said BW is that in heavy combat, the F18 and F22 can't fight but the mighty Rafale can again do what no other can do. And you wonder why no one but yourself takes you serious?
 
I'm still scratching my head asking myself why in Gods name are we, the USA even bothering with things like the F22,35,18SH, etc and not simply coming to France to get what is obviously the greatest thing created since sliced bread? And all those other foolish nations as well. Why can't the entire free, and unfree world see what is right before their eyes? Even at the price France charges it seems to be an outright steal. As no nation would even come close to needing more then 50 of these wonder planes. I'm writing my congressman right now tonight and demanding an investigation into why we are not buying this killer of a jet to defend our nation!!!      This is simply an outrage!!                  
 
Good grief.......
 
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/18/2009 3:48:01 AM
This is also where I disagree with Phaid about his approach of Rafale . If you ask any Pilot how the job 's like up there , he will tell you that it is 80% doing nothing but flying , 10% of high concentration and 10% of "combat stress" . That leaves plenty of time to use whatever display you may have at hand , push buttons or touch-screens . It is just a choice from the aircraft maker because he has reasons to do so . During heavy combat , while the F-18/F-22 driver will have a hard time to reach his push buttons (F-22) or his touch-screens (F-18) , the Rafale driver will use his right stick to ask the aircraft what he wants .
 
Again, you make this ridiculous assumption that only the Rafale has these HOTAS features.   Neither the F-22 nor the F/A-18 require the pilot to interact with the displays, be it touch screen or otherwise, during maneuvering combat.  All of the systems required -- radar modes, targeting, weapon selection, etc -- are accessed via HOTAS controls.
 
Of course, in the F/A-18 it is actually easier in some cases than in the F-22, since the F/A-18 has JHMCS while the F-22 does not.  But either way, the actual controls used to accomplish these tasks are located where the pilot's hands are -- on the stick and throttle.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/18/2009 4:48:54 AM
gf , I 'm not a moron .  I 'm just pi**ed off when people like you who have an excellent inside knowledge because it is their trade and how they make money (rightly) try to THINK that they know more than others in a field wich is light years away of what they do . It 's your case gf . And when I say that you only know "paper-work" , 

again, I've been on all sides of the shop - you're making assumptions.  email me and I'm happy to send you my CV. 
 
I 've seen an engineerer from the manufacture d 'armes de Saint- Etienne trying to explain to me (in 1985) how a FAMAS work (FAMAS = Fusil Automatique des Manufactures d 'Armes de St etienne)  , well I just explained to him that the 3 bullets "burts shot" was not rapid enough and that the grenade launcher aiming device was 15m short at 200m and I proved my case on the range . Other Commandos said the same and they made the FAMAS G2 soon afterwards , that is field experience gf .

so what?  what the hell has ROF got to do with comprehending signals management.  a little hint.  I've acted as an agent for Metravib.
 


""Rememeber you challenged the fact that a raised rivet could cause an escalated signal - I posted a response from a Radar Technicians Journal about how raised panels could massively increase the RCS transmission.""
From what I could get , that paper is a gross exageration . Real life radars cannot make any difference between a totally flat panel and a riveted one at less than 5 nautic miles . There isn 't just enough echoes from the rivets . Then , the Rafale has an excellent airframe : 
h*tp://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=489658


h*tp://www.yourfilelink.com/get.php?fid=489659


 You seem to forget the real life references I also made. by F117 pilots over Bagdhad and when they entered Saudi Air Space on their initial ferry.

1) The Saudis had everything lit up as they feared a surprise strike from the Iraqis - the entuire squadron of stinkbugs was in train and asked for permission to divert and land - the Saudis kept on denying them the right as they wanted the lanes cleared - it wasn't until the aircraft were on WVR (short finals) that the Saudis "saw" them.  Go and have a look at history and see what ground based radar the Saudis were using
2) The stinkbugs were given proscribed corridors where there were in comms lockdown - there are any number of documented events where fast jet pilots in the same corridor were in passing visual range and indicated that they could not see them,
3) When one pilot had one of his three antennas fail to fully retract (and it was the equiv of a rivet head proud of the "socket") the aircraft lit up like a candle on radar

These are pilots examples, documented and with identifiers - they're not academics, technicians or internet warriors.
This not what I am talking about gf . I can say that the USA have no idea of what SPECTRA can do besides giving targets coordinates . Do you know more than they do gf ?

....and yet you claim and make claims about Growler and or AESA capability on american aircraft when the French do not get the same access as ABCA - let alone UK and Aust which have been elevated to the highest tech level access mid last year.  Should I remind you that in all of the current weapons tech, comms tech and radar tech developments that the French are not in the group of 8 nation participants.  Sweden - which has never been a member of NATO has a higher tech tree access than France.  If you doubt me you can email me and I'll happily name the programs.  France is not anywhere on the Link22 development group and yet you crap on about Link16
 
Hot and Cold imaging is something of the past and you did not "click" on what I meant , while it is still in use in Ground Forces (Thermal sights and so on) ,  is not anymore in use in any new generation IRST . In France , we still use it on the Leclerc and with some other assets , but not in the Air . I was actually talking about cold and hot from the IR TV cam ...


 No its not - if it is then France is in deep trouble because they're still using it. French companies are still trying to flog off that generation capability into a future requirement.   Its still current tech - but it is not at the top of the tech tree on thermal imaging for long range IR detection.  You still can't explain it - and this is now the third week.

Explain to me why hot and cold thermal imaging is more important on a tank with a ballistic kill range effectively less than 1/8th that of a thermal on a combat aircraft where detection range is far more critical.  You cannot use any land based vehicle imaging system at the range that you imply for Rafale.  There is no definition - it's not a useful sensor /kill range at all. Again, adequately explain it (and you can do it offline) and I'll cut you some slack - but, none of your explanations to date are remotely close.


 

 



 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/18/2009 12:06:33 PM
Phaid :
""Again, you make this ridiculous assumption that only the Rafale has these HOTAS features. ""
 
Huh ??? I never said that , I only said that the Rafale has probably the best HOTAS system around , which is different .
 
Cheers .
 
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 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy