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       3/18/2009 10:36:37 PM







Something else I forgot (not what I mentioned I forgot)... JP and Darth seem to lack knowledge outside their fields and seem to be going out on limbs, JP seems more aware of it (however he too is quite patriotic).













The only people commenting outside their area on the issue of touchscreens would be Softwar and Herald who have never used any of the devices under discussion in the kinds of environments and conditions we are discussing. If you have been in the Military since about the last 5 years, you probably understand why Herald and Softwars assertions were inaccurate. If not then that explains a lot.






 



-DA





I cut the crap and got to the point, staff sergeant.




Herald

YOU DIDN'T HAVE A POINT, CIVILIAN. You were wrong as is evident by the facts and the text typed by YOU. BTW, I'm proud to be an NCO so don't think at all your calling me Staff Sergeant in any way bothers me. I've been commissioned before, held Company/Troop Command, all Staff Positions and to this day the U.S. Army officer recruiters are hounding me to go back to the "Dark Side". But of all of that, the best job I ever had was when reenlisted, took a leave of absence from my civilian employer, resigned my commission volunteered to go to Iraq as an infantry squad leader. You should try it yourself. It would be a humbling experience. It's ashame you can't shed your ego long enough to learn things from people WHO DO what you read on google.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

breaka       3/18/2009 11:52:01 PM

I agree that the 'Touchscreens don't work at 8Gs' is pretty irrelevant.  If I am pulling 8G's, it is either to kill or survive (be it defending against a bandit, SAM, or to not hit the ground).  At that point, I don't want to be looking in the cockpit at all, and raising an arm to do anything becomes much more difficult.  HOTAS is key here, and it is a time when having a HMS displaying critical data while padlocked to the threat is key (as long as it doesn't weigh too much to be useful under G).

That being said, while there are some definite possiblities I could see for touch screen usefulness, I think there are also many near equivalent ways to work around with push buttons and HOTAS.  The big thing the touch screens did for the Rafale was give more screen space to a pretty compact cockpit.  To look at the effect, take a look at the F-16 Blk 60 or F-16IN cockpit.  The 5x7 inch displays are nice, but if the bevel around it for push buttons could be reduced by .5 inch on all sides, you would go from 35 sq in of real estate to 48.  For the EF guys, they have a good amount of screen size already, so their money was probably better spent on developing the helmet and DVI.  If one is looking for a primarily A-A fighter, these are better selling points.

Bottom line for me on this one is - how much did this cost compared to the benefit, and what upgrades did they not fund in order to get the capability?

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

breaka       3/19/2009 12:00:13 AM

I agree that the 'Touchscreens don't work at 8Gs' is pretty irrelevant.  If I am pulling 8G's, it is either to kill or survive (be it defending against a bandit, SAM, or to not hit the ground).  At that point, I don't want to be looking in the cockpit at all, and raising an arm to do anything becomes much more difficult.  HOTAS is key here, and it is a time when having a HMS displaying critical data while padlocked to the threat is key (as long as it doesn't weigh too much to be useful under G).

That being said, while there are some definite possiblities I could see for touch screen usefulness, I think there are also many near equivalent ways to work around with push buttons and HOTAS.  The big thing the touch screens did for the Rafale was give more screen space to a pretty compact cockpit.  To look at the effect, take a look at the F-16 Blk 60 or F-16IN cockpit.  The 5x7 inch displays are nice, but if the bevel around it for push buttons could be reduced by .5 inch on all sides, you would go from 35 sq in of real estate to 48.  For the EF guys, they have a good amount of screen size already, so their money was probably better spent on developing the helmet and DVI.  If one is looking for a primarily A-A fighter, these are better selling points.

Bottom line for me on this one is - how much did this cost compared to the benefit, and what upgrades did they not fund in order to get the capability?

 

 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/19/2009 2:51:08 AM

gf :
""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.""
 The reasons are multiple :
-the waveband is different (3-5 um , 8-12 um , etc)
-the output power is different
-the resolutions are different
-etc 
Just to show you that I 'm not coming with empy pockets , here are some good pdf from SAGEM (their main facility is here , in Dijon) :
General IR imaging :
h*tp://www.sagem-ds.com/pdf/en/D717.pdf
2nd generation devices :
h*tp://www.sagem-ds.com/pdf/en/D973.pdf
3rd generation devices (obviously the most important):
h*tp://www.sagem-ds.com/pdf/en/D1236.pdf 

They even give you the unofficial aquisition range , do you feel better gf ?
To respond to your question , you need a different waveband , different optics as well as a different technology to detect and  track a Tank at 6km or a airplane at 40km . We are talking green apples and red apples , same root but different tech .

The first OSF two-band (3-5µm et 8-12µm , Rafale F1s and few F2s) has been quoted with an enormous 100km range (check it , even on Wiki) . The gimble angle can be changed depends on the mission , detection (wide angle) or tracking (small angle) . During Search&Track , the OSF can spot hot "blobs" at 100km and start to track them straigh away . Why the F-22 does not have this hugely desirable capability ?
The OSF-NG is already in testing , all we need to know is will the French DGA buy it ?
.
It's a pr1ck of a thing to do, but I deliberately threw you a curve. SAGEM have got nothing to do with the technology under discussion - I threw it in to see if you would come back with references from SAGEM to try and support your claims.  Guess what - they don't.
Hot and Cold Imaging has got nothing to do with selected wavelength issues and nothing to do with what SAGEM are doing.

BTW, the Swedes are the best on the european continent and in the bulk of their developments are the world leaders when it comes to long range non atmospheric imaging research and development - not the Swiss.   You still haven't answered on what Hot and Cold imaging is - and the citations given have got nothing to do with the technology development.
 


 







 

 






 

 




 




 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/19/2009 2:52:39 PM
Hot and cold imaging in IR sights is only a change in brightness , like the "negative" film of a camera . That 's it .
Unless you wanna speak about active and passive IR .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Phaid       3/19/2009 3:22:09 PM
The first OSF two-band (3-5µm et 8-12µm , Rafale F1s and few F2s) has been quoted with an enormous 100km range (check it , even on Wiki) . The gimble angle can be changed depends on the mission , detection (wide angle) or tracking (small angle) . During Search&Track , the OSF can spot hot "blobs" at 100km and start to track them straigh away . Why the F-22 does not have this hugely desirable capability ?

No Rafale F1s had OSF installed at all.  Only the first batches of F2 have the IR OSF.
 
The F-22 was designed with an IRST in mind but it was dropped because the capability did not justify the added cost.  However, the F-22's hardware architecture allows for an IRST and its software architecture accommodates adding it to the sensor fusion picture.
 
Spotting "blobs" via IR at 100km is not a significantly useful capability when you have an LPI radar that can detect and identify targets at more than twice that range.
 
Quote    Reply

leroy       3/19/2009 3:48:03 PM
You do realize he is just going to keep refusing to understand anything he doesn't like no matter how much time you spend explaining to him right?
 
I wasted a bunch of time in several different threads trying to find a way to make concepts simple enough for him to understand, and it never worked. 
 
He simply won't accept anything that doesn't support the conclusions he has decided "must" be true.
 
His favorite airplane is a pretty run-of-the-mill example of a late 4th generation fighter.  Its designs have a few strengths and a few weaknesses.  It lacks several major features that are considered standard among its competitors.
 
In his world... it is a completely different story.  It is simply an amazing plane.  He may not know the first thing about the cockpits, EW systems, sensors, or anything else in it or its competitors...but the Rafale has the best of all of the above.  Etc etc.
 

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/19/2009 4:17:18 PM

Hot and cold imaging in IR sights is only a change in brightness , like the "negative" film of a camera . That 's it .
Unless you wanna speak about active and passive IR .
 
Cheers .

ROFLMAO.  err, that's not "it".  it's an issue of definition detail at range.  it's got nothing to do with image (positive/negative) representation.  In fact apart from complex grayscale, it's also "kirlian" capable. I'm already taking about acitve and passive wrt this technology, the baseline change is the same in both.
face it, you have no idea and are making things up or grabbing at straws. This is a minor issue, and seriously I wouldn't have a problem if you weren't so proud and admitted that you had no idea - but it's your continuing quest to stary relevant and appear knowledgable which is making me drag this out.  
Others have asked me offline and I've told them (it's not covered by any caveats like ITARs etc) - not knowing is fine - pretending is the sin that you're guilty of.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/19/2009 4:31:42 PM
Phaid :
""No Rafale F1s had OSF installed at all.  Only the first batches of F2 have the IR OSF.""
 
True . I made a gross mistake and I apologize to all , it was a brain fart .
 
""The F-22 was designed with an IRST in mind but it was dropped because the capability did not justify the added cost.""
 
It is exactly where you are wrong (the USA) . This is something I actually never understood , you build the best LO aircraft worldwide , you equip the beast with the best AESA radar but you stop half way . If you wanna build a truely LO platform able to truely kill at long range in all impunity , why not give the fighter a good IRST , a good LRF and a good medium to long range IR missile ???
I don 't get it ... You have all the money and the tech you need to do so !!?
So , my only guess it that you must be wrong somewhere .
 
""However, the F-22's hardware architecture allows for an IRST and its software architecture accommodates adding it to the sensor fusion picture.""
 
So why don 't you bloody do it ???
 
""Spotting "blobs" via IR at 100km is not a significantly useful capability when you have an LPI radar that can detect and identify targets at more than twice that range.""
 
You are wrong Phaid and you know it . The best is to have both capabilities . 
The French think that radars can be jammed as well as FCSs when they are detected and you can trust us because we are very good at it , so we decided to develop the secondary IR capability , which is in fact slowly getting shoulder to shoulder with the EM technology . In less than 10 years  , the IR imaging and the newest technologies on lasers will allow a fighter to get a clear lock and the needed tracking coordinates to fire at more that 100km . The only thing the attacker will be able to detect (if it can) will be the split second laser hit , the rest will be done totally passively .
The Rafale is following this path , so why the F-22 doesn 't ?
 
Leroy 's post is just bla-bla ...
 
Cheers .
 


 
 
 
Quote    Reply

MM    IRST effectiveness?   3/19/2009 4:45:57 PM

Ok ignoring BW?s commentary, can someone tell me how much of a concern mach cone or any shockwaves propagating form a supersonic target is for counter detection from a IRST? I?ve heard some folks mention cone stagnation produces a fairly large IR signature but I?m not up to snuff on the topic (or how truly effective IRST really are for that matter)

 

Thx

MM
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/19/2009 4:46:53 PM
gf , I stick to what I said :
""Hot and cold imaging in IR sights is only a change in brightness""
 
I 've used enough IR sights (plenty of them) to know what I 'm talking about . Troopers and Cavalry can back me up on this , DA included if he wants to .
Don 't loose the thread into useless details , you 've got better things to do ;-)
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/19/2009 4:51:02 PM
MM , I certainly do not have the scientific knowledge to answer your question is an absolute manner , but I never heard that the sound barrier had anything to do with IR devices . Where did you get that if I may ask ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/19/2009 5:22:10 PM

gf , I stick to what I said :

""Hot and cold imaging in IR sights is only a change in brightness""
 
I 've used enough IR sights (plenty of them) to know what I 'm talking about . Troopers and Cavalry can back me up on this , DA included if he wants to .
Don 't loose the thread into useless details , you 've got better things to do ;-)
don't miquote me on something I didn't say.

DA will also be more than aware that there is a vast difference between handheld, land platform and airplatform IR imaging,

again, don't change the subject - you don't know what it is and its patently obvious.

to even think that you can equate cavalry/land based IR with airborne sensor systems (be they cold or hot) is just crap of the highest order.

I have got better things to do, but I have no intention of you getting away with crapping on about this when you have no idea and still pretend to do so.

again.  it's a simple ask for someone who continues to profess knowledge.

what is hot and cold imaging in contemp terms?  (not black and white,  positive and negative, etc....)

 forget the evasive sophistry - just answer the question and I'll go away and acknowledge that you do have a clue.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/19/2009 5:29:47 PM
gf :
""what is hot and cold imaging in contemp terms?  (not black and white,  positive and negative, etc....)
forget the evasive sophistry - just answer the question and I'll go away and acknowledge that you do have a clue.""
 
I don 't know what you 're asking from me , I don 't understand the question beyond what I already know .
It that enough for you  ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

leroy       3/19/2009 5:33:51 PM
"It is exactly where you are wrong (the USA) . This is something I actually never understood , you build the best LO aircraft worldwide , you equip the beast with the best AESA radar but you stop half way . If you wanna build a truely LO platform able to truely kill at long range in all impunity , why not give the fighter a good IRST , a good LRF and a good medium to long range IR missile ??? "
 
Gee, who do I put more trust in?  The designers who produced the finest fighter in the world today, or some idiot fanboy who can't even grasp the basics? 
 
What people are explaining to you kid is that IRSTs don't offer the level of capability you seem to think they do.  They do offer some pretty nifty abilities, which is why so many aircraft include them, but they are absolutely no substitute for a radar. 

The F-22 will likely get an IRST at some point, but it is no big priority.
 
"I don 't get it ... You have all the money and the tech you need to do so !!? So , my only guess it that you must be wrong somewhere ."
 
Yeah, hundreds of engineers, physcists and experts of every type, design an airplane and you don't understand why they made the decisions they did...  and your "only guess" is that they "must be wrong."
 
 You are pathetic kid. 
 
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