Rafale Thread

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

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 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NEXT

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

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

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 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 NEXT