Rafale Thread

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

Bluewings12 3/24/2009 10:50:25 PM

DA , kudos . I wish that I would use the english language as well as you do . I fully understood your last post and I support you 200% (if you need any support) .

Herald needed such warning from SP and I hope that he will be back (?) with a lighter language and a better understanding .

In any case , as an ex Sous-Officier , I salute you .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Beazz 3/25/2009 12:14:03 AM

DA , kudos . I wish that I would use the english language as well as you do . I fully understood your last post and I support you 200% (if you need any support) .

Herald needed such warning from SP and I hope that he will be back (?) with a lighter language and a better understanding .

In any case , as an ex Sous-Officier , I salute you .

Cheers .

BW,

You are an idiot and don't even know it. DA has more or less used the classic telling you to go to hell and have you looking forward to the trip method of delivery. But regarless of the delivery, it's still a go to hell.

Herald may be arrogant and blunt, but his understanding of how equipment functions is lightyears ahead of you. Persoanlly I'd rather see you go. I can read through Heralds bluntness and theatrics because he does actually have knowledge of what he speaks about. You on the other hand make it up as you go along and have yet to have any answer as to why your wonder plane will not sale if it is all you make it up to be other then the fact it's a US governmernment conspiracy aginst France. Talk about pure arrogance on your part. To actually think France rates so high to the US when there are so many other *real* competitors for our hardware out there is laughable. France is but a blip on the scope in the grand scheme of things BW. One day you'll wake up and realize that nobody cares what France is making because the world is full of better products.

Hopefully Herald will be back and maybe he will learn how to tell someone to go to hell and have em looking forward to the trip with a big smile on their face along the way.

Quote Reply

warpig 3/25/2009 12:40:22 AM

Warpig :

""if an air-to-air missile has a range of 60km, that does not mean it can travel 60km before it hits its target.""

Excuse me Warpig but I didn 't write it , you did .

ie : if a car can reach 120mph , that does not mean that it can reach 120mph .

???

Of course you wrote something silly , but I understood what you meant . But you are still wrong Warpig . If "X" missile has a 60km range , it means that it can reach a target at 60km . CQFD .

Leroy :

""No, he is absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. Not only that, but he is right that that isn't even how you describe an air-to-air missile's range. A maximum range number for a missile is completely useless without knowing the exact scenario it is referring to.

As usual, your ignorance is stunning considering how much time you spend trying to argue about these topics.""

Bla-bla-bla ... If you would for one minute think as a Fighter pilot and not as an internet poster , it would do good to us all as we wouldn 't have to read such crap .

I seriously doubt you understood. Even if you did, sadly, you fail to believe what three people--all of whom are clearly knowledgable in this exact subject--have told you. What's even more hilarious is that you actually have the chutzpah to say WE are the ones who are not thinking like fighter pilots. You truly expose your lack of knowledge with every sentence, as what we are telling you IS what fighter pilots are taught. What I have said is just like what is shown in the "Dash 1," which is AFTTP3-1, the fighter pilot's "Bible."

Here is again what I said before, except I will take out the sentence you can't seem to wrap your brain around:

----
"Do you understand what it means when a missile is credited with having a range of, for example, 60km? Let's say Points A and B are two locations in the air, separated by 60km. If your missile has a range of 60km, that does NOT mean that if you are flying directly toward Point A and fire your missile exactly as you reach it, that then the missile will fly out toward the target until it hits it just as the target reaches Point B, 60km away from Point A. The reason it doesn't mean that is because that isn't really a very useful way of measuring an air-to-air missile's range.

"Similar to other subjects, like RCS, the range of a missile is dependent on multiple variables, and thus citing a single value as its "range" is about as meaningful as citing a single value as an "RCS": *IF* you know what the conditions are for that value, it is useful, or *IF* you know the general assumptions that value represents as a sort of average value over the possible ranges of the different variables, then that value is somewhat useful.

"Missile ranges are based on the distance to the target at the time of launch, not based on the distance between where the launch occurred and where the target was eventually hit. Therefore the range depends heavily on what the target's heading is compared to yours, what the bearing to the target is at the time of launch, whether those relationships change during the duration of the missile's fly-out, what altitude the target is at, what speed the target is at, what altitude the launch aircraft is at, what speed the launch aircraft is at, and maybe some others I don't remember (I don't claim to be an expert at aerial combat)."

----

The maximum range of an AAM is different depending on the conditions of the specific engagement. A missile that has a maximum range of 60km against a target that is flying directly towards it will typically have a maximum range roughly around 20km against a target that is flying directly away from it. Both times the missile will fly the same distance measured from the point in space where it was launched to the point in space where it finally lost so much energy that it couldn't hit the target anymore, but no one uses that distance measurement as the "range" of the missile--*ESPECIALLY* not fighter pilots. Instead, the way everyone measures that missile's range--*ESPECIALLY fighter pilots--is to measure how far apart the launch aircraft and the target aircraft were at the time the missile was launched, and caveat that "range" with the conditions of the engagement. This is because what the pilot sees at any given moment is how far apart they are and what their respective parameters are (the ones I listed in the previous paragraph). He needs to know whether the missile can hit the target, and that depends on much more than merely how far the missile is physically capable of flying. Therefore, the various ranges are precalculated, factoring in how far the missile is physically capable of flying but also adding in all the other parameters that also affect whether the missile can actually reach/catch the target. *THAT* final calculation is what is called the "range" of the missile. That's why when a missile is credited with a range of some specific number, it doesn't mean that specific number is how far the missile can fly.

Now if you actually understand that, feel free to describe it in your own words. If you can't, then I suggest that you do not yet understand it. If you can, but you still don't see the importance of it, then I suggest you still don't really understand all of it--and ask a question about whatever you don't understand or don't see as important.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 3/25/2009 1:46:21 AM

That depends on overall background contrast as the amount of excitation (HEAT) as the aircraft heats (kinetic energy imparted) to the air by its generated shockwave. Its a physical effect as the standing shockwave causes its own friction event interface air on air [or even SOUND] (acts like a solid). But then as with the aircraft heating up itself as an object, DISTANCE and local obscuration effects degrade the detector's ability to see the event as a heat source or to count it by sampling, or see it move across a "static" background..

Sorry but that is as simple as I can explain it.

Herald

Hey thanks that actually explains it quite well. Since you and gf0012-aust obviously know what you?re talking about can you explain some of the limitations to IRST are?

Thx

MM

actually, phaid, leroy, earlm and herald are far better qualified to discuss process employment issues. I'm not the expert. My awareness comes from the fact that I have had to evaluate Military IR and Military Thermal Imaging for the job I do. So for me I have to meaure its performance against the users requirements and demands. The end state is that they (the user) always have final call and i (we) act on their judgement as the warfighter - and hence the ones with the real experience.

So, when our stakeholder says that there is a problem with X due to Y, then as the relevant experienced operator, we take note and include it in the final assessment.

the warfighter - the actual user, is the subject matter expert. geeks don't play with the toys in development, they act on the advice of the warfighter and then when improved or modified, the warfighter takes it out again, flogs it in its known performance poor areas, and the process of development and assessment starts again.

Hence, when people like Bluewings criticise me, they make a very fundamental mistake of accusing actual operators by proxy of not knowing the subject. People like me do not make decisions without input from the user community - and the user community is not the geeks, its the warfighters.

Blind freddy can see that Phaid, Leroy, Earlm, Warpig have got more than a clue. Me - i get to play and compare all the claims that the vendors (sellers and developers) try to sell as an operational truth. So when I say that there are absolute range issues for IRST and/or TI when employed as implied - its not personal, its based on actual feedback.

The French have been trying to flog off their capability for years - and they don't come within a bulls roar of what the US and the Swedes (and the Danes) are capable of. Replace "France" and "French" "Botswana" and "central africans" and I'd say the same.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust oops - typo 3/25/2009 1:54:38 AM

Hey thanks that actually explains it quite well. Since you and gf0012-aust obviously know what you?re talking about can you explain some of the limitations to IRST are?

Thx

MM

So, when our stakeholder says that there is a problem with X due to Y, then as the relevant experienced operator, we take note and include it in the final assessment.

The French have been trying to flog off their capability for years - and they don't come within a bulls roar of what the US and the Swedes (and the Danes) are capable of. Replace "France" and "French" with "Botswana" and "central africans" and I'd still say the same.

as such Bluewings demonstrates a fundamental lack of awareness of how procurement, assessment and the decision making process is performed. It's a universal truth. I've worked with French companies, in an earlier life I've acted as an agent for French technology, and we see French processes - and they're more or less the same as everyone else. Even the politics is the same horse with a different coloured saddle. I don't have a problem with the French. It's the colour and movement happening in here with respect to the capability that I have considerable issues with.

Quote Reply

leroy 3/25/2009 3:32:39 AM

"Hey thanks that actually explains it quite well. Since you and gf0012-aust obviously know what you?re talking about can you explain some of the limitations to IRST are? You can often read about these fantastic detection ranges and how they are a counter to low observables yet the principle users of LO platforms don?t seem to be loosing any sleep over them. I know for instance that LM states that the F-22 has balanced observables (referring to IR and radar) and it posses a low supersonic IR signature but that could mean many things such has simply not using blower which undoubted reduces your signature dramatically. "

I am not gf0012, but I can give you an outline of the issues with IRSTs.

First, let me say that they offer some really great capabilities, with more potential still available. The reason IRSTs become such a contentious topic on message boards is that fanboys have a tendency to misunderstand what they are capable of and make various wild claims about them.

A good IRST can detect and track a target at extremely long ranges, potentially in excess of 150km. That same IRST may struggle to detect and track the same target at 50km... To keep things short, their performance is extremely dependent on environmental factors and the target's aspect. When you see some company claiming an incredibly long range for an IRST, it isn't necessarily untrue, it is just a best case scenario. Typical performance will be far less than advertised.

Another major issue with IRSTs is that like any telescope, they can either have a wide field of view, but relatively low magnification or they can have high magnification and a very small field of view. In practice that means that at short ranges they can locate and track targets autonomously, but that at longer ranges there is simply too much sky for them to effectively search. (They are doing the equivelant of looking through a soda straw.) For this reason modern IRSTs, and any other long range optical device such as targeting pods or the TV camera in the Rafale, are almost always designed to be cued where to look by other sensors. Once told where to find the target, they can often track it at relatively long range, but that isn't the same thing as finding the target in the first place.

See this article for a little discussion of the Sniper XR targetting pod, which can act as an IRST. Note the one bit about using the F-16's radar to detect the fighter before switching over to the targetting pod. A very good RWR, or perhaps a datalink could also provide such cueing.

h*tp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/10044top.xml

Another major limitation that is frequently not understood is that IRSTs have a hard time performing ranging, which is why most rely on a laser range finder. It isn't impossible to perform ranging without a laser, but you aren't going to get nearly the level of accuracy as you would with a radar. This makes carrying out long range attacks relying solely on an IRST problematic. It certainly isn't impossible, but there will be trade-offs, primarily in range and probability of kill.

Yet another issue is that IRSTs have very poor multi-target performance compared to modern radars, especially AESAs. Tracking a single target is one thing, even 2-3... but if you reach the point where there are a number of targets spread all over the sky it is not going to be able to keep its eye on all of them. This is a significant issue if you are thinking about an even medium sized air engagement. (Would you be happy knowing where a pair of your opponents are but left wondering where those other two #!$% went?)

So what is the bottom line? IRSTs offer some great capabilities. They really can track targets at very long ranges under the right conditions. They can perform some useful indentification functions that are very very useful in a low-intensity conflict. They are passive, can't be jammed, and they aren't affected by radar cross section. The jamming resistance is important, and one major reason why IRSTs are included on many legacy fighters. In the event the fighter's radar was jammed, at least it would still have Something... but they were never intended to be a fighter's primary sensor going into an engagement.

More recently of course there has been a lot of talk about trying to use IRSTs to counter stealth aircraft. It is pretty impossible to have a meaningful discussion about this because there is simply no information publically available about how susceptable the US's stealth aircraft are to this approach. It is worth noting that all of these aircraft have received major work to reduce their IR signatures. Look at the engines on the B-2, or F-117, specifically their location. While you are at it, go back to that link above and see what the targetting pod was actually locking on to when tracking the F-16...

"XR. Griffiths had some difficulty locating the other fighter in IR white-hot/wide FOV, but finally locked the point-tracker onto the bright-white engine tailpipe."

IR stealth is largely about eliminating hot-spots that provide a high-contrast.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/27/2009 9:38:00 PM

I was at work .

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

Warpig and Leroy , I believe my english is the culprit . I understood perfectly what you both said about the range of an A2A missile . I do not dispute it , far from it . I think that I simply didn 't make myself clear :-(

When I say that "x" missile has a 60km range , I mean that the missile can fly for 60km , which is also what any paper means .

Talking about the position of the targeted aircraft at the time of shooting is a different matter . Again , I agree with what you said both regarding the BVR attack , we have no misunderstanding there .

That being said , I liked very much what Leroy said in his long post , especialy regarding the IRSTs . Leroy is right on almost every account but one , which is what I want to discuss here . Leroy , you said (I quote) :

""Another major issue with IRSTs is that like any telescope, they can either have a wide field of view, but relatively low magnification or they can have high magnification and a very small field of view. In practice that means that at short ranges they can locate and track targets autonomously, but that at longer ranges there is simply too much sky for them to effectively search.""

It is indeed true that low and high magnification change the range detection , but not by that much . Just remember that an IRST is a passive device and because it is not emiting , it doesn 't have to focus any energy on a given angle .

For a good IRST , looking far away with a wide angle or looking far away with a small angle doesn 't change much the detection range , some papers are talking about 25% lost in range , no more .

Of course , the Weather is playing a major role and the best IRSTs might be as blind as a bat in horrible weather , but we all know this Leroy .

What I 'm saying is clear and precise , I am not trying to fool you . So when you say :

""They are doing the equivelant of looking through a soda straw"" (The IRSTs)

I say : stop , enough BS .

This is far to be the case and in fact , far from it . A good IRST can track without help at long range , remember that as it is of the utmost importance . I agree when you say :

""any other long range optical device such as targeting pods or the TV camera in the Rafale, are almost always designed to be cued where to look by other sensors. ""

I note the "almost" in your sentence . You said "almost" because you know that it can be used in a more clever way but your love for Radars is stopping you to type the truth ;-)

IRSTs and long range TV will become more and more efficient and everyone will have some kind of decent system anytime soon , everybody . The reason (for now) being the Stealth Aircrafts .

The second mean is a powerfull and stealthy enough LRF to give the datas needed to fire at extremly long range . So far the FAF has a clear 35km range , but this is far to be good enough . Against an Aircraft like the F-22 , you need a stealthy LRF able to reach 80km (no one has such LRF) . If you don 't have any , you can only fire from the coordinates provided by an excellent RWR , which is better than firing in the blind as you already have the position and bearing of the target . You do not have the range but the TV can help you to decide if the shot is possible . As a Pilot POV , it is crucial .

The TV has an enormous advantage : You can see in real time what the Aircraft is doing .

Is it suddently banking left , is it gaining altitude , is it going down , is it following its flightpath ?

How an aircraft is flying is telling much to the attacker , far much than it should .

This is why the DGA asked for a very long range TV and aborted (for now) the 2nd generation IRST onboard Rafale .

French Optronics are top notch and our optical imagery is more than excellent .

France is only keeping the SUs and Migs away and we do it with ease .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

warpig 3/27/2009 11:20:03 PM

When I say that "x" missile has a 60km range , I mean that the missile can fly for 60km , which is also what any paper means .

Talking about the position of the targeted aircraft at the time of shooting is a different matter .

Really? That's what you and any paper means? First off, we've already described to you how at least some paper, i.e., the paper used by airmen and the personnel who support the airmen, does *not* mean that. But aside from that, if the remaining paper means that, then when you and that paper state a range for an air-to-air missile without stating anything else about the engagement parameters (including regarding the platform launching the missile and about the target of the missile), then what are the parameters of the launch that determine the starting point of the missile's flight, and what are the parameters used to determine when the flight of the missile has ended and therefore the ending point of the flight, so that the distance between the two points can be measured and thus determine the range of the missile?

Quote Reply

leroy 3/28/2009 3:28:46 AM

"Warpig and Leroy , I believe my english is the culprit . I understood perfectly what you both said about the range of an A2A missile . I do not dispute it , far from it . I think that I simply didn 't make myself clear :-("

I don't think your english is the problem in this case bluewings, you were clear enough about what you were saying, you were just wrong again. I suspect you finally went and looked things up, progess I guess...

"When I say that "x" missile has a 60km range , I mean that the missile can fly for 60km , which is also what any paper means"

WTF? Nobody describes air-to-air missile performance in this manner. It isn't a meaningful measure of their capability. Once again... you want to make pretend you know something about missiles, but you are too clueless even to fake it.

"That being said , I liked very much what Leroy said in his long post , especialy regarding the IRSTs . Leroy is right on almost every account but one , which is what I want to discuss here . Leroy , you said (I quote) :"

Yeah, I really love it when clueless idiots decide to try to argue with well known facts... and yet... here you go again...

"It is indeed true that low and high magnification change the range detection , but not by that much . Just remember that an IRST is a passive device and because it is not emiting , it doesn 't have to focus any energy on a given angle ."

Gee, IRSTs are passive? That is big news... so are telescopes kid. Do you know why large telescopes often have smaller ones mounted on them? It is so that the astronomer can use the small one as a sight. This allows the astronomer to locate what he is looking for(or at least the general area) using the wide field of view sight, before switching over to the extremely narrow fiew of view telescope.

"For a good IRST , looking far away with a wide angle or looking far away with a small angle doesn 't change much the detection range , some papers are talking about 25% lost in range , no more ."

"some papers"? LOL Please show us what you googled kid and don't try to pretend you know the first thing about IRSTs.

"I say : stop , enough BS .

This is far to be the case and in fact , far from it . A good IRST can track without help at long range , remember that as it is of the utmost importance . "

I don't particularly care if you dislike the facts I post kid. If someone asks a reasonable question I will give them a reasonable, and factual, answer. I understand that your agenda here is to try to invent ways to boost your favorite airplane, a few of which have IRSTs.

""any other long range optical device such as targeting pods or the TV camera in the Rafale, are almost always designed to be cued where to look by other sensors. ""

I note the "almost" in your sentence . You said "almost" because you know that it can be used in a more clever way but your love for Radars is stopping you to type the truth ;-) "

Other possibilities include what the author of that article I linked to described doing... typing in coordinates of a known target and having the device look at it. (The airport) He was able to detect airliners dozens of miles away, but once again, that is because he told the device where to look. I am really getting tired of explaining the basics to you, only to see you try to find ways to twist them to favor your favorite airplane.

Also, love for radars? How stupid are you kid? Why do you think France is rushing to field an AESA but can't even be bothered to put IRSTs in their Rafales?

To a clueless fanboy, IRSTs just seem like the coolest thing on earth. "Wow! Just imagine all the things you could do with a magic sensor that reliably detects the enemy at long ranges, totally passively!"

The reality is that due to their limitations, IRSTs are useful, but non-essential. A good radar on the other hand... is absolutely essential. Given a choice between a Rafale with its IRST, but ineffective radar, and a Rafale without the IRST, but with the new AESA(assuming it works) every single pilot is going to want the aircraft with the better radar.

"IRSTs and long range TV will become more and more efficient and everyone will have some kind of decent system anytime soon , everybody . The reason (for now) being the Stealth Aircrafts . "

Yeah, the fanboy's favorite dream... IRSTs will defeat stealth and then my favorite airplane can beat anything!

I am not going to discuss stealth aircraft with you again kid, I would get more enjoyment out of discussing poetry with a chimp.

Not only are you utterly and completely clueless, but you don't even have any honest desire to learn. Your only interest is dreaming up science fiction that would allow your favorite airplane to compete with those made by one of your closest allies, that are in no way a threat to you.

Quote Reply

leroy 3/28/2009 3:31:07 AM

"Really? That's what you and any paper means? First off, we've already described to you how at least some paper, i.e., the paper used by airmen and the personnel who support the airmen, does *not* mean that. But aside from that, if the remaining paper means that, then when you and that paper state a range for an air-to-air missile without stating anything else about the engagement parameters (including regarding the platform launching the missile and about the target of the missile), then what are the parameters of the launch that determine the starting point of the missile's flight, and what are the parameters used to determine when the flight of the missile has ended and therefore the ending point of the flight, so that the distance between the two points can be measured and thus determine the range of the missile?"

What is sad is that he doesn't understand why what he is saying doesn't make sense.

This is not that complex a concept.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 3/28/2009 6:48:12 PM

I do not have enough time now to respond in details , I ' ll do that 2moro .

Warpig , you are loosing yourself into useless details . We both know how missiles work , you 're just going off topic .

No time to waste here ...

Leroy , when a missile is said to have a "X" km range , what don 't you understand in the sentence ???

""WTF? Nobody describes air-to-air missile performance in this manner. It isn't a meaningful measure of their capability.""

???

From Raytheon :

AIM-120C-5 range : 105 km (65 miles)

How do you see and understand the range Leroy ???

From MBDA

MICA range : 80km+

How do you see and understand the range Leroy ???

""Do you know why large telescopes often have smaller ones mounted on them? It is so that the astronomer can use the small one as a sight. This allows the astronomer to locate what he is looking for(or at least the general area) using the wide field of view sight, before switching over to the extremely narrow fiew of view telescope.""

This is true but you are one more time off topic . Since you seem to confuse telescopes with IRSTs , you think that the same technology is used for both . Well , this is not the case and far from it in fact . Telescopes have a very small field of view because they are intended to look at extreme distances , whatever spectrum they use . IRSTs are not build for the same purpose , at the contrary Leroy . I have many studies about IRSTs on my hardrive and I have some pretty good links too to back up what I 'm saying if needed .

Exemple : (from FoxThree Publication , No3)

""For example, even with the radar in an air-to-surface mode, the FSO (OSF) is fully capable of detecting and tracking hostile interceptors, and the pilot can instantly engage an emerging threat.""

Do you miss something or what Leroy ?

from FoxThree Publication No5 :

""The OSF comprises two modules mounted on top ofthe Rafale's nose, ahead of the windshield, to offer an unobstructed view of the forward sector: the infrared sensor (Infra-Red Search and Track), and the TV sensor coupled with an eyesafe laser rangefinder. The functions of the two modules are clearly complementary: - surveillance and high-accuracy, multi-target automatic tracking by the starboard IR surveillance module - target tracking, identification and ranging by the port TV/laser module. The latest 3rd generation matrix detector technology has been chosen for future versions of the OSF to ensure extended detection ranges, and the IR module is fully capable of operating in hot and humid climate/conditions. The TV sensor has an exceptional long-range identification capability, allowing a highresolution image of the target to be displayed on any of the cockpit's three screens. Target counting for raid assessment is also a key advantage of the OSF, and tracking of low radar cross-section aircraft is a distinct possibility.""

That was the old OSF F1 . We are again talking about long range detection , tracking and indentification .

You want me to carry on ?

You also said :

""Why do you think France is rushing to field an AESA but can't even be bothered to put IRSTs in their Rafales? ""

You give a totally wrong answer a couple of lines later , just for the sake of bashing :

""A good radar is absolutely essential .Given a choice between a Rafale with its IRST, but ineffective radar, and a Rafale without the IRST, but with the new AESA(assuming it works) every single pilot is going to want the aircraft with the better radar.""

Do you really think that kind of talk will bring you anywhere ? I don 't think so Leroy , I don 't think so .

The actual PESA RBE2 is the best Fighter radar in Europe and the FAF (and the Pilots) are praising it . To tell you the thuth bluntly , the AdA doesn 't need the AESA RBE2 but a 3rd generation IRST coupled with the new TV Cam . The actual radar on Rafale is good enough to use the Meteor in an efficient way . The AESA RBE2 is needed to better the platform and to get some sales abroad . Of course , the new capabilities of the AESA (better range and ground mapping) will help the Rafale to be even better in A2G but this is only one more factor in the equation .

""Not only are you utterly and completely clueless, but you don't even have any honest desire to learn""

I return the compliment . To me , you are simply biaised .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

warpig 3/28/2009 11:58:05 PM

Warpig , you are loosing yourself into useless details . We both know how missiles work , you 're just going off topic .

No time to waste here ...

Leroy , when a missile is said to have a "X" km range , what don 't you understand in the sentence ???

""WTF? Nobody describes air-to-air missile performance in this manner. It isn't a meaningful measure of their capability.""

???

From Raytheon :

AIM-120C-5 range : 105 km (65 miles)

How do you see and understand the range Leroy ???

From MBDA

MICA range : 80km+

How do you see and understand the range Leroy ???

But clearly you don't "know how missiles work" when it comes to AAMs. If you actually tried to answer my questions, you'd realize and understand how meaningless it is to try to specify an AAM's range without also specifying a set of conditions for which that range applies. What do you think those ranges mean, specifically, along the lines of the questions I asked? If you can answer that, then I will tell you what they mean.

Quote Reply

warpig 3/29/2009 12:13:46 AM

As an analogy to how initial conditions need to be specified, imagine a company publishing something saying, "Our 120mm tank gun can penetrate 950mm of armor." Why, "obviously" that must mean that any tank with exactly 950mm of armor will be destroyed by a hit from this gun, right?

Obviously not right, except under a specific set of conditions, entailing things like type of ammo used, range to the target for some types of ammo, effect of reactive armor if any, angle of incidence at impact, armor thickness of the target at the location hit vs. that type of ammo (and possibly its velocity at impact), resistance/effectiveness of the armor versus that type of projectile at that angle of incidence, and definition of penetration (amount and probability of the penetration), and probably others.

Quote Reply

YelliChink 3/29/2009 3:14:26 AM

I thought that AdA (Armee de L'Air) is better than FAF. FAF sounds like Finnish Air Forces.

Quote Reply

leroy 3/29/2009 4:05:19 AM

"How do you see and understand the range Leroy ???"

As warpig has tried to explain to you, those range numbers make certain assumptions, and not necessarily the same assumptions for both weapons. As a result, you really can't compare them directly. Sorry kid, but some things simply can't be simplified down to a single number, that just isn't how this works.

"This is true but you are one more time off topic . Since you seem to confuse telescopes with IRSTs , you think that the same technology is used for both . Well , this is not the case and far from it in fact . Telescopes have a very small field of view because they are intended to look at extreme distances , whatever spectrum they use . IRSTs are not build for the same purpose , at the contrary Leroy ."

lol... they are both types of telescopes kid. They are both optical devices and obey the same basic principals. If you want long range resolution, you will have to accept a smaller field of view. Once again, you are simply too ignorant to even make sense of the information people have provided you.

"I have many studies about IRSTs on my hardrive and I have some pretty good links too to back up what I 'm saying if needed . "

Studies? lol... You clearly couldn't make sense of a study if you had it. What do you actually have bluewings? Marketing pamphlets off the internet? Magazines? LMAO

"Exemple : (from FoxThree Publication , No3)

""For example, even with the radar in an air-to-surface mode, the FSO (OSF) is fully capable of detecting and tracking hostile interceptors, and the pilot can instantly engage an emerging threat.""

Do you miss something or what Leroy ?"

Miss something? That is in no way inconsistent with what I explained to you. Yes, IRSTs can detect and track target autonomously. They just can't do it effectively at the sorts of ranges you wish they could. So saying OSF's IRST can detect fighters tells us what exactly?

When you post things like this it makes me wonder if you even understand what we are talking about.

Again... so what? All this is is marketing BS. It has an IRST. It has a TV camera.... it has a laser range finder. This is not that exceptional a setup. None of this changes the fact that an IRST is not capable of performing in the manner you and various other fanboys wish they were.

They do NOT allow an aircraft to simply fly around with its radar off, "passively detecting" enemy threats and engaging them. If that were the case... every air force in the world would be rushing to mount IRSTs on their planes, and IRSTs wouldn't be treated as secondary sensors that are handy to have, but no big deal if you don't.

"That was the old OSF F1 . We are again talking about long range detection , tracking and indentification .

You want me to carry on ?"

Carry on what? Posting irrelevant BS that does nothing to support your position? Nowhere in what you posted is there useful information on the performance of OSF's IRST. The performance claims made for it at all standard marketing crap without any meaningful data on what it is capable of in the real world.

"Do you really think that kind of talk will bring you anywhere ? I don 't think so Leroy , I don 't think so .

LMAO, As usual you are simply unwilling or unable to join us in the real world. The PESA in the Rafale is a technological dead-end with extremely poor range performance, and one of the largest factors why the Rafale has been unable to gain even a single export order while its competitors have all had multiple successes. Even the potential future orders for the Rafale that are being negotiated absolutely demand a next generation radar, because the weaknesses of the Rafale's PESA are well known.

As for you wanting them to focus on an IRST instead of a decent radar... well that is because you are a clueless fanboy idiot and don't seem able to accept that IRSTs just can't do what you think they can. That is my whole point... why do you think they are focusing on the AESA when a better IRST would be far cheaper and easier to develop?

It is because the AESA is far more important than the IRST. The IRST simply doesn't offer what you wish it could. If it WAS capable of what you claim it was... they would probably agree with you and focus on a better IRST, but it isn't, so they aren't...

"The actual radar on Rafale is good enough to use the Meteor in an efficient way . The AESA RBE2 is needed to better the platform and to get some sales abroad . Of course , the new capabilities of the AESA (better range and ground mapping) will help the Rafale to be even better in A2G but this is only one more factor in the equation ."

lol... it really is funny watching you try to spin things the way you do. You just can't admit that your favorite plan has some major weaknesses can you? You want to pretend the radar is super capable, but can't explain why nobody else is willing to accept the Rafale without a vastly improved one. If the radar is so great... why is replacing it the top priority?

"I return the compliment . To me , you are simply biaised . "

I am about done with this exchange. I have explained every single one of these issues to you more than enough times. If you had any willingness or capability to learn you would have done so by now.

Harold went off the deep end and got banned... it is too bad they didn't take a moment and ban you as well. Nobody comes here to read science fiction for crappy writers.

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

	News As History - November 23, 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