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     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
Bluewings12       3/21/2009 7:04:24 PM
DA , I am gobsmacked ! You are the man (I am one too) , but the way you fired Herald is nothing short of astounding .
You are spot on and I also don 't understand why SYSOPS kept that vitriolic internet addict for so long .
God knows how many hot discussions we had in the past , you , I and others , before the arrival of poseur3 , but we never insulted each other or been so venimous as the bugger can be . As you rightly said , the bloke couln 't get an half decent position in any good Company , he never shown any kind of understanding , any kind of open mind and any kind of repectuous ledearship . Herald is a clown who has been studying at some point in his life but he still probably live with his Mum even if he 's maybe 40 years old , pathetic ...
 
I 'm not a very rich man , but I 'm ready to send a 200 US dollar banknote to Poseur 3 if he can prove anything worth it about his real life , like some kind of CV...
I would have no problem to post mine online , here and for all to see (beside the black Ops in Lebanon/Syria) .
**********************
Back to the Rafale .  I said that the IR MICA can be used as an IRST and it is . Leroy is wrong again . The AdA in late 80s was already using the Magic 2 onboard M200s as an IRST , the Magic 2 had a 28km range aquisition . The IR MICA seeker 's unofficial range studies give it a 40km range . Of course , this is nothing comparable to OSF (100km range) but it is better than nothing and IT IS used as an IRST .
 
Regarding the 1st European F-35 , I hope to see it participating at the TigerMeet in 2013 if the program has luck on its side , but we could well not see it before 2015 . In 6 years time , the Rafale will be F3+ , the Typhoon will have 5 years of operational service and the gripen will most probably be the Gripen NG . By that time , more and more Vipers , Eagles and Hornets will be at rest , rusting away on gigantic airplane parks .
 
""Better?  Depends a lot on what you want to do with it.  Land it on a carrier?  Then the Rafale is the plane you want.  If you are looking for a pure interceptor then you want the Eurofighter. ""
 
Tell me something poseur4 , who 's looking to buy a pure interceptor nowadays ??? No -one .
Today , the goal is to have multi role platforms and we have the tech to do some good jack of all trade Fighters . Anyway , where did you get that the Typhoon could beat the Rafale BVR ??? The jets met twice already and the outcome is not clear .
Over the Med sea with nowhere to hide , you should say that the best and purest Interceptor would win but it was not the case , it seems that the Rafale/Typhoon encounter was a draw . On the other hand , during the South-Korean evaluation , the Typhoon had the upper hand on Rafale with a suppositly 4-2 score . We know of a 3rd encounter but the outcome has not been published or even talked of . Again , I repeat that France has never used the active capabilities of SPECTRA yet .
While the European Forces know a bit about the ECM onboard our M2000s , no one has ever experienced active jamming from SPECTRA besides French Pilots over French soil and in restricted airspace . JP Bergerac (if he wants to) can back me up on this .
 
I also said :
"I am only surprised when people try to lecture me on how the latest SHs or Viper Blk52s (or the F-15K) could be superior to the Rafale . These people are grossly underestimating the Rafale (or they are biased and /or anti-french) . To them I will ask a simple question : Which aircraft is more likely to complete its mission and to come back alive in an heavily defended airspace ? "
 
Leroy answered by another BS :
""You are an idiot bluewings.  Only an idiot would still be looking at that problem from a platform-centric perspective after all the explanation we have given you.""
 
AH !!! As soon as we wanna talk about a platform , you bring the usual net centric thing and start to talk BS about how a Fighter should never go alone and bla-bla-bla .We all agree but this is not what I am asking , so don 't try to hide your incompetance and already lost cause behind some poor and off topic excuses . Let me just nail you in your coffin poseur4 :
The UAE are using Vipers Blk 60 (and not the USA , only Blk 52s) but they still want to buy the Rafale to be their
 
Quote    Reply

HERALD1357    Have you noticed    3/21/2009 7:12:36 PM

 
 that like seeks like?
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/21/2009 7:19:49 PM
Poseur3 , stop the bull and leave us alone please , we don 't need you . Thank you .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/21/2009 7:46:35 PM

Weeell , now you downgrade RedFlag and you pi*s in the Aggressor Team 's boots ?! Coming from you , I am lololol !
The USAF Intructors flying the Reds must be lol too ... You are a CLOWN and a very bad one ...

 For goodness sake Fred, this is ridiculous.  Red Flag is a DACT event, thats why it exists.  It's not Blue Flag.

Making comments like that only serves to reinforce that you're trolling when this event is well known and has been explained numerous times..

I'm sorely tempted to post a lesson on DACT again - it's especially pointless from a bandwidth bandit persspective as everyone else knows what it is.  I suspect that you're letting your emotions get the better of you again. 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/21/2009 7:51:09 PM
Phaid :
""Rafale's radar is circular with an array diameter of 550mm.  The F-16's nose is elliptical with max dimensions of 740 x 480 mm.  That works out to an area of of 0.238 m2 for the Rafale versus 0.279 m2 for the F-16.""
 
Wrong . To star with Phaid , since I know that you 're not a wannabe and since I respect you and your knowledge , let me bring to you a nice pdf never posted on SP before , it is in french  :
h*tp://www.unilim.fr/theses/2008/sciences/2008limo4027/estagerie_fx.pdf
 
I hope that you will enjoy the paper . 
Then , some pictures to show my case :
h*tp://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4678/demonstratorrbe2radar2t.jpg
h*tp://img8.imageshack.us/img8/4124/testingphaserafale2.jpg
 
The elliptical nose of the Viper can 't have a radar the size of the RBE2 , it is as simple as that .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/21/2009 7:53:57 PM
gf :
""I'm sorely tempted to post a lesson on DACT again""
 
Don 't , I perfectly know what is RedFlag and a DACT excercise and it is precisely the reason why I speak the way I do .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/21/2009 7:59:27 PM
gf , thank you for calling me "Fred" again . I know what I 'm talking about my friend .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/21/2009 8:06:11 PM

gf :
""I'm sorely tempted to post a lesson on DACT again""
Don 't , I perfectly know what is RedFlag and a DACT excercise and it is precisely the reason why I speak the way I do .
You obviously don't understand it, so here it is for you as well as other teenagers who have difficulty understanding it's intent:


 
I've had permission from the original "author" of this post on DACT to reproduce it here.It's an interesting thread and seeks to demystify and correct some of the assumptions made about aggressor/dissimilar air combat training. It was initially posted to bring some "lightness and reason" about the Cope India 04 exercise between the USAF and IAF. I've chopped in a few other pertinent comments from elsewhere to round it off.

The guy who penned this has had long term exposure to air combat and dissimilar air combat training, so he is an expert in his field.


There are some serious misconceptions out there about how air combat training is conducted so I've decided to write a post about how it really happens. Everybody seems to want to cite a particular exercise as proof of their point, when in reality, they have no contextual reference for these results they are referencing. Realize that I am writing from a USAF/USN/USMC/NATO perspective. If anyone else can provide some information about how it's done elsewhere, please chime in.

Air-to-air combat is an extremely complex and dynamic undertaking. The combination of speed and the ability to maneuver in three dimensions creates an environment that is constantly changing and rarely allows any of the participants to see and understand the entire picture at once. In order to be successful in this environment, participants must be highly skilled, (reasonably) intelligent individuals who fight in these types of battles regularly. 

Fighter pilots from countries all over the world are expected to use hardware purchased with national treasure to defend their homeland against attackers or attack others as directed by their leaders. In order to effectively accomplish those missions, pilots must regularly train for air combat. Air combat skills are perishable and even the best pilots are not as keen as they might be if they havenâ??t flown in a while â?? especially when flying in large force exercises where one decision may be the difference between success and failure.

Definitions: Air Combat Training (ACT) is a term used to describe a battle between similar aircraft. If 2 F-16s are fighting against 2 other F-16s, this would be an ACT war, whereas 2 F-15s fighting 2 F-16s would be termed Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT). 

When planning a DACT exercise, planners typically will build an Offensive Counterair (OCA) strike package and Defensive Counterair (DCA) package with appropriate aircraft - this was displayed in the Cope India exercise when a strike package consisting of SU-30s, Mirages, and Jaguars attacked a target defended by F-15s. Besides designating types of aircraft and missions, planners will also draw up objectives for the exercise. These objectives can be very specific or quite broad depending on the situation.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       3/21/2009 8:10:58 PM
gf , you already posted that stuff on different sites that I know of .
Thank you again but you didn 't have too , I know what it is all about .
Back to square one for you gf ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       3/21/2009 8:14:07 PM

gf , thank you for calling me "Fred" again . I know what I 'm talking about my friend .
 
Cheers .
you need to change the way you deliver your  message then, as for me, I only see a statement that ignores what Red Flag is about.  There are no winners in a Red Flag event,  it is designed to stress forces to proscribed training sceanrios to evaluate actions/reactions and to test doctrine as well as pilot behaviour under stressful circumstances.  It's not a free will exercise per se, but is governed within boundaries so as to force a course of action and to generate a response.
 
In RAAF's case Blue Force at Pitch Black exercises resulted in that force continually decaying (dead means dead) with Red Force regenerating.  The reason being that Blue Force is then loaded up and stressed with each passing day of the exercise.  Red Flag does a similar thing in some instances but at battlerspace level on a significantly larger scale.  There are no "winners" and platforms can't be assessed as "winning" because the outcomes are designed to force event and behavioural changes in play.
  
Your comment as such, misrepresents the aims and actual outcomes as well as purpose of these events.
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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