DA :

 

h*tp://img403.imageshack.us/img403/449/dassault10he7.jpg

 

Up to 20 250kg/Mk82 or 10 400kg/Mk83 .

 

Cheers .

 

 

No, BW, what I'm talking about absolutely is *not* a missile's no escape zone.  If I were one of the other experts around here that you have pulled this sort of move on in other arguments over the years, I'd tell you that your attempt to Google up some sort of response has failed, but I won't do that.  If you would actually try to answer the questions you might learn what several of us are trying to teach you about air-to-air missiles.

 

Also, feel free to say anyhting you want regarding armor penetration data.  I am not trying to assert that anything in that attempted analogy must be right.  I don't argue like you do.  If you think I've said something wrong or know of any other factors involved or whatever, feel free to fire away.  Right or wrong regarding main gun penetration data has nothing to do with the AAM range issue.

 

I'd say it is a practical certainty that those range values from Ratheon and MBDA most certainly *are* talking about best conditions, or at least that it certainly is for one specific set of conditions.  What do you think, they're going to post their "maximum range" under their worst conditions without stating that they are under the worst conditions?

 

 

TV Cam on the OSF 2nd generation :

 

h*tp://img13.imageshack.us/img13/8382/thalesdocosf2.jpg

 

This baby can zoom on your aircraft ID number at over 80km , just to be sure that you are a Blue aircraft ;-)

 

Coupled with the IRST :

 

h*tp://frenchnavy.free.fr/aircraft/rafale/images/rafale-0127.jpg

 

Cheers .

Warpig :

""I'd say it is a practical certainty that those range values from Ratheon and MBDA most certainly *are* talking about best conditions, or at least that it certainly is for one specific set of conditions.""

 

It is what I 've been saying since day one , thank you . 

You can see that we have no argument there ...

 

Cheers .

Very pretty telescope.

But so what - it cannot even discern tail numbers at night.  BW, among other claims in this thread you have stated that Rafale can rely upon a totally passive intercept against a stealth a/c target.  The opposing stealth a/c, according to you, would be detected by F1/F2 Rafale FSO or Mica and then ranged by laser to compute a firing solution before Rafale itself was detected.  What is the range of your Rafale laser?  What is the range of RP-31E or better agile radars?

 

v^2

V^2 :

V^2 :

Btw , here is a picture of the Bugatti front gear . I post it because it seems that every USN mech or Deck driver had a close look on it :

 

h*tp://img14.imageshack.us/img14/5328/0073z.jpg

The English and the Russian should get a close look on it and they would understand the trick to help a fully loaded Fighter to take off . A very clever trick is built into it , the real amateurs will know .

 

Cheers .

I would like people to keep something very important in mind :

The Rafale has been built from day one to replace the Crusaders and the SEMs .

 

Do you want me to repeat or do you get it ?

 

It is a Navy Fighter and it has been later tailored to fit the AdA needs.

From day one , Rafale had a huge lead on the Typhoon/Gripen/Sukhois  . It has been carrier capable from day one and it is why it is such a good airplane NOW for a well equipped Navy .

France made the right choice , whatever you may say ...

 

Cheers .

I'm not joking at all. Nor am I doing a direct platform comparison. This is an issue of quantity having a quality of it's own. Notice I never compared the F-4 and Rafale directly except to note numbers? There is a reason why no one is buying the Rafale that goes beyond platform comparisons.

-DA 

DA , chill out and let 's have a beer ;-)

You made a mistake and I drink to you , no worries . You are not Herald in my book .

 

I would enjoy the posters saying with me that for the last 8 years , mostly for the WoT , the only aircrafts who have been fighting and bombing the Talibans fools are the NATO F-16s , F-18s and the French M2000s and Rafales .

Where are the so-called (?) better Typhoons , Gripens and alike ???

Cheers .

 

Oh, really?  Then what do you think those conditions are?  Not even necessarily the numerical values, I mean at least first of all just what are the various factors that are taken into account?  If you would actually try to understand them, then you would (or at least ought to) understand why missile "maximum range" must specify or at least assume a certain set of values for those factors in order to make sense.

 

It is just like the armor penetration analogy in this way:  what type of projectile, HEAT, APC, APCBC, Composite, APDS, APDSFS, one made of tungsten or one made of DU, etc.; what type of armor, face-hardened, RHA, Chobam, etc.; velocity at impact if it is a purely KE penetrators; the effect of slope v. that specific projectile nose and penetrator shape for the inert KE penetrators, the effectiveness of that particular type of armor v. a purely KE projectile or v. a HEAT projectile; whether you score a complete penetration or merely a partial penetration and whether you score it as a penetration if it penetrates only 50% of the time, or 80% of the time, etc.; are all possible factors.  I do not dispute that I may have stated them improperly and that there may be others.  That's not my point.

 

What are the conditions for the flight of those missiles when Raytheon or MBDA says they have a certain range?

 

 

This whole change is just beyond stupid.  We might as well be arguing with a kid who thinks his favorite pro-wrestler is simply unbeatable.

 

"Regarding the Carrier Operations , Rafale is indeed an excellent bird if not the best . It is lighter than any other aircraft currently deployed on any Carrier , it has a better loading for weight ratio than any other aircraft currently deployed on any Carrier . It needs a cheaper catapult , less deck space for take off and landings and because of its extreme low speed during landing , it can bring back more stuff under its wings without troubles than any other aircraft currently deployed on any Carrier . It has one of the best range as a bomber and can be refuelled by other Rafales .  It also have the latest Exocet Blk-3 (ouch) and the Nuclear ASMP . "

 

Ah, the fanboy also thinks the Rafale is the best carrier aircraft in the world, I find that really really surprising. (lol)

 

Lighter than any other aircraft currently deployed on any carrier?

 

Hello? Fanboy?  What do you think a Harrier weights?   How about a Super Entendard?  How about an A-4? (Brazil)

 

For someone that spends all day dreaming about your favorite airplane, you sure haven't managed to learn much have you?