It appears the Rafale has been eliminated from further considerationin the Indian fighter bid link

It's kind of cute the fact that you ignore that you're completely wrong about science and basic facts, ignore it then later make a short post to try to make up for it.   You have no clue. You're simply mining for superficial information in a cmples subject then applying it to even more complex subject judgments.   Sure Bluewings... you have no sales, your own country is cutting production, your accessories are late out, the ones you say it is superior to has all these things... at least you admit the F-22 is superior. I remember SP said it was nearly equal to the F-35 and one of u Rafale lovers said 'this page is the ultimate judge of debates to be had here' and then I linked to the aircraft combat index on SP.  LOL   So sure... go on, believe your plane is better than what every person responsible for defense purchases around the world knows, including your near abroad of Algeria, Africa, ME and your own nation liking it less than before.   You're only spending a hobby in delusion.

>>>>>
F-35 Avionics and Systems developements:

From first tests to up to 2000 h+.

Source: Jane's Wordl's Aircrafts.

FCS = ------------------------TESTED IN April 1998.

Avionics = -------------------TESTED IN 1999.

HMD = ------------------------TESTED IN 2000.

ATC/EOTS = -------------------TESTED IN 2000. SNIPER DEIVATIVE.

Comparison:

SPECTRA/Rafale F1 = ----------TESTED IN 1996. Standard F1.

SPECTRA/Rafale F2= -----------TESTED IN 2000. (NATO MACE-X = F2 Standard).

NEW MDPU = -------------------TESTED IN 2000.

DVI = ------------------------TESTED IN 2001.

MIDS/LVT = -------------------TESTED IN 2002.

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (1) dev = ------ 2002.

DGA contract F3 dev = --------------Feb 2004. STILL being developed today..

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (2) dev = ---Jun 2004.

OSF NG = --------------------------STILL R&D.

APG-81 FIRST TEST-FLIGHT: = --------Aug 2005.

 

Maybe that will help.

 

Explanation.

 

And that might help too. Strictly speaking the flyout of a missile is measured in burn seconds as well residual energy (potential momentum left versus drag, lift, and gravity.)  While you may get repeatable ballistics trajectories from an arttillery piece firing from one spot on the earth to another, that is a static two body problem. Aircraft are different. A air to air missile is an aircraft  that is shoved hard early and then coasts. Even the METEOR will coast through much of its trajectory.  

 

Anyway the missile will not act like an artillery shell, which is why it takes a differential calculus more advanced than what we have to predict exact outcomes for a three or four maneuvering body constantly moving problem. Simple trig will do for that artillery comparison example I set up. So we do estimates for the engagement interval around a launching aircraft and assign probabilities to the PK for our missiles based on known flyouts and potential energy left after burnout. I'm confident about RAYTHEON's figures. I'm also confident about MBDA's. RAYTHEON doesn't have to exaggerate. They don't have to since they have actual war data to back up their marketing and their rockets..

 

Same can be said for RAFAEL, BAE, and Vympel Design Bureau.

 

Note that in the case of MICA and ASTER, MBDA cannot?

 

Now if someone wants to dispute data presented, maybe he can explain first what the simple presented data means or why light still remains light despite assertions to the contrary. A photographer (some of you are camera bugs?) knows exactly why you cannot use a camera or an infrared detector to measure range.

 

Anyway I read this thread for the past week, and its the same old thing as before.

 

If the physics or the technology is against you, its because of an anti-French bias? Is that so? 

 

PROVE IT. Not with brochures and publicity releases, either. Discuss the science.   

 

Herald   

 

 

 

 

 

Performance:

Multi target / multiple launch

Rail or ejector mount launch

Range:< 500 m to > 80 km

Speed: mach 4