The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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: What is wrong with the Rafale?
Rufus    5/9/2009 10:16:10 AM
I have noticed a lot of discussion on here lately about the Rafale and its inability to compete with the various other late 4th generation designs on the market today. In an effort to shed some light on this issue I have taken a moment to list some of the Rafale's major crippling flaws and their origins.

The single biggest issue with the Rafale, and the common thread throughout most of its major design flaws, is that its design team simply lacked sufficient vision of where the future of fighter aviation was heading. Throughout the Rafale's design process its designers chose to go with incremental improvements rather than generational leaps in technology. The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29. The end result is a somewhat refined, but badly overpriced aircraft that has struggled to even compete with the aircraft it was designed to match, and utterly lacks the potential to compete with newer designs.

The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

Not only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter. As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach.

Like its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. While the Rafale was largely successful in matching the interfaces seen in US fighters in the early 90s, its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading. Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight, and numerous other advanced features such as the Super Hornet's fully decoupled interfaces. Most critically, the Rafale's man machine interface lacks the defining features of a 5th generation design, such as advanced sensor fusion and sophisticated multi-purpose helmet mounted displays.

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.

Finally, one of the most critcal flaws in the Rafale's design is its widely misunderstood "Spectra" self protection jammer and RWR suite. As was done with the F-16 and Super Hornet, the Rafale design team sought to incorporate an internal self protection jammer into the Rafale to improve its survivability against radar guided threats. The major failure of Spectra was that its development cycle was far far too long and France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system. By the time it went from the drawing board to production, a period of over 10 years, it was barely able to match systems being offered by Israel and the United States on other 4th generation fighters. The Spectra self protection jammer simply lacks the processing power, flexibility, and diverse threat response range available on aircraft like the Super Hornet, F-16 block 60, or modern Israeli systems. Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce.

Instead, what Spectra offers are relatively simplistic signals generated by its prominent but inflexible and simplistic transmitters.(Based on narrow-band, inefficient MMICs, a constraint imposed by the lack of a domestic supplier for more modern MMICs, the same issue that has plauged France's AESA program.) Spectra is perhaps the least crippling of the Rafale's flaws, because it could potentially be removed and replaced with a more modern system. Spectra tacks up a relatively large amount of space and power for what it offers, so a modern design could certainly do more with the same space and power supply, but France does not currently have the resources or certain key technologies to contemplate designing or building a system that would approach the power and flexibility of something like the F-35s EW system with its unparalled stealthy low power jamming modes.(and the ability to create incredibly powerful long range jamming modes if its AESA is used as a transmitter.)

So in summary, what went wrong? The Rafale was designed to match and compete with designs in operation in the early to mid 90s, but other design teams around the world were already moving ahead with generational leaps in stealth, electronic warfare, sensor fusion, and network centric concepts. By the time the Rafale design team recognized they had misjudged the direction of future designs, they lacked the resources and time to correct their mistakes. Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.
 
Quote    Reply

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   NEXT
earlm    Su-30 vs Rafale   5/17/2009 12:17:49 AM
Su-30 has a bigger dish and RCS, we can call it even.  Su-30 has WVR missile with HMS and a longer range BVR missile.  It also has a greater missile anf fuel capacity.  I'm thinking a Rafale pilot has to work damn hard to survive an A2A vs a Sukhoi.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/17/2009 12:22:43 AM
What difference is there between the endgames of an IR vs an RF that gives this huge edge to the IR?
Easy
Considering state of the art systems, it is much more easy to jam an RF missile especially when you have low RCS than a IR missile with modern CCD imagery and sometime with dual bands.
It is also much more difficult to achieve low IR signature at the same level you could do for RF,simply for the fact an engine exhaust is hot and would remains hot.
Moreover IR guidance is passive so give no warning.
It is why DIRCM is a "must to have" in the coming years because of advantage of IR missiles.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    IR vs RF BVR   5/17/2009 12:28:48 AM
The missile has to get there.  As I pointed out the "I have a knife and you have a spear but my knife is very deadly." is not a viable approach.  There's a reason you use RF if you want range.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/17/2009 12:43:54 AM
It's good to have national pride and love of your own countries products, but you have to have a little objectivity.
For my self I have objectivity.I know well our defense industry (ans US one BTW) and it is technologically world second and the closest to USA.
I have provided USA Pentagon assessments which says the same thing and recognize it.
Then our products leverage this French military technology.
A SU30 is simply unlikely to see a Rafale at missile range while Rafale will see it at much greater range.
I regret some stuff and delays on Rafale because I'm afraid that Rafale could not cope enough with F22 or maybe PakFa but certainly I'm not afraid for AtoA vs SU30MKI or F18E, or Eurofighter.
 
However without its (oustanding) ECM, Rafale would not be much better.
The problem is that our potential customers have no garantee on our ECM we would provide them since ECM (like in USA) are absolutely secrets.
 
BTW I have explain that with phased array radar, HMS is a slight advantage and the reason that F22 does not have one.
France did not required for now an HMS for Rafale while having developped one, for the simple reason that our air force pilots think them too heavy.They consider that an HMS overweight (even of 150 g) is a penalty for the pilot when you do 9+ g AtoA manoeuvers especially when your phased array radar or optronic system can lock 60° off boresight, diminishing greatly the need for a HMS.
F22 program managers said the same thing.Because under 9g, 150 g is equivalent to 1,35kg you have to add to existing helmet weight under 9g.
 
A little article on stealth
In 2005 a full scale model was sent to France to test its stealth characteristics, an indication that TRDI may be pursuing French assistance with other aspects of this program. In general the ADT-X design shows similarities to the F-22 in that it is a twin-engine tailed-delta with thrust vectoring and an advanced active phased array radar.
 
Strange that Japanese who want a stealth fighter of F22 performance and who consider F35 is not good enough, require France assistance to develop an indigeneous stealth aircraft.
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       5/17/2009 12:48:31 AM
There's a reason you use RF if you want range.
RF is stil needed in all weather but old technology.
AMRAAM is a 15 years old product even its seeker has evolved to cope with ECCM.
Still good for a SU30.
15 years ago today CCD IR captors did not exist.
However IR is a problem if you don't master problem of overheating IR window on missile
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    FS   5/17/2009 1:54:42 AM
France does not have the worlds second most technologically advanced defense indusstry not even close. Russia is number 2 by a long shot. First of all Russia compits with the US in fields that France can only dream of. Russias Aerospace is second in the world, they have over 50 years of experience and France got in the game over a decade latter. Russia has put over 3,000 satellites into orbit France little over 50 period. Russia is the only other country besides the US to have modern strategic bombers period. Russia builds its own AWACS, France buys American period. Russsias aviation has put out a some of the best fighters of each genarationm and as far as i'm conserned, they are the only country besides the US to have a active program to build a 5th genaration fighter, wich should be operational within five to six years. The Russians also have some of the best if not the best SAM systems in the world, like the SA-15 and the SU-300 family, which incluudes the best long range SAM in the world, the S-400. Their Nuclear subs are some of the finest in the world. Their large crusiers are deadlear than anything France has in the water outside of the CDG. They have the worlds largest nuclear force that has the only true triad outside of the US. They went head to head with the US on every single piece of military hardware from hand guns to nuclear subs for a better part of  a half a century and have experience in every aspect of  military hardware, outside of Nuclear Carriers. Now I have to give credit where credit is due and France is the only other country to put to see a nuclear catobar carrier, not to say that Russia or Britian can not do this, but since they have not, France deserves that acomplishment. In my oponion France also makes better armored vechiles than Russia, and for that matter most of the world. France is in the league of Britain, and no where close to the US. Now as far as Russia is considerd, France is behind in some areas and it's not even relevant in others.
Now you still did not answer my question of why the Sukhoi is a joke in the given senarios that I posted earlier. I want you to
read the post again and tell me how those facts are not so, and please tell me one by one which one is wrong and why.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/17/2009 2:33:50 AM
France is the only other country to put to see a nuclear catobar carrier

It's using a licenced built US developed catapult that was released for export by US State Dept - and its an earlier version which IIRC is 2 block generations older than the current USN in service block model. 


 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       5/17/2009 3:22:26 AM
France is the only other country to put to see a nuclear catobar carrier

It's using a licenced built US developed catapult that was released for export by US State Dept - and its an earlier version which IIRC is 2 block generations older than the current USN in service block model. 


 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/17/2009 7:18:01 AM
"Let see little boy.
You should have checked carefully what I said including links I provided.
When I don't know or I don't have enough facts to be certain of what I say, I don't express myself here, when I say something it is the definitive true because I'm a total rational man.I dont know anybody who could say better than myself here in average on technologies and capabilities on SP.
So learn and show humility when you speak to french stratege.
And open some book to learn what stealth technologies are."
 
I don't know who you are, but I can tell you without a doubt who you aren't.

You are clearly an amateur, and not a particularly knowledgeable one.  "Defending" your favorite plane and country from reality seems to be your agenda here and therefor you make up attractive sounding fantasies that gives your favorite aircraft advantages over other far more successful designs.  
 
Just remember, if you act like a stubborn child people will treat you as one.  In the future I hope you will do some basic research before venturing into topics you don't understand.
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/17/2009 8:36:20 AM
"Rufus , for reasons unknown to you and to most civilians , the USA have been "at War" with France on the economical chessboard since our refusal to endorse GW 2 .
There is no need at all to discuss such internals matters on an open forum . You trust me or not , I do not care ... "
 
Not true at all.  Did I not already point out how the US has been helping France with its AESA design?  Or how the US has been allowing France to use one of its aircraft carriers to keep your pilots qualified while the CdG works to get its kinks straightened out?  Or how the US invites France to participate in Red Flag, giving French pilots access to the finest air combat training available in the world today? 
 
You are simply out of your mind if you think the US is somehow secretly at war with France considering the incredible amount of assistance we have given you in recent years without receiving anything similar in return. 
 
The simple fact is that there is no conspiracy trying to keep the Rafale from being sold.  The Rafale is a failure as an export product because when it is compared to the various state-of-the-art aircraft available today, it is a middle of the pack performer with a top of the pack price.
 

"No this is not fact but again your opinion . Stop this attitude please . We have and had engineers working on stealth for a long time . We already said that funding and political will were the culprits , not the technology . Building a F-22 alike would have cost us an arm ."
 
You have had engineers thinking about stealth for a long time, yes.  They have not be working on or working with stealth in any meaningful way.  There is a huge difference between considering the possibilities of a technology or doing low-budget tests with models and actually designing complex demonstrators or fully operational aircraft.  France has virtually zero practical experience with stealth aircraft.  That is a simple fact and wishing it weren't true will do nothing to change it.

 
""The Mica is the product of France's limited budget and engineering resources.  Designing two missiles was simply asking too much""
 
??? Excuse me ? We could have upgraded the Magic-2 and made a more performing Matra Super-530D but we choose not  to , the Mica is a new breed and until the missile sees combat , it will be constantly looked down by amateurs . We don 't care us French , in fact we do like this attitude , the wake-up call be will be even harsher for the attacker .
 
Amateurs?  It hasn't exactly been flying off store shelves either has it?  What does that tell you about what the professionals think?
 
Just look at the export list for your wonder-weapon.  Qatar, Taiwan, UAE, Greece and France.  5 countries and only two first-rate airforces.  Of those five countries only two (France and Qatar) don't also use the AMRAAM.
 
You can't change reality by wishing.  Both the Magic-2 and Super-530 were hopelessly obsolete and upgrading them would have been a waste of time.  France needed to replace both but couldn't afford or develop two new missiles at the same time.  The result is the Mica.
  
 
""The Mica's overall level of development is similar to that of the initial 'C' model AMRAAMs.""
 
Wrong . Mica 's EM seeker is two generation ahead of the initial "C" model and its ECCMs are probably better .
Then , the "C" doesn 't have the initial velocity and the end game , far from it . 
 
Sure, that must be why it is in such demand right?  That is why a handful of second and third rate air forces have purchased the Mica, while the following airforces have chosen the AMRAAM:
 
USA,  Australia, Belgium, Bahrain, Canada, Chile, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Finland, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, South Korea, Malaysa, Morocco, Netherlands, Norway, Oman, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Taiwan, Singapore, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Sweden, Thailand, Turkey, UK.
 
Are you still having trouble figuring this out?  Even if you can't understand the technical aspects of what people are explaining to you, you should be able to look at the vast difference in demand for these two missiles and draw some basic conclusions about how competitive they are.
 
Then , where is the IR AMRAAM or the IR equivalent of Meteor ???
If you want an enemy fighter to take you seriously in BVR , get a proper long range IR missile .
Seriously Gentlemen , why do you think that the Rafale is believed to be a very serious threat BVR to every foreign Air Force ? Sure , the aircraft has its good points but the IR Mica is a threat very hard to counter .

How many IR Micas has France exported?  Has that missile even been exported?  Since you clearly consider yourself an expert on French military equipment I would like you to give me a quick list of the Mica IR's export buyers.
 
I find it funny that you act like a maginally BVR IR missile is somehow a requirement to be taken "seriously," but it does say a lot about your level of understanding.  The IR Mica is intended primarily as a replacement for the Magic and its BVR capability is marginal at best.
 
 
""At lower speeds and low altitude the advantage goes to the Super Hornet and at higher altitudes the advantages goes to the F-15 or Eurofighter""
 
Again , half of this is wrong , the other half is opinion . The Rafale beats the SH at any altitude or speed .
 
Of course not, but I guess considering your demonstrated lack of understanding of the subject matter we are discussing you probably don't understand why that is a silly thing to assert.  The Super Hornet is the gold standard for what it was designed to do.  At lower speeds and altitudes it is an absolute beast, at higher speeds and altitudes it remains a solid performer.  The Rafale is a maneuverable plane, but it is not exceptionally so when compared to its contemporaries.  Flying low and fast it is at its best.
 
At high speed and high altitude Rafale has the first look/lock on the Eagle (RCS) and its flight characteristics allow the jet to take evasive mesures an Eagle can only dream of .
 
You really don't seem to understand just how underpowered the Rafale's radar is.  An AESA equipped F-15 would not only detect the Rafale first, it wouldn't even be a close contest. Not only that, but at high speed and altitude the F-15 would have the maneuverability advantage anyways.  Two non-stealthy aircraft, one with a smaller but hardly tiny RCS and the other with a simply massive and incredibly powerful radar.  This is on contest.  The Rafale is a rather disappointing performer under those conditions and that is one reason why the Eurofighter is recognized as a superior interceptor. 


Many posters around on many different sites believe that the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale in A2A .
To this day , the only encounter seems to be a draw .
 
There have been zero "encounters."   You seem to approach this whole subject as a sporting event, which probably explains your "fan" mentality.  Friendly training is not combat.

 "The French Drivers said they had nothing to envy to the Typhoon and they kept the score straight ."
 
Of course they did.  Saying otherwise publically would be career suicide.  The French Rafale pilots I have spoken to love the plane as it is a huge leap and capability compared to their older aircraft, but will privately aknowledge its shortcomings and are concerned with the direction of the program.  (seemingly running out of steam)
 
 
Whatever you may say , Typhoon is a bastard (in the good sense of the term) . They took the Dassault knowledge on delta wings , changed the angle of the delta (wrong on two terms : aerodynamics and RCS) , added some "canards" wrongly placed because they didn 't know what they were doing  , completly f*cked up the air intakes and they end up with an aircraft unable to drop two LGBs at once because the FBW is not yet good enough to cope with the suddent (?) jump of the aircraft . Assymetric loads are even more problematic ...
On the A2A side , the Typhoon is not having the upper hand on Rafale , unless the Italian Drivers are not knowing the Typhoon enough (possible) , but the Rafs were F1s so ...
 
Wow, pass the drugs this way!  I doubt there is a single Eurofighter customer that would trade their Eurofighters for Rafales.  Both are capable planes with a lot of the same strengths and weaknesses, but the Eurofighter has a better radar, an IRST, a better self protection jammer with a towed decoy, a helmet mounted sight and better high altitude and high speed maneuverability and it supports a better weapons load-out such as the ASRAAM or IRIS-T and AMRAAM.
 
 
??? Excuse me ? A rafale loaded like a mule can fly better than any other aircraft especilly low level !
You do not know what you are talking about , that 's for sure !


Of course not.  Do you think the aircraft has magic powers?  It is like hitching a trailer full of bricks up to a small sports car.
The maturity level of this board is disappointing.

 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/17/2009 8:48:28 AM
"Considering state of the art systems, it is much more easy to jam an RF missile especially when you have low RCS than a IR missile with modern CCD imagery and sometime with dual bands.
It is also much more difficult to achieve low IR signature at the same level you could do for RF,simply for the fact an engine exhaust is hot and would remains hot.
Moreover IR guidance is passive so give no warning.
It is why DIRCM is a "must to have" in the coming years because of advantage of IR missiles."
 
If you think it is simple to jam an advanced radar guided missile you are out of your mind, but based on your previous posts I suspect this is just another example of you wishing something was true. Missiles like the AMRAAM have highly programmable seekers that can present widely varying waveforms and ECCM systems. Low RCS aircraft are of course an issue, but nobody but the US has those right now. 
 
You are confusing a missile intended for use at short range with a moderate BVR capability with a true BVR missile.  All modern IR missiles have some BVR capability, this is hardly unique.

 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       5/17/2009 9:04:00 AM

"BTW I have explain that with phased array radar, HMS is a slight advantage and the reason that F22 does not have one.
France did not required for now an HMS for Rafale while having developped one, for the simple reason that our air force pilots think them too heavy.They consider that an HMS overweight (even of 150 g) is a penalty for the pilot when you do 9+ g AtoA manoeuvers especially when your phased array radar or optronic system can lock 60° off boresight, diminishing greatly the need for a HMS.
F22 program managers said the same thing.Because under 9g, 150 g is equivalent to 1,35kg you have to add to existing helmet weight under 9g."
 
lol, you are in no position to "explain" anything, clearly.  The F-22's lack of a helmet mounted sight is the aircraft's single largest weakness, but much less of a problem for the F-22 than other aircraft because it will almost always be fighting at BVR with complete surprise.  If it does enter visual range combat it will do so at a time of its choosing, and at an advantage.  Its stealth and speed guarantee that. 
 
The Rafale lacks a helmet mounted sight for the same reason it lacks various other high-end features.  They are just too expensive to develop at the present time.  The Rafale will be at a serious disadvantage in WVR combat until it receives one.
 
A little article on stealth
In 2005 a full scale model was sent to France to test its stealth characteristics, an indication that TRDI may be pursuing French assistance with other aspects of this program. In general the ADT-X design shows similarities to the F-22 in that it is a twin-engine tailed-delta with thrust vectoring and an advanced active phased array radar.
 
Strange that Japanese who want a stealth fighter of F22 performance and who consider F35 is not good enough, require France assistance to develop an indigeneous stealth aircraft.
 
The Japanese are at a similar level to France, it makes sense for the two to collaborate.  Both have significant science and technology, but almost zero practical experience with stealth.  Both are now exploring the basics of stealth design by experimenting with models and mock-ups so it makes sense to pool their resources.  They can see what the US has done with the F-22, now they want to know how it works, at least conceptually.  This is little more than a research project though and has zero chance of ever proceeding to a full scale program.
 
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    Rufus   5/17/2009 10:34:59 AM
Sorry you're disappointed at the maturity level of the board.  There are a few experts here and some amateurs who come to learn from them.  We've succeeded in driving the Russian and Chinese fanboys from the board but we have the French.  They're usually reasonable until the Rafale comes up.  We've even created special Rafale threads so they will confine their fanboying to those threads instead of polluting every air thread.  If you post an F-22 thread it goes like this:
 
F-22 can take on multiple Su's.
How many Su's?
The max would be six at BVR.
French Fanboy:  Oh BTW Rafale can use Spectra to detect the F-22's radar then use an IR MICA to complete a passive intercept and blow the F-22 away before it knows it's under attack.
 
They ruin pretty much every air thread by making it about their favorite plane.  Sysops should ban anyone who brings up Rafale in a non-Rafale thread.  Please don't leave the baord because you're a great contributor.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm    IR BVR   5/17/2009 10:44:40 AM
Why does anyone think these IR missiles are BVR missiles?  I would summarize the IR missile development as:
 
1st generation:  Locks on to the sun and flares
2nd generation:  Not all apsect
3rd generation:  All aspect but poor kinematics
So what is one of the major foci for the next generation?  A bigger motor.  It's not so it can be BVR, it's so it can do the job WVR.  Under ideal conditions with a cooperating target any of the newer IR missiles can be launched BVR but they are not BVR weapons.

Not expecting a response from any French.
 
Quote    Reply

earlm       5/17/2009 10:45:56 AM
It is why DIRCM is a "must to have" in the coming years because of advantage of IR missiles.
 


No, what you do is stay out of range and kill the enemy with a real BVR missile.
 
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   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.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