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
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale
Bluewings12    6/24/2009 5:03:48 PM
Let 's watch them first :-) The F-22 h*tp://www.air-attack.com/videos/single/cAhL7lJCk4I The Rafale : h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/user/ministeredeladefense/video/x9ma8h_demonstration-du-rafale_news Both aircrafts are pulling nice stuff . Rafale only does it twice faster . Explaination and details to follow . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Bluewings12       7/8/2009 8:33:46 PM
Warpig :
""you frequently post crap, you are frequently shown to have posted crap, and yet you frequently refuse to admit it's crap, and you frequently repeat the same debunked crap""
 
What crap ? My personal doc on Rafale is HUGE and is made mostly with official papers and studies from various French organisation like the French MoD , Dassault , the FAF and MN ,Thalès , Snecma , etc . What I post , I can back up .
It is the vast majority of the posters who "think" that I am bluffing when I 'm not . If you wanna talk about crap , ask poster(s) like Herald , Shooter , Rufus , etc . I rarely read anything true from them on Rafale ...
 
How many times here on SP we can read that the Rafale is "ok" , it is a "rather good 4th gen fighter" , it has "nothing special" , its radar is crap , its missiles are crap , its sensor fusion is nothing new , its engines are weak and the aircraft is underpowered , its EW suite is not better than the ones on the F-teens , etc ...
This is all highly innacurate ! All the datas I have prove the opposite !
Keep shooting at the messenger as long as you want , it will not change a thing . I remember when 6 or 7 years ago I was reading here on SP that the Rafale F3 would never exist or fly and if it was going to fly , the F-35 would already be there with all its gizmos . Well , who was right ? (rolling eyes)
The F3 is operational and flying with the French Navy when the F-35 is still a problem child prototype .
The problem I have is when I read non sense like (from DA) :
""TVC was a part of the design and is WHY it will turn circles around opponents even into supersonic regions."" 
 
Excuse me DA , but this is BS . The F-22 has been waxed in dogfight by Typhoon and EVEN by F-16 I believe .
 
""Rafale is a good 4th Gen fighter but is completely outclassed by 5th Gen F-22 in every meaningful way""
 
Again , this is totally untrue ! First , the Rafale is an omnirole 4.5 gen fighter , then the F-22 is certainly not "completely outclassing" the Rafale (far from it) and certainly not "in every meaningfull way" (?) . I agree that the F-22 in BVR is the deadliest fighter out there but that 's about it . Rafale also have very good cards up its sleeve .
 
""And the reality is that when you have advantages in technology, funding and combat experience as the USA does, chances are your fighters will be more advanced.""
 
I agree about funding , but I disagree a bit on technology and a lot on combat experience . I admit that the US tech on Stealth and AESA radar is superior to what the French can do (so far) but we are working on it very hard , same with the engine technology , Snecma is also working hard to reach the US excellence and the latest M88 is showing . Regarding the combat experience , France and Her pilots have been participating at every major operation with NATO for the last 30 years (but not in GW2) and we also conduct our own operations when needed . The FAF and the MN fighters have as much experience as the US or Israeli airforces . 

Seagull :
""BW : sorry for the offense, that was my opinion with a probable lack of humility""
 
No offense taken :-)
 
""I remember also the time when you wrote Rafale history, with details about Active Cancellation.""
 
That was a long time ago and from what I was reading (Chaltiel & Co) , I believed in good faith that they were up to something . I was wrong , I admitted it and never talked about it again . (Btw TMor , do you know what is said about the latest incarnation of Spectra ? It seems that the EW suite is now using a different kind of active jamming , I am looking into it)
 
""I think it's more productive to talk about Rafale, and only Rafale, with explicit sources, than to try to compare it to other types, because you'll irritate a lot of people and may show you don't know something about the other types.""
 
Ok , but just try to make them understand
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @BW   7/8/2009 8:48:05 PM
I don't know where to start. Look, I realize you like the Rafale. But I also realize you are not knowledgable about air combat. I hate to say that about you but that's obvious when you make statements about jets in dogfights under DACT conditions as being some sort of proof of superiority. Or when you make statements about airshows being a good way to judge platform performance in combat.
 
F-5's and A-4's used to beat F-14's all the time in training BW. Airtcraft that have no A2A RADAR! Why don't you ask any of the French posters here to explain to you had misinformed you look on these topics. You will just ignore this and keep posting inaccurate information as you have for years so I'll just let you believe whatever you want.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/8/2009 9:07:25 PM
Bluewank
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/8/2009 9:10:51 PM
DA :
""F-5's and A-4's used to beat F-14's all the time in training BW""
 
Thank you . The reason is that both aircraft were better fliers in turning dogfight . Same story with the Eagle being waxed by the Falcon , etc .
But of course , the F-22 can 't be beaten because it is the F-22 , isn 'it DA ???
 
""you make statements about jets in dogfights under DACT conditions as being some sort of proof of superiority""
 
Yes I do and I am right , sorry .
 
""Or when you make statements about airshows being a good way to judge platform performance in combat.""
 
Yes I do and I am right again , sorry .
This situation is what I was explaining to Seagull , no American will never admit that the F-22 can be beaten and it is pathetic to say the least DA ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/8/2009 9:15:56 PM
Get lost Reactive .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/8/2009 9:28:33 PM

Get lost Reactive .

 

Cheers .
 

"200+ american citites destroyed by a China "unafraid of nuclear war".
 
Comparing an AFB demonstration with an air show, you ignorant pigshit idiot.
 
If you take yourself seriously then you are seriously the only person on this unfortunate planet who does.
 
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1       7/8/2009 9:33:52 PM
Get lost Reactive .
 
No, how about you get lost troll!!!
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @BW   7/8/2009 9:35:59 PM
BW,

I'm done discussing the Rafale with you. It's truly a waste of my time if all you are going to do is assert obviously incorrect data as fact and continuously repeat and repeat over and over the same incorrect data no matter how many times you are corrected. I assure you there are more strictly moderated forums where this is most definitely considered a violation of the trolling policies and they would ban you as a repeat offender. 

It's not trolling that you like the Rafale or think it's the greatest plane in the world. it is trolling when you make things up you don't know and ignore published facts in order to provoke controversy. This will most likely be my final reply to you in this thread BW unless you make an effort to police your own post for accuracy. COntrary to your assertion about DACT, here is DACT elaborated on by people who know. I lifted this from another forum but it was posted by a frequent SP contributor...

Dissimilar Air Combat Training (DACT)
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 Iâ??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 itâ??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.

A broad objective may be stated as â??building trust between countriesâ? or â??familiarize pilots with other air forces.â? More
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/8/2009 9:40:21 PM
Reactive :
 """200+ american citites destroyed by a China "unafraid of nuclear war".""
 
I said 100+ , not 200+ . Can 't you read ?
But nevermind that , you just can 't argue on the Rafale against me so you change subject ...
 
usajoe :
""No, how about you get lost troll!!!""
 
Sorry , I can 't get lost 'cause I 'm not a troll .
Care to discuss facts in an adult manner joe ? Just once , for your sake .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    DA   7/8/2009 9:41:56 PM

Don't bother with this Troll, dozens of posters have proved him wrong with facts and he still comes back with more bs. I think he does it just to piss people off. This is the reason I stoped arguing with him on any thing that has to do with that magic bird of his.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics