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       7/13/2009 7:06:07 PM
gf :
""Don't behave like a prat and people will start treating you with respect.  I'm happy to do that when it occurs.""
 
Ok , but can I ask you to read my post like if it was posted by someone else and with impartiality ?
Then , you might see that I am NOT a bluffer . Far from it gf .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/13/2009 8:12:15 PM
Seagull , do you remember this one ;-) :
h*tp://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9229/a2arafale.jpg
 
It was nice TMor ;-) but now we have this :
h*tp://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1892/dsc01474rsolutiondelcra.jpg
 
The pylon has been opened for Meteor as well . In theory , the Rafale could be loaded as a long range Interceptor with :
(hold your breath)
- 4 Meteors
- 2 EM Micas
- 4 IR Micas
- 2 external 1250l fuel tanks
 
ie with Micas :
h*tp://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6312/rafaleaamica.jpg
 
With the actual F3 avionics and incoming F4 in 2015 , we look good :-)
 
Cheers .

 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/14/2009 3:51:01 AM
No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.

Nice use of buzzwords but still little substance I see.
IR & RF missile use their seeker to keep a constant bearing towards their target in the end game. Both will follow a straight path towards a constant velocity target (ignoring missile drag effects). Do you deny this?
 
 
This is another unacceptable talk . I never said such BS
 
Yes you did. This thread is yet another example. The problem is that you start with the a priori that everything on French weapons is state of the art and extrapolate wildly based on very limited information.
 
Let's take the Rafale SPECTRA suite for example. There is no point in claiming it's the most advanced in the world or that it can jam any missile fired at the Rafale (even if it was true it would be impossible to confirm from public sources). A realistic assesment would look at the system and see how it differs other airplanes and acknowledge the drawbacks of some choices (e.g. use of GaAs emitters mean that its rather weak in raw jamming power).
 
But like I said, other posters do exactly the same thing in reverse (some even apparently can't find the data link antenna on the MICA - even though it's located at the same place as in the AMRAAM...).
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/14/2009 4:32:36 AM
No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.

Nice use of buzzwords but still little substance I see.
IR & RF missile use their seeker to keep a constant bearing towards their target in the end game. Both will follow a straight path towards a constant velocity target (ignoring missile drag effects). Do you deny this?
 
Actually I do, because you set up a false condition and ask me to accept it as true. I tend to know now that you are an avid reader and not a true rocketeer or missileer. 
 
If you did not understand what I said in plain English then what the heck are you smoking?
 
Your question like so much French engineering logic sets up a non-real world condition that tries to argue same solution for the real world. Missiles don't behave that way you describe in a real world three body changing aspect condition and you should know this. (offset aspect, fall, thrust/non thrust, lob, and lift always mean some point correction along the trajectory. In scalar lseeker logic missiles this is constant, in vector intercept missiles this is incremental or phased) There is also no such thing as a straight line-ever) You should also know that I discussed whole missile trajectory pursuit or intercept logics and not just the endgame. Even at that Endgame in some missiles might not even involve the primary seeker as the priximity sensor that drives the final merge. (Standard 2 is the example here.)
 
In plain language you do know what we call your attempted falsification of conditions and terms of discussion?
 
As to the the antanna location on the  MICA? Who cares about that? Uf the aeroshell obstruction ois radio opaque at the location in a changing aspect conditoon and you get signal dropout and the missile goes brick stupid, what does that say about the engineers who designed that missile again? And of course they can't fix it? (Amraam's aeroshell does not occlude its antenna.....http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsmilep.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />)
 
Yeah.........crickets. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/14/2009 2:19:58 PM

No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.




Nice use of buzzwords but still little substance I see.


IR & RF missile use their seeker to keep a constant bearing towards their target in the end game. Both will follow a straight path towards a constant velocity target (ignoring missile drag effects). Do you deny this?

 

 

This is another unacceptable talk . I never said such BS
 

Yes you did. This thread is yet another example. The problem is that you start with the a priori that everything on French weapons is state of the art and extrapolate wildly based on very limited information.

 

Let's take the Rafale SPECTRA suite for example. There is no point in claiming it's the most advanced in the world or that it can jam any missile fired at the Rafale (even if it was true it would be impossible to confirm from public sources). A realistic assesment would look at the system and see how it differs other airplanes and acknowledge the drawbacks of some choices (e.g. use of GaAs emitters mean that its rather weak in raw jamming power).

 

But like I said, other posters do exactly the same thing in reverse (some even apparently can't find the data link antenna on the MICA - even though it's located at the same place as in the AMRAAM...).



In real life if you started a fight with someone and they kicked you half to death to the point that you were lying unconscious, would you stand up and go back for a second serving?
 
You need to learn to accept defeat sometime, I guess here's as good a place as any ; )  Your arguments are weak, and ignore the points that have been repeated again and again.
 
Look at some relevant diagrams and you'll see how different the two strategies are in terms of missile flight.
 
ReactivE
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/14/2009 2:25:11 PM
Might I add, the people here don't ever seem to have a problem with people who make mistakes with what they post, it's when they (you) try and argue even when you know you are truly unable to really do so. I think it would demonstrate admirable qualities to accept that you have been beaten by someone who has, in this instance, superior knowledge than you.
 
You did very well considering you were wrong.
 
ReactivE
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    To BlueApple.   7/14/2009 3:33:18 PM
No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.
 
And therefore, a RH missile has a flight plan that is based on a predicted intercept point in the future and point there independently of the current target position. An IR missile's flight plan (and heading at any given point) is directly proportional to the current location of the target, is therefore less efficient and experiences more drag & a shorter effective range. (because it is FORCED to draw a
 
Is it that you don't see any difference between the two? Honestly?
 
Here's how one paper on the subject describes pronav (nothing to do with sidewinder flight surfaces, but rather an early set of algorithms which are STILL BASED ON BIAS:
 
Typical guidance law is based on PN (proportional navigation) = N*Vc*theta-rate, which is a type 2 term - integral. However, it does not include a type 1 or type 0 term. Without these terms there are usually stability issues & lack of quick response to disturbances. Therefore, much ad hoc work, in the form of biases or adaptations to various flight modes, is normally added to alleviate these deficiencies.

And here's another that sets out principles for a form of predict lead.
 
In this paper, a new guidance law called prediction guidance (PRG) is developed to widen the launching envelope. This is achieved by predicting a straight-line collision course and by turning the heading of the missile toward the collision course
as rapidly as possible. In comparison with conventional proportional navigation guidance law, this feature tends to
minimize the time duration for homing and permits interception of more rapid and highly maneuvering targets. Simulation
results demonstrate these facts. Also, it is shown that the proposed guidance law is easily implementable.
 
Concept of Prediction Guidance
If the dynamic lags of a missile system are assumed to be neglected, and if the trajectory of a target is assumed to be
known a priori, the shortest trajectory of the missile for homing becomes a straight line called the collision course. It is
clear that the shortest trajectory means the shortest time duration for homing. Thus, the minimum time strategy of
guidance can be stated as follows: Determine the collision course; then turn the heading of the missile to coincide with
the collision, and let it go straight until interception. With this strategy of guidance, interception can be achieved
in a minimum time, and any target of which the trajectory is interceptable geometrically can be intercepted. This feature
implies that the above missile guidance strategy not only minimizes the homing time duration but also maximizes the
launching envelope.
 
 
ReactivE
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    To BlueApple.   7/14/2009 3:36:31 PM
(and given that this solution updates dynamically (with acceleration, heading of a maneuvering target), the course plotted by the missile will, as Herald stated, not be entirely straight)
 
Reactive
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Link    7/14/2009 3:44:54 PM
h*tp://ctrgate.kaist.ac.kr/bd_publication/pds/international_journal/IJ1985_03.pdf
 
The diagrams look similar to the ones I made to try and illustrate the point, which is cool.
 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       7/14/2009 6:04:44 PM
I didn't intend to come back here, but for BW :
Bluewings :
The pylon has been opened for Meteor as well .
 
No. Not yet. It's going to happen only if UAE signs the contract. 
 
Herald :
what does that say about the engineers who designed that missile again?
 That you're [...] inventing stories to discredit the know-how of a whole nation and make you look a well informed guy. Incindentaly, it makes you bash French tech each time i take the time to read your messages (quite suspicious if you ask me).
 
Who, last time, told me that Dassault were liars ?
 
Who should answer you, guys, when all your arguments are based on your imagination, itself built on top of the vacuum left by the secrets ?
 
 Ok, sorry, i shouldn't have come back and next time, i'm going to let you dream that Rafale is a totally fucked-up aircraft, with fucked-up weapons, made by self-proclaimed engineers lying all the time. I just hope that one day, i'll create 1 thread so as to make a compilation of all your funny ideas demonstrating that Rafale (or France ? what do you prefer ?) is a joke.
 
Sincerely sorry.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics