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
warpig       7/27/2009 1:13:50 AM

Excuse me to insist but there is something very interesting in the video I posted .

Look closely at what happens at 5:30 and after . The ECM suite is getting something .

Unlike any other actual operational ECM suite who would scream "Hostile signal detected !" , Spectra is showing the Pilot what is the thread and its position : "There is a Mig-29 THERE" . At 5:35 , the video shows the Mig on the main battle display ALREADY within the Mica NOZ and the Pilot fire straight away an IR Mica and it is game over . What the Pilot did is simple : lase-shoot .

I remind people that the Rafale did have its radar off and only relied on Spectra+OSF .

To Rufus , which 4 or 4.5 operational Fighter can do that ? Response : Rafale only .

Any other Fighter is going to try to know where the radar signal is coming from then light-up its radar to get a lock and a firing solution ...



RWRs from 30 years ago could give identification of the threat emitter.  I think there is no question at all that the RWRs in the F-15/16/18 could ID the SLOT BACK and display an indication of a MiG-29, although I admit I do not know that for sure.  It's true that the relatively new thing would be the fusing of the emitter's identification, azimuth, and elevation from the RWR with the location data of the bandit derived from the radar.  I'd guess it's extremely likely the F-18E/F does this as well, although once again I admit I do not know that for sure.  What I didn't see was whatever information you used to conclude that the Rafale was not using its radar during that engagement.  The central display looked essentially the same to me throughout the different engagements depicted, and of course I don't know what all the indications on the various displays all mean, such that I did not see what indicators might have shown the reaction to the pop-up target was radar-off.  Also, I did not recognize the information that leads you to conclude the particular MICA launched was necessarily a MICA-IR, aside from that some of the missiles being carried by the aircraft were MICA-IR.
 
 
Quote    Reply

locutus    RCS   7/27/2009 1:15:40 AM
Your RCS figures are for the aircraft clean.  When are they going to fly into combat clean?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/27/2009 4:30:32 AM

Your RCS figures are for the aircraft clean.  When are they going to fly into combat clean?

I've tried poiting this out oh so many times....  and he did his usual bit by appealing to bias.  Add weapons, fly with a fixed probe, add in sensor and tracking balls under the c0ckpit, add in a slab sided tail sitting vertically up there like "proud mary" and you have a walking talking transducer.

give up on trying to explain anything to him.  he repeatedly avoids or sidesteps real world issues in the quest to be the one man all singing all dancing Rafale fan club - to make it into something it is not.

Of course he could look at other western aircraft and see that its been close to 20 years since any new build platform had a ball sensor sitting smack bang out in the open 'twixt the nose and the canopy   - but the rafale obviously has worked out how to actively manage errant signal transmission on a non asymetrical body with bibs and bobs floating all over it.

apparently its going to fight in "discrete" mode without any externally carriaged weapons so as to not dirty it up.

go figure... :) 
 
Quote    Reply

locutus       7/27/2009 5:31:12 AM

apparently its going to fight in "discrete" mode without any externally carriaged weapons so as to not dirty it up.



go figure... :) 
 
 
Maybe it will use the refueling probe as a lance. :-)  Aerial jousting!

 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/27/2009 6:43:52 AM
You're as big an idiot as BW and most likely ARE him. The Rafael has a MIPS and so does the F22.
 
You do sound like a petulant, retarded child, you know (hint: try spelling the name of the plane you bash correcly, it helps a lot when it comes to being credible). Anyone with the slightest clue about processors would know that hese don't "have" MIPS and that MIPS are the single most abused processing power measurements as they're very easy to manipulate.
 
For example, I could claim that since the Rafale MDPU boards use PPC740 processors running at 200MHz, each board has 600MIPS (the PPC740 can issue two integers and one floating point operation per second). This is of course ridiculous but is often done in marketing brochures like those on Thales or Raytheon sites.
 
But in the case of the Rafale, the people programming the software layer were kind (stupid?) enough to reveal the available processing power, i.e. 65 MIPS which would include both the redundant processing (each process has to be dispatched to two boards and run concurrently, just in case one board fails - can hardly have pilot displays go blank while the sytem reconfigures itself, can we?) and a virtualisation software layer that ensure some form of hardware independance to the application running on top (this is especially important for future upgrade, you may lose 1/3 of your processing power but make sure you can easily integrate faster processors later on with minimal software retunes).
 
As I don't have any public source regarding regarding the actual CIP power, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the F-22 and assume that the 350 MIPS general processing power for each CIP (total per plane = 700) takes into account the same margins.
 
In the end, a comparison of both systems show that similar technology, delivered around the same period (2004 for the MDPU, 2006 for the CIP-2000 F-22 upgrade) have similar levels of performance (I won't venture a guess as to which one is the most powerful, I'd say that given that in the real world neither MDPU or CIP are fully populated they both have more than enough). 
 
That's hardly suprising, nor is the fact that the F-35 will be fitted with even more processing power.
 
 
The Rafale is a 4th generation aircraft with some minimal RCS reduction work.  It is similar to the EF and Gripen, better than the F-15 or any Russian aircraft, and somewhat worse than the Super Hornet in that regard.
 
I'd say the S-shaped intakes and semi-recessed AAM ejectors carrying the MICA conformal to the body would give the Rafale an edge even in frontal RCS vs the Super Hornet in a pure air-air configuration. Lateral RCS is probably worse though.
 
I am all for eliminating needless complexity... but a retractable refueling probe is just no big deal. 
 
For the DGA it is. They're the ones buying the plane, they're making the requirements (even if I agree this is not the smartest one - at least it's not as bad as refusing to equip HMS).
 
 
You did not understand what I said. You interpreted it to mean what you thought it said and you LIED.
 
Jesus. I quoted you word for word:
 
"It means how long the gas flask is good before it has to be recharged before all the gas leaks out.Just how big a gas supply do you think the chiller can carry you buffoon? Of course the MICA could possibly use a primitive Peltier cooling unit, but that lasts only as long as the batteries hold out. That isn't very long either. By the way, we Americans, and some others use something called a Stirling cryo-engine, dummy, to cool our Sidewinders' seekers. Don't bother to google it. You'll find it, but you won't understand it at all."
 
These are you words, you uttered that nonsense on March 23rd 2009. You can try to twist it as much as you want but that won't change the end result: you were ignorant about the MICA I
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Blue Apple   7/27/2009 7:44:08 AM
re the S bend intake.  Although the s bends are designed to assist in signal management, I'm also wondering whether it is doubling as a shock ramp.....
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Blue Apple   7/27/2009 7:53:51 AM
gf about the refueling probe said wrongly and with an obvious bias that :

""it's irrelevant whether its coated or not""

I proved that the Rafale 's refueling probe was RAM coated (I 've been asked for) , so suddently it doesn 't make any difference ??? What kind of bias and BS is this ??? Listen to me gf , you are wrong , you know it but to admit it is beyond your Ego . Fair enough , I 've got nothing to do with you anymore , bye . 

good god man, you are an idiot.  its got nothing to do with bias, its got everything to do with the fact that even if it was ram coated (at least you don't say "paint" anymore!) it will have ZERO effect on signal management.  what bit do you not understand about how airframe bumps inpact upon signal returns?  You could turn it into an amorphous radar coated speed hump and it would still trigger a return because of its shape and position.

you are ferking clueless on these issues, and time and time again you've been corrected.  for gods sake stop pretending that you have the faintest clue because you don't.

there is no difference between the airframe being  dirty because its got external carriage, and if its got that fucking great big probiscus sitting up like a busted flagpole - which also makes it "dirty"

I will continue to counter your crap everytime you trot out techno-babble because otherwise you will continue to mislead and pretend to have expertise in something that  you are clearly ignorant about.  

you can therefore get huffy as much as you like.  I will still rubbish your rubbish, and I will leave you alone when you don't sprout rubbish.  If you don't like it? - tough 
and for goodness sake, make the effort to understand what has been said before you feign indignation and withdraw because you've been found out (again)

its your own ego and need to BS on here which is getting you into trouble - I don't need to assist at all, you do it all by your magificent self. 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/27/2009 1:19:51 PM

You're as big an idiot as BW and most likely ARE him. The Rafael has a MIPS and so does the F22.

 

You do sound like a petulant, retarded child, you know (hint: try spelling the name of the plane you bash correcly, it helps a lot when it comes to being credible). Anyone with the slightest clue about processors would know that hese don't "have" MIPS and that MIPS are the single most abused processing power measurements as they're very easy to manipulate.

 

For example, I could claim that since the Rafale MDPU boards use PPC740 processors running at 200MHz, each board has 600MIPS (the PPC740 can issue two integers and one floating point operation per second). This is of course ridiculous but is often done in marketing brochures like those on Thales or Raytheon sites.

 

But in the case of the Rafale, the people programming the software layer were kind (stupid?) enough to reveal the available processing power, i.e. 65 MIPS which would include both the redundant processing (each process has to be dispatched to two boards and run concurrently, just in case one board fails - can hardly have pilot displays go blank while the sytem reconfigures itself, can we?) and a virtualisation software layer that ensure some form of hardware independance to the application running on top (this is especially important for future upgrade, you may lose 1/3 of your processing power but make sure you can easily integrate faster processors later on with minimal software retunes).

 

As I don't have any public source regarding regarding the actual CIP power, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the F-22 and assume that the 350 MIPS general processing power for each CIP (total per plane = 700) takes into account the same margins.

 

In the end, a comparison of both systems show that similar technology, delivered around the same period (2004 for the MDPU, 2006 for the CIP-2000 F-22 upgrade) have similar levels of performance (I won't venture a guess as to which one is the most powerful, I'd say that given that in the real world neither MDPU or CIP are fully populated they both have more than enough). 

 

That's hardly suprising, nor is the fact that the F-35 will be fitted with even more processing power.

 

 

The Rafale is a 4th generation aircraft with some minimal RCS reduction work.  It is similar to the EF and Gripen, better than the F-15 or any Russian aircraft, and somewhat worse than the Super Hornet in that regard.

 

I'd say the S-shaped intakes and semi-recessed AAM ejectors carrying the MICA conformal to the body would give the Rafale an edge even in frontal RCS vs the Super Hornet in a pure air-air configuration. Lateral RCS is probably worse though.

 

I am all for eliminating needless complexity... but a retractable refueling probe is just no big deal. 

 

For the DGA it is. They're the ones buying the plane, they're making the requirements (even if I agree this is not the smartest one - at least it's not as bad as refusing to equip HMS).

 

 

You did not understand what I said. You interpreted it to mean what you thought it said and you LIED.
 

Jesus. I quoted you word for word:

 

"It means how long the gas flask is good before it has to be recharged before all the gas leaks out.Just how big a gas supply do you think the chiller can carry you buffoon? Of course the MICA could possibly use a primitive Peltier cooling unit, but that lasts only as long as the batteries hold out. That isn't very long either. By the way, we Americans, and some others use something called a Stirling cr
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/27/2009 1:36:25 PM
"It means how long the gas flask is good before it has to be recharged before all the gas leaks out.Just how big a gas supply do you think the chiller can carry you buffoon? Of course the MICA could possibly use a primitive Peltier cooling unit, but that lasts only as long as the batteries hold out. That isn't very long either. By the way, we Americans, and some others use something called a Stirling cryo-engine, dummy, to cool our Sidewinders' seekers. Don't bother to google it. You'll find it, but you won't understand it at all."
 
Just how does the THALES StIrling engine work, again?
 
IT USES A WORKING LIQUID TO GAS CYCLE.
 
 
One of these days I will explain a Herald TRAP to you. I wanted your head very deep into the noose.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       7/27/2009 2:55:16 PM
"I'd say the S-shaped intakes and semi-recessed AAM ejectors carrying the MICA conformal to the body would give the Rafale an edge even in frontal RCS vs the Super Hornet in a pure air-air configuration. Lateral RCS is probably worse though."
 
The Super Hornet has significantly more optimized intakes for reduced RCS, and a significantly higher degree of refinement across its airframe. 
 
Really the difference between the two is minimal.  The Super Hornet is about the best you can do with a 4th generation aircraft short of grafting on internal bays like on the F-15SE concept, but its RCS advantage isn't going to give it a significant advantage over the Rafale in most real world scenarios. 
 
"the proposed IRST is an abomination"
 
I think you are very much misunderstanding the advantages of the approach they are taking with the IRST.
 
By placing the IRST in a drop tank, they are able to save huge amounts of time and money while giving the IRST itself an ideal location to operate from. (Totally unobstructed FOV)
 
This way, the US Navy does not need to buy an IRST for every single aircraft in its inventory.  Not only that, but it will not be forced to conduct a major upgrade on all of its inventory to actually install the IRSTs.  This same hardware would also apply to original Hornets, and potentially F-15s and F-16s.  Virtually overnight every fighter in the US Navy's inventory will have an IRST capability if needed and if foreign forces showed interest they could also quickly and easily procure it.
 
When the mission warrants the use of an IRST, it will simply be loaded onto the aircraft along with weapons, etc. (much as would be done with a targetting pod)  If an IRST develops a fault, a podded solution is far easier to repair.  It can be turned over to maintenance and a new one can be loaded onto the aircraft that needs it, keeping that aircraft fully capable.
 
IRSTs also have a limited flight-hour lifespan just like pretty much anything else you can hang on an aircraft.  Since 95% of the flying the US Navy does does not really require an IRST, this solution will prevent the IRSTs from being exposed to unnecessary wear. (Which once again means less will have to be purchased and less money will be spent repairing them.)  
  
Modern fighters only very very rarely jettison their droptanks and it is unlikely that that would change even in a relatively major war where a significant enemy air threat existed simply because visual range combat is becoming rare.  If/when visual range combat developed, an aircraft could still jettison the tank/IRST just as any other fighter would jettison a drop tank. 
 
In a small war the cost of dropping a few IRSTs would be meaningless.  Even in a true large scale war against a near-peer opponent the overall costs of the war would be so high the IRSTs wouldn't make a blip.   At that point the US would be expending many hundreds, if not thousands, of very expensive munitions. (even if they didn't suffer a single loss from hostile action) 
 
If the experiences of the last 20 years tell us anything, very few of these IRSTs will ever need to be jettisoned, meanwhile the cost and complexity savings of this approach will be huge.  I agree it isn't the most elegant solution at first glance, but it is the "KISS" (Keep It Simple Stupid) principal applied to perfection.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics