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
Herald12345       8/5/2009 5:45:58 PM




s > As a gift for our US readers
Yawn.





Some interesting confirmation in a public NATO document of what I have explained before:
Yawn.


etc......








gf > as you would know, that is an extremely dumbed down articulation of RCS management opportunity and principles.....  there are no longer 4 basic principles for RCS management. - and in real terms that hasn't been so for nearly a generation.  I can only suggest that the above is intended for a very very basic delivery of first order principles 
For familiarization in the days when civilians were just beginning to learn about LO from the Furst Gulf war and Kosovo.
 

And I agree with you.It is old document on basic principles.However it has become a public document published on NATO site and probably the first one where active cancellation is mentioned.
As an option but not as a working option. We also mention biplanes in aeronautucs but aside from Stearmans and other stunt planes do you see any serious applications?
 
Nothing new for specialists of informed engineers but it bring an official confirmation to some SP amateurs who doubt it and though it was only a rumor.
Amateurs..........yeah, they would get excited over and use this as a claim. Now who do we see around hgere doing that nonsense? Oh yeah.
. 
If you check routinely internet you would notice that much more information is now publicly available on stealth and for a simple reason.
 
Its because people who were bombed or expect to be bombed started investigating it and started sharing notes. 

Chineses or Iranians (and others) have published openly some scientific documents on stealth management from various research institutes which show that hiding some old information is not any longer relevant.They know how to calculate and simulate numerically an RCS and have shown they can do basic things on signature management.Which does not means of course that they are at the same level of USA or France or UK, Germany, Italy, or Russia.
Or even are on the right track. Do you even know how many mistakes the US made?
 
An interesting document on Lampiridae stealth management

ftp://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-006///$MP-006-21.pdf">ht*p://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFullText/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-006///$MP-006-21.pdf

 

PS: for Herald
If there is a nation which cannot manage very well system level management outside USA, it is France.
 
Example:
 
Chuckles de Gaulle:
 
-wrong choice of reactors.
-wrong hull form.
-flight deck layout and elevator placement bungled.
-takeoff run miscalculated.
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/6/2009 3:22:27 AM
Chuckles de Gaulle:
 
The Charles de Gaulle is an example of political choices screwing up what should have been a fine ship.
 
The politicians refused to fund a new generation of nuclear reactor.
 
Consequence: several nuclear sub engines were used instead. But even then the ship was still underpowered.
 
So the reactors run hotter than in the sub, leading to radiation leaks issues and a need to refuel the cores at an unhealthy rate. But that still wasn't enough. So DCN decided to use a new screw design in order to extract a increase speed by a couple of knots. When the first set was cast, quality control showed that there were too many bubbles and that it might break. A new set was ordered but since there is exactly one company in France that can cast such large items, the delivery delay was >12 months. The navy decided to try using the deffective screws instead for the ship sea trials which led to the rather humiliating scene of the CdG towed back after only a few hours at sea.
 
Second political choice was the constant budget cuts that delayed the construction. A penny-wise, pound-foolish move as the slower workpace was much more expensive in the end, using the budget for two ships while building only one.
 
The only major design change has been the consequence of a decision to operate E2 planes instead of some helo-based AEW (like the UK) which led to the lengthening of the deck by a couple of feet in order to simplify operations (hte ship could operate E2 with the smaller deck but it would have to stop operations for sevral minutes moving planes around, not a very good idea in a warship).
 
As the first of a class and the first nuclear powered carrier built by a country, I tend to think French engineers did a decent job given the consequences of some political choices. It does not have the maturity of US designs but it's still better than most other nations have achieved (most gave up on CATOBAR and Russian carreirs are not exactly impressive).
 
Their GP bombs for example. (fuses) 
 
??? Even license-built mk bombs use French fuzes.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Besodes the lie about the fuses.   8/6/2009 3:37:05 AM

Chuckles de Gaulle:
 

The Charles de Gaulle is an example of political choices screwing up what should have been a fine ship.

 

The politicians refused to fund a new generation of nuclear reactor.

 

Consequence: several nuclear sub engines were used instead. But even then the ship was still underpowered.

 

So the reactors run hotter than in the sub, leading to radiation leaks issues and a need to refuel the cores at an unhealthy rate. But that still wasn't enough. So DCN decided to use a new screw design in order to extract a increase speed by a couple of knots. When the first set was cast, quality control showed that there were too many bubbles and that it might break. A new set was ordered but since there is exactly one company in France that can cast such large items, the delivery delay was >12 months. The navy decided to try using the deffective screws instead for the ship sea trials which led to the rather humiliating scene of the CdG towed back after only a few hours at sea.

 

Second political choice was the constant budget cuts that delayed the construction. A penny-wise, pound-foolish move as the slower workpace was much more expensive in the end, using the budget for two ships while building only one.

 

The only major design change has been the consequence of a decision to operate E2 planes instead of some helo-based AEW (like the UK) which led to the lengthening of the deck by a couple of feet in order to simplify operations (hte ship could operate E2 with the smaller deck but it would have to stop operations for sevral minutes moving planes around, not a very good idea in a warship).
 
As the first of a class and the first nuclear powered carrier built by a country, I tend to think French engineers did a decent job given the consequences of some political choices. It does not have the maturity of US designs but it's still better than most other nations have achieved (most gave up on CATOBAR and Russian carreirs are not exactly impressive).

 

Their GP bombs for example. (fuses) 

 

??? Even license-built mk bombs use French fuzes.


Technical choices, amateur. TECHNICAL choices., Never mind how they politically happened. They happened and your engineers despite US warnings and advice, executed those choices. YOU concede this.
 
TECHNICAL incompetence has no excise. As LockMart now discovers in the US from some of its "political" choices.
 
Herald.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/6/2009 5:13:35 AM
Besides the lie about the fuses.
 
If it's a lie, then tell us what fuze French bombs use now (2009) and how it is US-based. Be specific, please.
 
Quote    Reply

Das Kardinal       8/6/2009 5:44:35 AM
Might be a licensed American design built in France. <shrugs> As long as they work, no sense wasting money reinventing something as basic as bomb fuses I suppose. 
As to the CdG the politians and union leaders who guided the poor technical choices should be keelhauled, but that's in my dreams.
At least she does her job. The really dramatic thing was not building the second carrier, incorporating the lessons learnt. So now we have a prototype that, sure, has operational value, but seems a bit temperamental, and maaayyyyybe we'll get a second carrier, but built much later, on a totally different design that may not even be much better. The joy. When you think that the total cost of building a carrier amounts to a minuscule part of the bloated and ineffective Public Education's yearly budget.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/6/2009 5:50:53 AM

Besides the lie about the fuses.
 

If it's a lie, then tell us what fuze French bombs use now (2009) and how it is US-based. Be specific, please.


Every Paveway you drop.
 
 
Want to really look stupid?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/6/2009 6:52:04 AM
Every Paveway you drop
 
??? Paveway is the guidance kit, it doesn't include the fuze in the CBEMS/Mk8x bomb body.
 
So my question still stands, what type of US fuze does the French Air Force / Aeronavale use?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       8/6/2009 6:55:24 AM

Every Paveway you drop
 

??? Paveway is the guidance kit, it doesn't include the fuze in the CBEMS/Mk8x bomb body.

 

So my question still stands, what type of US fuze does the French Air Force / Aeronavale use?


Yes it does. Read that press release again.
 
 Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       8/6/2009 7:23:22 AM
Read that press release again.
 
You know, the burden of proof is on you. So unless you can quote the exact words, telling me to read it again simply won't work. But you can't since this is an order for modification of existing PWII kits, it does not include bomb bodies or fuzes.
 
Note that the French forces do use some US-made bombs and fuzes but the vast majority of bombs (mk8x/CBEMS with PWII or AASM kits) use a French fuze.
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       8/6/2009 3:17:31 PM
To Herald
 
"For the rest of you, some nations do  some things very well. Ballistic rockets and subs, even torpedoes, the French do very well (better than the US in many cases MU90 being an example) ."
Thank to recognize it 
"Commercial aviation their products are  pedestrian to terrible(A400M disaster)."
Like Falcon jet from Dassault, Ecureuil or Dauphin from french part of Eurocopter, A300 or A330 (won US tanker contract initially, won Australian or Canadian contracts), or CFM 56 joint venture?
EADS double gouvernance problem are specific happened since EADS was formed and also due to German.
 
Likewise combat aircraft (Rafale). Combat ordnance, their A2G ordnance in its latest iteration is fair to excellent depending on type(SCALP being excellent). Their latest  A2A weapons and SAM systems, as long as its not modern MBDA [Matra]), is only just okay (CROTALE and Matra Magic and 530 work aa intended, the rest is junk.).
Rafale is good but late on roadamp improvment since funding is slow due to budgetary constraint.Still best aircraft in the world outside USA.And Mica is good as Aster.
 
Their latest surface fleet combatant series (Forbin and Lafayette) are jokes (Combat information system integration failures and one hit and they explode and sink design horrors).   
Crap. Just developement problems lile US have.Remember the DD51 which has to be towed back to an US harbor because of a software fault.
 
The French use a heck of a lot more American technology than they care to admit,
We use some US tech like USA which use some french tech also in the Pac 3 for exemple.The key is to be able to produce it or duplicate it in case of bad relationship with USA.Like for you.
 
We use US tech when:
1)It is a secondary system which could not prevent us to militarly act, even US put an embargo, and which would be too costly to develop ourselves:
exemple: E3F AWACs, or E2F which have a french specific software maintained by us and a good stockpile of spares.
KC135 are old tech easy to copy and maintain alone.Like C130J. More over we produce CFM56 for KC135.
An other exemple are Paweway bombs we use as long we can, since they are much cheaper than french equivalent and NATO widespread.
An other exemple is contract awarded for US Hellfire missiles for french Tigers, which are only laser guided and an ammunition.US can not prevent us to use our stockpile, since there is no EW external communication system.And we can relaunch and produce Trigat we have developped but not produced as too costly.
Our AASM stock is primary for own France strategic use as we can use it without relying on US GPS.Like our Arcole laser guided one ton bomb.or AS30L.
 
2)It does not jeopardize our technological and industrial base by diverting fundings
 
 because their own stuff doesn't work that well. Their GP bombs for example. (fuses)  American fuses finally do work (only avarage performance here , Russian and British are just better designs) after decades of being the example of the worst fuse technology tree on Earth
See answer above.
 
Today weapons are complex and often rely on numerical technology.
If you don't access to sofware, you even don't know if there is no embedded sotware lock which could block free use in case of embargo.
It is absolutely vital to keep our defense industrial and and technology base to be free to use our military power even if USA oppose it, like in Suez in 1956
If we don't develop some key tech ourselves, we will lose knowledge and skills to design them and it will be almost impossible to come back at world tech state of art (define often by USA themselves as they are the most advanced in average).
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics