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    Times.....    9/4/2009 8:55:42 AM
The Aurora has been around for a while (about 9 years-so why test function?) . It doesn't involve any of the "secret" gibberish you tried to use to cover yourself  to prove that the fuse incorporates an unique  separation and orientation sensor as its chief claim to fame; or that it is NOT designed specifically for the hard target penetration as well as the air burst, surface burst function which is what the multifunction FMB-21 was/is designed and fails to do at least until recently.
 
Herald 
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Blue Apple is correct, my hunches were wrong.   9/4/2009 5:06:04 PM
Maybe because there simply is no midway fuze (fuze as "explosive detonator") and Herald is making things up?
You are correct on the fuze part, and my hunches were wrong.
 
As for Herald, on a lot of topics he is absolutely "spot on", especially missiles seem to be his "thing". Of course anyone can make a wrong assumption occasionally.

The FZU-48 is a small generator (and arms the bomb?).
 
The FZU-55 seems to do similar stuff. (Could not find a datasheet)http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emsad.gif" align="absmiddle" border="0" alt="" />
 
PS
Hope I didn't give you too much of a "hard time".
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

breaka       9/5/2009 6:04:00 AM
The FZU-48 and 55 are both ram air driven alternators that provide power to electric fuze and sensors.  The FZU-48 powers FMU-139s fuzes and DSU-33 prox sensors and allows the fore and aft fuze wells to transmit data to each other (i.e prox sensor can set off the tail fuze).  The FZU-55 does similar functions, but improves the power output for long flight and blanking conditions and is used for the FMU-152 & DSU-33.

They don't exactly arm the bomb, the provide electric power required by the fuze to arm after the set delay. 

If you go to http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2002fuze/robbins.pdf there is a few bullets about the changes for JDAM and a cut-out view of the bomb with the fuze arrangements.

Generally speaking, putting the fuze midbody would seem like a bad idea for frag pattern management and potential bomb body breakup issues, but that is speculation on my part without any empirical data to back it up.  
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       9/7/2009 4:52:21 AM
The Aurora has been around for a while (about 9 years)
 
Start of Aurora program: 2003...
 
(from your own link, might try reading what you're posting from time to time)
 
so why test function?
 
They tested the Paveway IV which wasn't in service back in mid-2007 and would include an Aurora fuze as the UK is the sole user of the weapon...
 
It doesn't involve any of the "secret" gibberish you tried to use to cover yourself  to...
 
Could you translate such sentence in plain English because it's quite hard to follow what you're actually saying. As I've never said anything about the Aurora program, it's hard to see how your little rant in on-topic.
 
the multifunction FMB-21 was/is designed and fails to do at least until recently.
And of course you can't provide a source for these supposed failures.
 
 
Of course anyone can make a wrong assumption occasionally.
 
As far as I can tell, whenever he talks about French weapons, systems and operations, he's mostly making things up. And given that the only two regular French posters on this board are notorious trolls, he seems to be able to push his agenda of trashing everything French without much opposition.
 
 
They don't exactly arm the bomb, the provide electric power required by the fuze to arm after the set delay. 
 
Actually, they do arm the bomb. Or at least provide one of the safety layers (i.e. if the lanyard and its pin is not pulled from the initiator, the bomb shouldn't be able to detonate). They also realy the arming command from the plane.
 
But there are of course many other layers (e.g. the fuze in the back itself has its own pin/lanyard that has to be pulled before the flight). 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Hmmmm....   9/7/2009 1:43:03 PM
As far as I can tell, whenever he talks about French weapons, systems and operations, he's mostly making things up. And given that the only two regular French posters on this board are notorious trolls, he seems to be able to push his agenda of trashing everything French without much opposition.
 
Could be, he seems to have a beef with some French weapons manufacturers, but is an admirer of Ariane Space. And some remarks he makes about French management culture is backed up by what I have read in other sources.
 
There is definately something holding him back from getting from "above average" to "being top notch".
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Trouble is.    9/7/2009 3:55:15 PM
Could be, he seems to have a beef with some French weapons manufacturers, but is an admirer of Ariane Space. And some remarks he makes about French management culture is backed up by what I have read in other sources.
 
There is definately something holding him back from getting from "above average" to "being top notch".
 
What you have to realize, FJV, is that sometimes I can't tell you why I know what I know. I can only point at what is in the open literature.  
 
And ues I hate the thueves at  Thales. But then Lockmart is not my favorite either.
 
Aurora started NINE years ago as a project. OPT was 2004. 
 
Herald
 
 
 
:
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       9/8/2009 2:23:24 AM
Could be, he seems to have a beef with some French weapons manufacturers, but is an admirer of Ariane Space. And some remarks he makes about French management culture is backed up by what I have read in other sources.

The old "I'm not a racist, I have some black firends defense." Sorry but it doesn't fly, there are plenty of criticism that can be levelled towards French systems without resorting to outright lies and fabrications.
 
In fact, you'll find plenty of these on French forums which IMO tends to be much more critical of their own stuff than UK or US ones (and let's not even talk about asian forums).



Aurora started NINE years ago as a project.
 
AURORA
 
Design, Develop and Qualify fuze for Paveway IV Weapon
Development contract for Fuzing System in Jan 2004
Contract cover development & production
Successful qualification in early 08 in Full Rate Preduction
[...]
 
Whatever.
 
(now, if this was a constructive discussion I'd concede that the AURORA reuses most of the preceding programs electronics but I'm really not interested in discussing UK fuze programs as they have nothing to do with the original topic).
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/8/2009 4:29:28 PM
What you have to realize, FJV, is that sometimes I can't tell you why I know what I know. I can only point at what is in the open literature.  
 
I didn't reply to statements that control signals to UAVs cannot be jammed, because say a reply with a heading of "All signals can be jammed, but this is and example of what could be done to make it harder" based on what I've learned from my electronics hobby would provide free advice on how to make  improved remotely detonated IED's.
 
 
The old "I'm not a racist, I have some black firends defense." Sorry but it doesn't fly, there are plenty of criticism that can be levelled towards French systems without resorting to outright lies and fabrications. 
 
My work is making technical designs on CAD systems (Autocad, Inventor & Solidworks). This mean you have to make technical drawings and dimensioning those drawings of a machine that does not exist.

What happens when your design gets made for the first time, is that every mistake you have made will become completely obvious to everybody, no matter how stupid they are. And because your name is on the drawing everybody knows with a 100% certainty that you made the mistake. (and will point that out)
 
That means that after a few years, unless they're that 1 in a million phenomenon, you will rack up an impressive number of such mistakes. An embarrassing amount of which will be stupid. This can be very hard on your self image as a competent human being.
 
It learns you to be very careful with "what you know for sure", because in the past when "what you know for sure" meets reality, "what you know for sure" made you look like an utter and complete idiot.
 
It also means that if "what you know for sure" proves wrong, you've been already been "there" several times.
- It does not suprise you.
- You have less problems admitting to be wrong.
  (Even if only to limit the amount of time of looking stupid to an absolute minimum)
- The "Who is to blame for this mistake?" discussion interests you less nowadays.
- The "How are we going to fix this?" discussion interests you more nowadays.

I don't see signs of Herald having gone through the above "experience".
- His reluctace to admit mistaken assumptions.
- He gives the impression "to know for sure" too much.
 
However his answers also show technical competence. This indicates that Heraldat least has had some engineering classes or has an engineering degree. For some non-engineering jobs you must have an engineering degree. For instance when you want a job operating certain advanced medical machines used in surgery for instance.


 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       9/11/2009 1:46:29 AM

What you have to realize, FJV, is that sometimes I can't tell you why I know what I know. I can only point at what is in the open literature.  
 

I didn't reply to statements that control signals to UAVs cannot be jammed, because say a reply with a heading of "All signals can be jammed, but this is and example of what could be done to make it harder" based on what I've learned from my electronics hobby would provide free advice on how to make  improved remotely detonated IED's.


 

 

The old "I'm not a racist, I have some black firends defense." Sorry but it doesn't fly, there are plenty of criticism that can be levelled towards French systems without resorting to outright lies and fabrications. 


 

My work is making technical designs on CAD systems (Autocad, Inventor & Solidworks). This mean you have to make technical drawings and dimensioning those drawings of a machine that does not exist.



What happens when your design gets made for the first time, is that every mistake you have made will become completely obvious to everybody, no matter how stupid they are. And because your name is on the drawing everybody knows with a 100% certainty that you made the mistake. (and will point that out)


 

That means that after a few years, unless they're that 1 in a million phenomenon, you will rack up an impressive number of such mistakes. An embarrassing amount of which will be stupid. This can be very hard on your self image as a competent human being.


 

It learns you to be very careful with "what you know for sure", because in the past when "what you know for sure" meets reality, "what you know for sure" made you look like an utter and complete idiot.

 

It also means that if "what you know for sure" proves wrong, you've been already been "there" several times.

- It does not suprise you.

- You have less problems admitting to be wrong.

  (Even if only to limit the amount of time of looking stupid to an absolute minimum)

- The "Who is to blame for this mistake?" discussion interests you less nowadays.

- The "How are we going to fix this?" discussion interests you more nowadays.





I don't see signs of Herald having gone through the above "experience".

- His reluctace to admit mistaken assumptions.


- He gives the impression "to know for sure" too much.


 

However his answers also show technical competence. This indicates that Heraldat least has had some engineering classes or has an engineering degree. For some non-engineering jobs you must have an engineering degree. For instance when you want a job operating certain advanced medical machines used in surgery for instance.






 

 

 

 
Inventor, Solidworks, both programmes I believe to be obsolescent.
 
A Cad-Techie doth not a sigman freud ye make.
 
I get an entirely different impression. Imagine if a noob comes to you with a .stl file of a turbine assembly and suggests you convert it to a class-A parametric surface. This is an analogy, think about it. If you know what you're talking about sometimes it gets irritating to have to state what should be obvious fact to anyone who has the slightest idea what they are talking about.
 
I guess what I am saying is that I think he's legit.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       9/11/2009 10:50:03 AM
Huh, I think maybe we managed to chase him away.
 
If so, hope I don't jinx it.
 
wh00p
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics