"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.

 

 

No, how about you get lost troll!!!

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...

Sad part is you probably will disregard this and pretend it means something else to support your failed arguments. Maybe it will help people who have been confused though and really want to understand.

 

Regards

-DA  

Reactive :

Sorry, you were only out by 60-80+ cities (assuming 100% launch success).

It's amazing you get time to think about this whilst dealing with the other complexities of your occupation ; )

 

DA for God sake , I know the article you posted (we all know about it) and it is totally irrelevant to the discussion !

We are not talking about DACT but about dogfight capabilities in between 2 different aircraft , please stop to divert from topic because you loose ground , it is not fair ;-)

 

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.

You are right of course. But what else to expect in a thread that used airshow entertainment as an assessment of absolute combat performance. UTTER WASTE OF TIME.

-DA 

 

Even on lightly moderated boards he would generally have been banned long ago.

 

Someone who continually posts nothing but lies and fantasies over and over and over again is a troll.

 

It is obvious that he is utterly clueless, but it is also obvious that even he knows better than to keep repeating much of the stupid stuff that he does.  You don't have to be an expert, or even a knowledgeable amateur, to know that most of what he says is nothing but obvious lies.

 

But surely a demonstration of having adequate off-boresight capability?
 

By that standard even AMRAAM should have a decent OBS capability too. OBS usually refers to that snap shot at an opponent close to you on the side, shots where a small turn radius is needed (hence the need for TVC).

 

I got the impression that you meant it didn't perform well, apologies if you didn't mean that.

 

No apologies needed, I was indeed a bit provocative. I'm sure that ASRAAM will work well for the two airforces that selected it using ad hoc tactics. But my preference go to either MICA (if you can afford it) or AIM-9X (don't know much about Pyhon 5 except that it looks like a twin of the Magic).

 

 

The CAMM loooks a lot like the proposed ASRAAM P3I upgrade. From a qualification perspective, I think it would be better to keep the ASRAAM frame, otherwise they'll have to redo all tests: interface, vibration, separation all through the flight enveloppe... At several £100k a missile + the flight hours it quickly gets very expensive.

 

Thought that if you knew about beamriders you wouldn't make that specific statement

Beamriders & CLOS are not very relevant for AAM or even last generation SAM (except for the short range stuff)

 

 

The problem is that the guidance problem is much more simple than you think. A missile doesn't need to know how close it is to its target or track its target trajectory. There is no history knowledge in the problem.

 

The end game is just a plain closed-loop system with the missile constantly adjusting its trajectory to keep it on an intersection course with its target. To do that, the most commonly used method is to keep a constant bearing with the target. As anyone who has been on a boat (or just in a car at a crossing with good visibility), if you do that you'll end up cutting your target path. If the target doesn't change its course, the missile will fly a nice straight path (energy spent is minimal).

 

There is no complex trajectory computation, it's a "simple" regulation problem with a command (constant bearing), a way to measure deviation vs that command (the seeker) and a way to act on this deviation (missile control surface). Of course building the hardware to pilot this system is not so simple today, not to mention 50 years ago.

 

The model (and the missile navigation system) become more complex if you try to compensate for second order terms in your regulation. The system is optimal for constant speed but not if acceleration happens on either side. You can compensate for the missile acceleration (actually, deceleration in this case) if you know its drag caracteristics. You can compensate for the target acceleration only if you have a RF seeker and are confident it's not being spoofed (if you are, you'll end up overcompensating and basically waste more energay that a plain proportional navigation).

 

In theory, compensation for the second-order terms mean that you only need to pull twice your target G before the impact vs thrice with vanilla pronav.

 

I was considering this myself for a while and concluded that it was a good excuse to watch my local pair of wild peregrines, if I find out conclusively and record it I will let you know.

Again incorrect.That is proportional lead logic and is wasteful of a radar or SARH guided missile that needs the maximum of its potential energy used to POINT.where the predicted intercept will be. The final merge is  a violent side shove to get close or to hit as the missile passes close to the target, but with predict lead, the aim is to find the MOMENT when the target and the missile will coincide. Proportional lead is a chase the image logic that wastes energy with constant correction.  It is highly wasteful of flyout and reach.  

Peregrins usually follow a hyperbolic segment path, not a parabola . They, like many predator birds,  use PREDICT LEAD. Somewhere on SP I posted videos showing this.

Which is why this looks like THIS

It's not like there are thousands of ways to build an efficient missile frame... (although it's likely that familiarity with the Tartar configuration played a role in the Matra 530 design) 

 

My point was that any new load that you want to put under an aircraft requires a very, very long validation procedure, especially for AAM where you can't really accept a limitation of the release flight enveloppe. So it's best to keep the overall shape & weight as close as possible when upgrading missiles.

 

See the AMRAAM, it's still the same massive missile even though it would be technically possible nowadays to make a much smaller missile with the same performance of pre-C5 upgrades (in fact, it's called the MICA ;-) ). But the USF chose instead to keep the same size and balance & significantly improve the missile range.

 

Incorrect. Against a distant maneuvering target during a LOB trajectory
Proportional lead is a chase the image logic that wastes energy with constant correction.  It is highly wasteful of flyout and reach.  

 

But it's the most efficient logic for the final phase of the flight which is why Sidewewinder, AMRAAM, Sparrow (later versions, first ones used beam riding), ASRAAM and pretty much every other missile use it.

 

They don't want to admit where they STOLE the idea for their defective RH version of MICA.  

 

Use of proportional nevigation by the French was the result of a USA-France technology transfer during an exchange scientific mission back in 1958. I've never seen a French source say otherwise.

With the greatest of respect, I think you are missing the points Herald has made. EVEN for the terminal intercept, the difference between proportional and predicted lead methods. I have a diagram that illustrates this but it won't let me upload an image "check posting rights".

 

With proportional lead, you follow what is a "curved" path towards the object, that is less efficient than taking a direct vector in a straight line towards a predicted intersection point. You have to travel further, at higher drag. This is because you can't define a world space between you and the target, and therefore a future intersection point does not exist. The fact that aircraft turning away from a missile have a far higher IR signature compounds the problem, as does a small seeker-head resolution (due to the enormous costs per sensor) that relys heavily on image processing (analogous to antialiasing).

 

The diagram illustrates a simple arc path taken by a fighter aircraft, the proportional lead seeker also draws an arc getting closer towards the target (proportional), but still traces a smaller-radius curved path to meet the target (which makes for a sustained, high-G, huge-drag turn). The predict lead vector is a sharp turn at the beginning of terminal intercept followed by a straighter heading based on the predicted intersection point. It allows the seeker the luxury of optimising its flight profile and given it has a high level of knowledge about the maximum CEP in which the target will be found. The predict lead draws a SHORTER PATH (based on a simplified single turn situation, which is obviously compounded (for proportional lead) when there is a more complex path traced by the target).

 

With predict lead you don't have to match the flight pattern of the target, you don't have to maintain a series of sustained turns in order to maintain relative target position on seeker, with proportional lead you are essentially relying on a simplified "mechanism" for homing in on an image: a wasteful design for a RH missile which has far greater information available to it.

 

Consider how sidewinder got its name, its continual course-corrections. If a missile can plot a future intercept point based on 3d-knowledge of the targets range, speed, and bearing, it can go directly to that point without being forced to maintain sustained high-G maneuvers. Given the speed at which intercept happens, the target represents (to a missile) quite a slowly moving, predictable entity, it has a turning radius that is (relatively) large, a velocity that is relatively constant, and an envelope for evasive maneuvers that is limited, the only way that target wins is if you burn all your energy getting to it, with predict lead, you use the data to extend your range and still have enough momentum for end-game intercept.

 

If anyone knows how to post the image let me know.

Just a simple question : do the US posters still believe that the F-22 is a better dogfighter than the Rafale ?

 

Cheers .