Except that I was quoting and referring to Blue Apple.

 

If it truly is always in good faith and you always admit defeat when defeated, then the problem must lie in your extremely frequent inability to recognize that you were defeated, because you frequently post crap, you are frequently shown to have posted crap, and yet you frequently refuse to admit it's crap, and you frequently repeat the same debunked crap--***as attested to by essentially EVERY single poster who ever posts anything on Strategy Page, and not just ze Amis, with the only real exceptions I recall off-hand being a couple past French posters.***

 

You can look at pretty much every forum on SP, every subject thread, and there is essentially no other example like yours that I'm aware of.  I challenge anyone to point out any subject, including even French systems, where there is such universal agreement among all SP posters that you are an uncorrectable, uneducatable buffoon.  Even Herald and DA would agree with me on this, and I'm not sure you could find anything else they agree on!  About the only example comparable to you is the near-universal contempt for most anything Herc/Necromancer/Zookeeper says.

 

"...you come off like a giant fanboy."

 

 

He IS a giant Fanboi, that's his whole freak'n problem!  In his world there is ONLY the Rafale, nothing else compares.  You might as well ask a Nazi to stop hating Jews and come to your friend's Bar Mitzvah.....It's not going to happen.

I admit I am not all that familiar with the specific subject of how the F-22 uses its TVC capability, but I thought I'd read some people's comments that actually the F-22 primarily uses TVC in the transsonic region, and not particularly in the subsonic region which would be the typical regime for close-in dogfighting.  What I find pretty difficult to believe is that a clean F-22 is going to have difficulty matching acceleration and keeping his energy up v. any fighter with several missiles and maybe some wing tanks.  But, I know I can rest assured in the certain knowledge that any such performance dissadvantage in that part of the flight envelope v. Rafales and EFs is meaningless in the real world, so ultimately I don't care (except for being anal retentive about wanting everyone to stick to the facts).

 

"ASRAAM as a program is a complete failure. The USAF and Germany both rejected the missile as unable to meet their requirements, it's an IR missile with awful off-boresight capabilties and pointless extra range." - I got the impression that you meant it didn't perform well, apologies if you didn't mean that.


Surely they would be more likely to develop an AA version of CAMM, rather than retrofitting? My impression is that CAMM is specifically designed for the potential to be used with existing ASRAAM launch proceedures. It would have a different name but be a derivative version.

And the likelihood is that you won't get that, this is a reality of defense forums. You will see how rare it is for anyone to conceed that they are wrong in anything, (BW) even when widespread data exists to disprove them.

Yes, that linked frame of video is from that same video BW posted.

 

 

The sequence starts at 5:18 of the video.  The first frame we see flashes the "Release Stick" message and shows 8.6G.  It stays in the high 8s (8.6-8.7) for a second, jumps to 10.something (apparently 10.0) for less than a second and about at the same time that the "Release Stick" message flashes again, and then the Gs jump back to the high 8s and for the next few seconds climb up to 9.0 and 9.1, then back into the high 8s.

 

As I recall, Seagull told us the soft limit was 8G.  It loks to me like the pilot basically was trying to execute a 9G turn.  Apparently he went into that turn, overrode the soft limit, received the warning which appears to be at least a pair of flashes of the "Release Stick" message, and kept the Gs at about 9G for several seconds.  During that time, the G reading always seemed to change by basically one tenth a G at a time--except for the fraction of a second when it jumped more than 1G and then jumped back again to the same relatively constant almost-9G level maintained throughout that turn.

 

The 10.0G reading seems pretty spurious to me.  However, again, I do not doubt that it could be done, it's just that this example seems odd.

 

10 to 10.5 Gs, that's what the commentator said, and that's what was confirmed by pilots. Not sustained, of course. Only when entering hard turns, promptly.

 

 

BW : sorry for the offense, that was my opinion with a probable lack of humility. I'm not pretending to know more than you on the Rafale, but when i say "much too far", i'm refering to this thread, for example.

I remember also the time when you wrote Rafale history, with details about Active Cancellation... !!! So, no, it's not always possible to verify what you write. In addition, you tend to claim wrong things (intentionally or not).

 

I think it's more productive to talk about Rafale, and only Rafale, with explicit sources, than to try to compare it to other types, because you'll irritate a lot of people and may show you don't know something about the other types.

 This is why i created a dedicated forum... Feel free to disagree with me. Sorry, that is just a friendly advice, no offense intended. We still agree about what's going on here.

 

I think guys like DA and Warpig (for example) are fine, but SP isn't a good place for talking about Rafale. This is why i left. Lies, bias, and language superiority isn't very funny for me.

Of course, everyone is prone to this.

 

the ineffectual MICA or the rather DEADLY ASRAAM.

 

Example, what he calls design failures are actually sensible design choices for a mid-range missile.like the failed MICA was supposed to be.

 

Herald