The Strategypage is a comprehensive summary of military news and affairs.
 News As History - November 24, 2009




New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 
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
Sign In   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

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50   NEXT
Blue Apple       7/13/2009 8:31:38 AM
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.
 
With all due respect, your use of non-standard terms is what is causing the confusion here. Google "proportional naviagation". You'll also find that it is used by pretty much all IR & RF missiles in the end game.
 
You don't make constant corrections with pronav, the path is more or less straight (until your target starts manoeuvering).
 
Pursuit guidance is the law that makes a missile follow a curved path to a moving target.
 
Consider how sidewinder got its name, its continual course-corrections.
 
Sidewinder got its nickname because of the lack of fine control over its control surfaces (they were basically all-or-nothing). It means that in the closed-loop system, the gain of the feedback step (missile moving to correct the bearing deviation) was too high, leading to oscillations. The problem was solved a long time ago.
 
 
I'm not dismissing the Rafale as a threat, it's deadly if used correctly, but it needs to adopt either the AMRAAM or Meteor (or both) in order to be truly competitive in the BVR arena.
 
Meteor will be procured but it's a very expensive weapon. And missile range has not proven that useful in modern conflicts were visual ID was almost almays needed (a case where a long range video camera is a big plus). Besides MICA range is not exactly bad (it is comparable to a pre-C5 upgrade AMRAAM).
 
 
And he's made entire threads in order to belittle someone..
 
To be fair, it's not like no one else has started threads just to pile on BW too.
 
While BW does indeed live in fantasy-land where everything from France is the best of the world, some posters hare seem to live another imaginary country where everything French (and especially Thales) is the worst in the world. Two sides of the same coin IMO.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    When I say chase the image or chase the signal   7/13/2009 10:37:30 AM
across the sensor FoV I know exactly what I mean. When I say lobbed at a projected and updated intercept point along a trajectory I know exactly what I mean.


No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.
 
Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/13/2009 6:39:59 PM
What I see now is "semantics" .
I never thought that posting a part of my CV would get so much attention (?) . What about the rest of my post ?
 
It has been put in the bin , as simple as that . Since the Rafale F3 seems to have some new capabilities , some just decided not to talk or debate about it , but just to , again , shoot at the messenger . By doing so , they diverted the attention from what my post was about to a very important (?) denial and personal attack : "BW is a buffoon" .
 
In France we call it "Langue de bois" (Snakes 's tongue , double talk , etc) . To put it bluntly , "forget the facts and attack the man" . Do you even understand how pathetic it is , Herald , Reactive , gf ? Then , some people dare to ask SYSOPS to ban me ? For the reason of trolling ??? C 'Mon Guys !
 
Blue Apple :
""While BW does indeed live in fantasy-land where everything from France is the best of the world""
 
This is another unacceptable talk . I never said such BS . I repeat again , what I post I can back up . 
I am not perfect and I am sometimes wrong and when it happens , I look very closely into it to see where and how I have been wrong , then I try to come back into the discussion with newer and better arguments . It is one of the reasons why I am not an idiot . Whatever you may think , I learn fast but so far , not a lot of people here on SP proved me wrong on the Rafale . Note that I said "not a lot of people" , it did happen but not often .
 
I am to the point where I cannot say anything about the F-22 or the F-35 without being called birds names !
When I say and dare try to prove that the Rafale is the best 4.5 Gen aircraft around , I get pissed on !
For God sake , open your eyes ! By now , you all suppose to know what a Raf F3 is capable of !
Just the last video I posted (the one from Thalès) should be an eye opener even for the knowledgeable poster .
 
Don 't you think ?
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       7/13/2009 6:59:36 PM
Do you even understand how pathetic it is , Herald , Reactive , gf ? 

If herald, reactive posted their CV's on a public forum and claimed to have a high IQ - to try and cement their credibility in a debate - well, I'd hook into them as well.

So, yes, so, by you claiming expertise by academic and intellectual association when you frequently misunderstand basic concepts, misunderstand technology, use incorrect technical language, when you abuse and selectively misrepresent material makes you fair game.

Your own countrymen have indicated that you are cavalier and liberal with facts - (a euphemism for "truth")

Grandstanding qualifications and intellectual prowess in a public forum when you wash rinse and recycle everything stated in my 2nd para is lame.

Kids do it
Those who feel inadequate and need to publicly puff themselves up .

Don't behave like a prat and people will start treating you with respect.  I'm happy to do that when it occurs. 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/13/2009 7:01:29 PM
One of the best comment I read so far (from Blue Apple) :
 
""And missile range has not proven that useful in modern conflicts were visual ID was almost always needed (a case where a long range video camera is a big plus)"" .
 
This is the reason why the Rafale impressed everybody at the last Tiger Meet as well as the last Red-Flag (also with its electronic gizmos and the AASM) .
The IFF is not always usuable (some decide to fly "blind" for security reasons , ECMs , ECCMs , etc) so a long range Cam to see if the target is a SH or a Flanker is of the utmost importance nowadays . This is the reason why the Rafale always fired first in the last Tiger Meet . Since the OSF TV Channel 's range is greater than the NEZ of the Mica , you understand that the Rafale pilot can trust 200% his avionics without risking a "Blue on Blue incident" .
For a Pilot , this is GREAT !
 
Now , imagine to be able to do it passively (radar off) ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/13/2009 7:06:07 PM
gf :
""Don't behave like a prat and people will start treating you with respect.  I'm happy to do that when it occurs.""
 
Ok , but can I ask you to read my post like if it was posted by someone else and with impartiality ?
Then , you might see that I am NOT a bluffer . Far from it gf .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/13/2009 8:12:15 PM
Seagull , do you remember this one ;-) :
h*tp://img189.imageshack.us/img189/9229/a2arafale.jpg
 
It was nice TMor ;-) but now we have this :
h*tp://img194.imageshack.us/img194/1892/dsc01474rsolutiondelcra.jpg
 
The pylon has been opened for Meteor as well . In theory , the Rafale could be loaded as a long range Interceptor with :
(hold your breath)
- 4 Meteors
- 2 EM Micas
- 4 IR Micas
- 2 external 1250l fuel tanks
 
ie with Micas :
h*tp://img269.imageshack.us/img269/6312/rafaleaamica.jpg
 
With the actual F3 avionics and incoming F4 in 2015 , we look good :-)
 
Cheers .

 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/14/2009 3:51:01 AM
No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.

Nice use of buzzwords but still little substance I see.
IR & RF missile use their seeker to keep a constant bearing towards their target in the end game. Both will follow a straight path towards a constant velocity target (ignoring missile drag effects). Do you deny this?
 
 
This is another unacceptable talk . I never said such BS
 
Yes you did. This thread is yet another example. The problem is that you start with the a priori that everything on French weapons is state of the art and extrapolate wildly based on very limited information.
 
Let's take the Rafale SPECTRA suite for example. There is no point in claiming it's the most advanced in the world or that it can jam any missile fired at the Rafale (even if it was true it would be impossible to confirm from public sources). A realistic assesment would look at the system and see how it differs other airplanes and acknowledge the drawbacks of some choices (e.g. use of GaAs emitters mean that its rather weak in raw jamming power).
 
But like I said, other posters do exactly the same thing in reverse (some even apparently can't find the data link antenna on the MICA - even though it's located at the same place as in the AMRAAM...).
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       7/14/2009 4:32:36 AM
No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.

Nice use of buzzwords but still little substance I see.
IR & RF missile use their seeker to keep a constant bearing towards their target in the end game. Both will follow a straight path towards a constant velocity target (ignoring missile drag effects). Do you deny this?
 
Actually I do, because you set up a false condition and ask me to accept it as true. I tend to know now that you are an avid reader and not a true rocketeer or missileer. 
 
If you did not understand what I said in plain English then what the heck are you smoking?
 
Your question like so much French engineering logic sets up a non-real world condition that tries to argue same solution for the real world. Missiles don't behave that way you describe in a real world three body changing aspect condition and you should know this. (offset aspect, fall, thrust/non thrust, lob, and lift always mean some point correction along the trajectory. In scalar lseeker logic missiles this is constant, in vector intercept missiles this is incremental or phased) There is also no such thing as a straight line-ever) You should also know that I discussed whole missile trajectory pursuit or intercept logics and not just the endgame. Even at that Endgame in some missiles might not even involve the primary seeker as the priximity sensor that drives the final merge. (Standard 2 is the example here.)
 
In plain language you do know what we call your attempted falsification of conditions and terms of discussion?
 
As to the the antanna location on the  MICA? Who cares about that? Uf the aeroshell obstruction ois radio opaque at the location in a changing aspect conditoon and you get signal dropout and the missile goes brick stupid, what does that say about the engineers who designed that missile again? And of course they can't fix it? (Amraam's aeroshell does not occlude its antenna.....)
 
Yeah.........crickets. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/14/2009 2:19:58 PM

No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.




Nice use of buzzwords but still little substance I see.


IR & RF missile use their seeker to keep a constant bearing towards their target in the end game. Both will follow a straight path towards a constant velocity target (ignoring missile drag effects). Do you deny this?

 

 

This is another unacceptable talk . I never said such BS
 

Yes you did. This thread is yet another example. The problem is that you start with the a priori that everything on French weapons is state of the art and extrapolate wildly based on very limited information.

 

Let's take the Rafale SPECTRA suite for example. There is no point in claiming it's the most advanced in the world or that it can jam any missile fired at the Rafale (even if it was true it would be impossible to confirm from public sources). A realistic assesment would look at the system and see how it differs other airplanes and acknowledge the drawbacks of some choices (e.g. use of GaAs emitters mean that its rather weak in raw jamming power).

 

But like I said, other posters do exactly the same thing in reverse (some even apparently can't find the data link antenna on the MICA - even though it's located at the same place as in the AMRAAM...).



In real life if you started a fight with someone and they kicked you half to death to the point that you were lying unconscious, would you stand up and go back for a second serving?
 
You need to learn to accept defeat sometime, I guess here's as good a place as any ; )  Your arguments are weak, and ignore the points that have been repeated again and again.
 
Look at some relevant diagrams and you'll see how different the two strategies are in terms of missile flight.
 
ReactivE
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/14/2009 2:25:11 PM
Might I add, the people here don't ever seem to have a problem with people who make mistakes with what they post, it's when they (you) try and argue even when you know you are truly unable to really do so. I think it would demonstrate admirable qualities to accept that you have been beaten by someone who has, in this instance, superior knowledge than you.
 
You did very well considering you were wrong.
 
ReactivE
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    To BlueApple.   7/14/2009 3:33:18 PM
No, SARH and ATG RH missiles do not use the same track logics as IR missiles. They do not chase an image or signal across the sensor focal array with a proportional lead (the correct term) built into the signal chase. Those sensors center the signal on point since it is a radio signal they receive through an antenna. The radar missiles have a vector predict logic that is built into the guidance, not a scalar chase.logic that needs a bias to maintain point.
 
And therefore, a RH missile has a flight plan that is based on a predicted intercept point in the future and point there independently of the current target position. An IR missile's flight plan (and heading at any given point) is directly proportional to the current location of the target, is therefore less efficient and experiences more drag & a shorter effective range. (because it is FORCED to draw a
 
Is it that you don't see any difference between the two? Honestly?
 
Here's how one paper on the subject describes pronav (nothing to do with sidewinder flight surfaces, but rather an early set of algorithms which are STILL BASED ON BIAS:
 
Typical guidance law is based on PN (proportional navigation) = N*Vc*theta-rate, which is a type 2 term - integral. However, it does not include a type 1 or type 0 term. Without these terms there are usually stability issues & lack of quick response to disturbances. Therefore, much ad hoc work, in the form of biases or adaptations to various flight modes, is normally added to alleviate these deficiencies.
And here's another that sets out principles for a form of predict lead.
 
In this paper, a new guidance law called prediction guidance (PRG) is developed to widen the launching envelope. This is achieved by predicting a straight-line collision course and by turning the heading of the missile toward the collision course
as rapidly as possible. In comparison with conventional proportional navigation guidance law, this feature tends to
minimize the time duration for homing and permits interception of more rapid and highly maneuvering targets. Simulation
results demonstrate these facts. Also, it is shown that the proposed guidance law is easily implementable.
 
Concept of Prediction Guidance
If the dynamic lags of a missile system are assumed to be neglected, and if the trajectory of a target is assumed to be
known a priori, the shortest trajectory of the missile for homing becomes a straight line called the collision course. It is
clear that the shortest trajectory means the shortest time duration for homing. Thus, the minimum time strategy of
guidance can be stated as follows: Determine the collision course; then turn the heading of the missile to coincide with
the collision, and let it go straight until interception. With this strategy of guidance, interception can be achieved
in a minimum time, and any target of which the trajectory is interceptable geometrically can be intercepted. This feature
implies that the above missile guidance strategy not only minimizes the homing time duration but also maximizes the
launching envelope.
 
 
ReactivE
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    To BlueApple.   7/14/2009 3:36:31 PM
(and given that this solution updates dynamically (with acceleration, heading of a maneuvering target), the course plotted by the missile will, as Herald stated, not be entirely straight)
 
Reactive
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Link    7/14/2009 3:44:54 PM
h*tp://ctrgate.kaist.ac.kr/bd_publication/pds/international_journal/IJ1985_03.pdf
 
The diagrams look similar to the ones I made to try and illustrate the point, which is cool.
 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       7/14/2009 6:04:44 PM
I didn't intend to come back here, but for BW :
Bluewings :
The pylon has been opened for Meteor as well .
 
No. Not yet. It's going to happen only if UAE signs the contract. 
 
Herald :
what does that say about the engineers who designed that missile again?
 That you're [...] inventing stories to discredit the know-how of a whole nation and make you look a well informed guy. Incindentaly, it makes you bash French tech each time i take the time to read your messages (quite suspicious if you ask me).
 
Who, last time, told me that Dassault were liars ?
 
Who should answer you, guys, when all your arguments are based on your imagination, itself built on top of the vacuum left by the secrets ?
 
 Ok, sorry, i shouldn't have come back and next time, i'm going to let you dream that Rafale is a totally fucked-up aircraft, with fucked-up weapons, made by self-proclaimed engineers lying all the time. I just hope that one day, i'll create 1 thread so as to make a compilation of all your funny ideas demonstrating that Rafale (or France ? what do you prefer ?) is a joke.
 
Sincerely sorry.
 
Quote    Reply
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50   NEXT



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy