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     Newest to Oldest
Rufus       7/20/2009 2:02:27 AM
"Why do you call me an idiot reactive ?"
 
Now THERE is a mystery...
 
 
Do you think maybe it has something to do with you pretending to be an aviation expert when you clearly don't understand even the basics?
 
Perhaps it has something to do with you lying continually, and making up "capabilities" for your favorite plane?
 
Or maybe it has something to do with you being a troll, and repeating one falsehood after another, long after you have other posters have taken the time to educate you.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Cprrecting the second link   7/20/2009 2:10:46 AM





I already demolished you on the IR cooler where you were wrong. Now you compound the error. .




ROTFL. I mean, I demonstrated you didn't even know what type cooler the IR MICA used and you call your show of ignorance a demolishing? I know that according to Napoleon a good offense is the best defense but you're just being delusional here.


  No you didn't. You made a claim of what I said and not what I said


You misquoted me and then didn't even know it was built as a too small a chiller for the heat burden expected? I don't think much of you for that.


The MICA antenna  is body shadow occluded by its fins and strakes, plus the antenna is the wrong length to cover aspect presentation distortion.


Wrong on the first part, you obviously still haven't checked a picture of MICA tail. Or maybe you just don't know what an antenna looks like, after all you stated in another thread that the MICA data link antenna was located in the missile mid-body... Can't really get more wrong than that.


 You refer to this.  Midbody means buried and occluded and not in a open fairing.


You were and are deceptive. Its masked by the strakes and fins and buried exactly as I said.


The second part is interesting as we're talking >10GHz links with a half wavelength <15mm (that's roughly half an inch for the metrically impaired). So you're either trolling or you don't even have a basic clue about electromagnetism. Given your record on this thread, I'll go for the second option. Well, it's also possible you're an ignorant troll...


The antenna is not limited to the crest trough of a single wavelength (QM) and you know this, or else its you that doesn't know electromagnetism. The antenna was designed wrong.


Not exactly correct. The aerial has to have a travel length friend.  


Not the same (CREF below). 


It is exactly the same equation, term for term. It's now obvious you've never designed a regulation system or even followed a basic course on the matter. You try to hide your ignorance of the matter with buzzwords but you simply can't "talk the talk".


No its not the same term for term.


 Source....


For one thing, the robot arm is a static mount limited to gimbal and reach; whereas in the three body moving problem all of the objects move independent of each other.   


GOLIS versus GOT logics also apply here.  You keep confusing endgame with trajectory contro
 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex    Blue Wings WVR   7/20/2009 3:25:29 AM
Is this official Frency doctrine, to force the enemy to engage in WVR?
 

I don 't dismiss BVR fighting , I just wanna say that in some case "passive" means can give the edge in BVR and can also help to force an enemy to go WVR , where the Rafale shines .


Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

sinoflex    Grrrr, typo   7/20/2009 3:31:16 AM

Is this official French doctrine, to force the enemy to engage in WVR combat?

 



I don 't dismiss BVR fighting , I just wanna say that in some case "passive" means can give the edge in BVR and can also help to force an enemy to go WVR , where the Rafale shines .





Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    Bump   7/20/2009 4:17:51 PM
I'm reposting this as I don't intend to see it lost in the background so that BW can avoid it again.  Last time you ran off.
Time and time again you come back and repeat the same nonsense when its been debunked and exposed.  You seem to think that by repeating the same rubbish that it will eventually be accepted.  The truth is, that in a number of areas you are either a technical luddite, or you engage in willful misrepresentations of how capabilities actually work.  In short, you lie.

gf0012-aust       7/20/2009 1:02:29 AM

-6) Why does the rafale have exposed rivets ?

This is a forum legend . 

 
FFS, it was either you or FS that posted the damn pictures to counter a discussion about raised profiles and sawtoothing issues.  You tried to argue that the sawtoothing was an example of radar emissions manaagement when the whole point was that the panel fit and form was incredibly crude compared to late model american aircraft.  So, in point, what a load of crock.  You can't even remember your own posts.  I posted references from a radar engineers book to reinforce how raised rivets and poor panel fit would escalate a return signal - this is when you again BS'd to try and defvend your claims.  I then also backed it up with references and citations from F-117 pilots and technicians who discussed how poor panel fit would bounce a higher signal and present the plane. You're so used to lying that you can't even remember what you've posted.  

and don't try a new spin by asking me to point it out - Darth posted the same images again not just 2 months ago. - every man and his dog has seen your feeble attempts to weasel out of being a technical luddite. 

 
 
 
Quote...     Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/20/2009 8:53:47 PM
gf , I have enough respect for some posters and I usually don 't left their post(s) behind .
 
Last year , I was wrong as I was underestimating the very small protuberance on an airframe regarding the RCS .
I 've changed my mind when you posted few articles on the subject .
Now what you must keep in mind is I can be sometimes wrong , but it doesn 't make the Rafale wrong .
 
Dassault has indeed improved the quality control during building and the actual F3s coming out the chain are spot on .
Some late pictures are telling , there is a noticeable difference with the F1s .
Exemple (few weeks old pictures) :
 
h*tp://img263.imageshack.us/img263/7899/6576s.jpg
 
from very close :
h*tp://img442.imageshack.us/img442/1338/6467s.jpg

The "white dots" are heat resistant plastic "stickers" to show the Mech team where the main imbedded screws are .
The surface of the airframe is very smooth .
From another angle :
h*tp://img269.imageshack.us/img269/7452/6563s.jpg

I am sure that you can all notice the improvements .

Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/20/2009 9:42:54 PM
Just for fun and to put some people back on tracks ;-)
 
Here is a beautiful picture of the F-15C cockpit (the best 4th gen fighter with an incredible kill-ratio) :
 
h*tp://img190.imageshack.us/img190/8169/aeyesf15c.jpg
What a mess !!! Is it from Apollo-16 time ? 
 
The Gripen cockpit :
 
h*tp://www.thaifighterclub.org/images/fanclub/03.jpg
That 's better , a lot less things and a better view on systems .
 
The Typhoon cockpit :
 
h*tp://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/gripen/cockpit/cockpit.jpg
Very similar to the Gripen design when you look at it .
 
The Rafale cockpit :
 
h*tp://kovy.free.fr/temp/rafale-cockpit.jpg
This is what us French call Integration , a real 4.5 gen Integration . Huge virtual HUD , huge 3D display , 2 swappable side displays and no switches or buttons , only "mouse and track ball" technology on the sticks and touch-screen technology (with voice input) . Each side screens can act as viewing TV display (with the resolution to go with) to show what the OSF , TV cam and IR Micas see . It is up to the pilot to decide on which screen it wants to watch . He can use the 2 screens to watch what 2 different devices see if he wants to ( TV Cam + Damoclès , or IR Micas + OSF , etc ) .
In any case , the MDPU and the sensor fusion put on the main 3D display all the relevant informations coming from the different sensors of the aircraft + the offboard informations and intels (AWACs , C4s) .
 
We are clearly in F-22 and F-35 territory here and not in the old 4th generation .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

ArtyEngineer    Oh C'mon BW   7/20/2009 11:29:36 PM
Its not that hard to put in pics!!!!  I cant stand all the copy pasting to view pics given as mutilated links.
 
For everyones enjoyment here are a bunch of cockpit pics for comparison ;)
 
Gripen:
 
 
Typhoon:
 
 
Rafale:
 
 
F/A18 E:
 
 
F/A 18 F (Rear):
 
 
F35:
 
 
F35 with HMD Representation:
 
 
F22:
 
 
Another F22:
 
 
There you go folks, now we can get down to teh business of arguing about the correlation between number of button/switches and MFD's and Combat Capability :)
 
Regards
 
Arty
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Arty reply.   7/21/2009 4:38:57 AM
 
Do you want to tell him or shall I?
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/21/2009 3:10:49 PM
Or how about the correlation between "sensor fusion" and "display fusion" (yes, I made up the second term, as far as I know, in order to have some sort of label to put on a cockpit that does away with individual instruments, switches, and displays in favor of a few multi-function displays).
 
This is not my area of expertise, but I will take a crack at providing a hint:  Sensor fusion is the combining of inputs to make a more complete picture to send as a single output to the pilot.  Display fusion (again, for lack of a better term that I know of) is sending multiple outputs to the pilot but merging them onto fewer displays.  Outputs to the pilot could be fused into very few or even just one big display, and still exhibit *NO* sensor fusion.  The information can be merged together with no sensor fusion, forcing the pilot to still use his brain to do the fusing of the outputs just as he has always done since flight began.  Having them all displayed together or more readily obtained (via better switchology, graphics, etc.) may indeed make the pilot's job of fusing that data easier, but it is not "sensor fusion."
 
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.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