2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale

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

usajoe1 here is another one Rufus 7/28/2009 6:03:23 PM

When I visit the Typhoon web site it says; "Nothing Comes Close", so I should believe that the Typhoon is the best right. LOL! get help BW.

Dictionary.com

pathological liar
Function: noun
- an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.

-a person who lies to the point of it being considered a disease or condition, an abnormally habitual liar.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 7/28/2009 6:19:57 PM

Since you are all so clever (not) , you tell me why there is a 30 time fold RCS difference in between these two :

Cheers .

Quote Reply

warpig 7/28/2009 6:20:23 PM

Warpig :

""I think there is no question at all that the RWRs in the F-15/16/18 could ID the SLOT BACK and display an indication of a MiG-29""

I agree but the systems are not going to tell the pilot where the Fulcrum is . Is it coming toward you , is it behind you , and where exactly ? Spectra does it with great accuracy .

""the relatively new thing would be the fusing of the emitter's identification, azimuth, and elevation from the RWR with the location data of the bandit derived from the radar.""

What about doing it without the radar ? A single Rafale can do it at up to 35-40km with the LRF and two Rafales can do it by sharing the Spectra data (triangulation) . The Link-16 is not fast enough to provide a clear firing solution but is fast enough to provide a drop basket small enough to fire LOAL . It is not a tactic actually used by the AdA or the MN but it is feasable and tacticaly correct while expensive (small kill-ratio and Mica is expensive) .

""What I didn't see was whatever information you used to conclude that the Rafale was not using its radar during that engagement (...) that I did not see what indicators might have shown the reaction to the pop-up target was radar-off ""

Easy , the "Mig-29 alert" was on the right screen (provided by Spectra) , then it is put on the main screen (battle display) already withing the Mica 's NOZ because the Mica was asked by Spectra to look there and found the target , which is computed automaticaly radar on or radar off as soon as a sensor is getting something . From this info , the pilot shoot or most probably lase-shoot for a better kill .

""I did not recognize the information that leads you to conclude the particular MICA launched was necessarily a MICA-IR""

-1) The distance told me .

-2) You can fire an EM Mica LOBL without the radar and just with the LRF but an IR Mica will perform better WVR and the end game is silent .

All RWRs in use today on US aircraft will give an indication of what azimuth the threat is on to within something like around 10 to 20 degrees or less, tell whether the threat is above or below your altitude, and I am pretty sure they try to guesstimate relatively how close or far away they are in a rough sort of fashion. RWRs on the F-18E/F, EA-18G, F-22, and soon the F-35 will tell the azimuth to within less than a couple degrees, and can geolocate ground-based emitters.

I flat out do not believe you that the LRF has a range of 35-40 km. Even if it theoretically does, there's no way that range can be anything other than the absolute maximum range under optimal conditions, such that it will rarely have that great a range in actual combat (very similar to my reaction to your insistence on saying the MICA-IR has a range of 35-40km, and for essentially the same explanation).

Okay, you are actually just suggesting the part about the triangulation, and not saying it is actually done, so I've deleted the insults I had started typing when I rushed to judgement because I thought you meant it was being done now. Several of us tried educating you and FS about using the RWR for determining the range and tracking aerial targets a couple years ago. No, it is not yet possible that I know of.

As I said, I do not know the various symbology and indicatoions used, so I can't tell, but I still fail to see how what was shown must mean that it was a radar-off intercept. I'm not asking how it could be a radar-off intercept, I'm asking how what was shown *proves* it was a radar-off intercept. Either something on some screen says the radar is in standby or whatever mode, or else the symbology used is exclusive to when the radar is off. Otherwise, it is not proven. In any event besides that, I will also remind you that it was just a marketing video (made, I think, in 1997!) as opposed to video from inside a fully-functional simulator that matches the real thing, and therefore does not exactly seem all that authoritative to me, anyway.

"The distance told me"? First off, how do you know what the distance is? Do you know the scale of that display or see a range to the target indicated somehow? Second, why, because you assume that a shot at pretty close range must have to mean it was an IR missile--if so, that sounds pretty lame to me. Radar missiles are routinely used at well within visual range. Yes, I understand some of the reasons why using an IR missile can be advantageous, but that does not mean that is what was done in this video.

So far I see an awful lot of guesswork not necessarily supported by evidence.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 7/28/2009 7:24:06 PM

Warpig , I am glad that ~unlike some other posters~ you think . I read carefully your last long post and will try to respond it in kind .

""RWRs on the F-18E/F, EA-18G, F-22, and soon the F-35 will tell the azimuth to within less than a couple degrees, and can geolocate ground-based emitters.""

I know . Spectra is not the only ECM suite to use interferrometry but the system 's AESA imbedded antennas (and not a pod) give it a small edge in precision and discretion . It also frees one hardpoint .

""I flat out do not believe you that the LRF has a range of 35-40 km. Even if it theoretically does, there's no way that range can be anything other than the absolute maximum range under optimal conditions""

Of course it is the maximum range under the best conditions ! In some case , the LRF can also be totally useless .

""very similar to my reaction to your insistence on saying the MICA-IR has a range of 35-40km, and for essentially the same explanation""

You are talking about the seeker 's max range and you are correct . Nevertheless , keep in mind that bad weather don 't affect much the IR band as it affect lasers .

""Several of us tried educating you and FS about using the RWR for determining the range and tracking aerial targets a couple years ago. No, it is not yet possible that I know of.""

Determining the range with Spectra F3 against a mechanical radar is today a given . The problem is to deal with fast LPI radars . Spectra must keep a constant track to archive the trick and doing so against a fast LPI radar doesn 't work yet .

"""The distance told me"? First off, how do you know what the distance is? Do you know the scale of that display or see a range to the target indicated somehow? ""

At 5:30 , the pilot says "ECM contact" and the display is shown . Spectra is actually scanning inside a 80km bubble (top right corner) and the Mig29 icone is within the first blue circle which means that the signal is real strong and real close (the approximate distance is shown in the bottom left corner (18 nm) . Spectra knows the approximate distance because the Fulcrum radar is well known , is mechanical and is in the databank . At 5:34 , the main display shows the Fulcrum (the yellow dot) almost within the Mica 's NOZ (small thick yellow oval) . The RBE2 is off because it is usually reprensented in blue .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

warpig 7/29/2009 12:21:21 AM

"Spectra is not the only ECM suite to use interferometry but the system 's AESA imbedded antennas (and not a pod) give it a small edge in precision and discretion . It also frees one hardpoint."

I admit I do not know of any evidence, but I suspect it's quite likely the F-22's AN/ALR-94 is using electronically steered antennas for its RWR. Maybe not. The BAE slide Dwightlooi posted (maybe in the F-22 v. Eurofighter thread, I think) that shows the F-35's RWR antennas certainly does not rule it out—but again, I don't think it explicitly said they are, either. Incidentally, none of these aircraft need a pod for any of this capability. I am unfamiliar with the details of the F-16 Block52 and Block60 RWR systems, but I would be surprised if they weren't pretty close in capability, too. It seems to me the most important potential differences still lie in how well each system fuses the data with the other sensor data on the aircraft.

"You are talking about the seeker 's max range and you are correct . Nevertheless , keep in mind that bad weather don 't affect much the IR band as it affect lasers."

Well, yes and no. I am talking in part about the seeker, but only because that is one of the limiting factors in how the whole missile is limited in real life such that LOBL shots taken at targets that are 40km or even 30km are lower Pk and may well not even be possible (depending on the set-up of the engagement), for reasons explained in excruciatingly great detail many times.

"Determining the range with Spectra F3 against a mechanical radar is today a given . The problem is to deal with fast LPI radars . Spectra must keep a constant track to archive the trick and doing so against a fast LPI radar doesn't work yet."

I was referring to determining the range to an aerial target. It looks like you were, too. I'm not talking about using any process like "long baseline interferometry" to geolocate a stationary emitter. I'm talking about trying to obtain data on a threat radar flying at M0.9 and maneuvering. It is not a given to determine the range to an aerial target that I am aware of, and not even particularly accurate. I would love to read about details of this sort of capability, if anyone can provide them.

"At 5:30 , the pilot says "ECM contact" and the display is shown . Spectra is actually scanning inside a 80km bubble (top right corner) and the Mig29 icone is within the first blue circle which means that the signal is real strong and real close (the approximate distance is shown in the bottom left corner (18 nm) . Spectra knows the approximate distance because the Fulcrum radar is well known , is mechanical and is in the databank . At 5:34 , the main display shows the Fulcrum (the yellow dot) almost within the Mica 's NOZ (small thick yellow oval) . The RBE2 is off because it is usually reprensented in blue."

Well, these are some interesting details. I still reserve judgment regarding some of it (like that the range of 18NM is derived from the RWR), but if the color is truly indicative then I'll believe you that the radar is simulated as being off. If the radar is off and if the missile was launched at anything more than a half-dozen NM, then I agree it appears to have been a MICA-IR that was simulated for this engagement. It would be nice if it works that way/easily/quickly in real life. I hope it does. I remain dubious.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/29/2009 2:18:11 AM

"From the front , the RCS is just below 3m Square which is similar to a F-16 clean . A SU-27 or a F-15 Eagle loaded as Interceptors trying to kill this Rafale will both have a RCS about 10 times higher . Which one will see the other(s) first ?

I am not even taking into account jamming who can divide the detection and tracking range by 2 or more . Also , a Rafale loaded like this is in a deep strike penetration and will try to stay EM silent , relaying on passive sensors to work its way through .

We 're not talking about a loaded F-15E or F-15K (barndoors) , nor a F-16 Blk42 (small barndoor) or a SH but about a Rafale ."

Ah yes, nothing like another trip to fantasy land...

It is funny how you just keep cooking up the scenarios and they just don't match the facts in the slightest. We already know that Super Hornets have a large detection range advantage against Rafales, and that was with their conventional radars...

But hey, facts that interfere with your fanboy dreams aren't really facts are they?

"So Rufus , you discard every French paper ? Even coming from the French DoD ?

Ok .

I 'll do the same with the Boeing and LM Bullsh*t ."

LOL What is that? News? You have already shown yourself to be impervious to any information that doesn't fit your fanboy view of the Rafale. It could come from Boeing, Lockheed, or any respected publication. All that matters to you is that your favorite plane is just the best and most pretty in the world!

"Since you are all so clever (not) , you tell me why there is a 30 time fold RCS difference in between these two"

Well, the F-16 actually has a 50 fold advantage over the Rafale. This is because it has received some RCS reduction work while the Rafale still had proud rivets and fixed refueling probes!

Look, we can BOTH make up numbers!

You act like posting a picture is somehow evidence. You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Everyone here knows that. Even the other French posters think you are a joke.

I can't imagine what it must be like to watch a football game with you. Nothing is worse than a loud mouthed clueless know-it-all.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/29/2009 2:23:33 AM

Warpig... you are trying to discuss facts with Bluewings.

Even if he knew, he would lie before saying anything that suggested the Rafale couldn't easily beat a Tie Fighter in space combat by using "Spectra."

Quote Reply

Blue Apple 7/29/2009 3:34:06 AM

The data link doesn't tell you which way the signal goes or what it is, AMATEUR.

Of course, it must be some other secret undocumented data link on the AIM-120A/B...

And following your ludicrous radio flare suggestion, I suppose Hugues/Raytheon engineers could be incompetant enough to design an antenna that can send a signal back to the plane but can't receive one. I mean, that's cutting-edge technology, only a hundred years old...

Someone more superficial in his understanding of the way things actually work BA I would fire immediately out of our shop.

The ones to which you bring the cans you've collected all day long?

Just how does the THALES StIrling engine work, again?

IT USES A WORKING LIQUID TO GAS CYCLE.

Yes, a CLOSED cycle.

I see that now you're trying to morph your (incorrect) claim that the MICA seeker would run out of coolant during an extended travel to its target because it relies on a Joule-Thomson cooler as a claim that the gas in its Stirling cooler would evaporate.

Well, it's correct that this will eventually happen, after a few thousand hours of running...

What will be the next excuse? I realize you're never going to admit you were mistaken but it's getting boring real fast.

One of these days I will explain a Herald TRAP to you.

If it's like a honey trap but with you instead, I'm afraid I don't swing that way. But I'm flattered by the offer.

ONly a frenchmen would come to the conclusion that when both a/c state the MIPS, of course all the rest are scueiing the numbers and only the french and their rafail are being accurate.

That would be "Rafale" and "skewing".

Why do you think you experimental version has the xtra TWO applehead?

Actually, it's two more boards populated in the MPDU vs the PESA equipped Rafale. There is room for an extra MDPU rack next to the currently installed one but I'm not aware of any Rafale equipped with it.

NOT because the rafail has MORE then enough power as you claim. Everyone knows it is beyond straining its limits to keep up as it is.

Everyone being you and...?

We already know that Super Hornets have a large detection range advantage against Rafales, and that was with their conventional radars...

Any source? Because the only thing I could find were about Hornet vs Rafale F1 engagements way back. The RBE2 performance has matured a lot over the last years (first version was myopic, latest ones have about the performance of a same diameter MSA).

Quote Reply

locutus Rafale RCS 7/29/2009 5:08:00 AM

BW,

Would you like to explain how the Rafale maintains a low RCS while carrying external stores? Remember, the figures you quoted are for the aircraft clean.

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/29/2009 5:58:59 AM

Quote: I admit I do not know of any evidence, but I suspect it's quite likely the F-22's AN/ALR-94 is using electronically steered antennas for its RWR. Maybe not. You are right, there are curently four aitrcrafts which systems are using interferometry; Mirage 2000 Mk2/9, Rafale, F-22 and F-35.

Quote: I am unfamiliar with the details of the F-16 Block52 and Block60 RWR systems, but I would be surprised if they weren't pretty close in capability, too.

The capability gab is as large as between a steered array and an AESA. Quote: LOBL shots taken at targets that are 40km or even 30km are lower Pk and may well not even be possible (depending on the set-up of the engagement), for reasons explained in excruciatingly great detail many times.

French DGA counts on a 75% kill rate in LOAL with MICA used with RBY, so you can bet that results in LOBL at this distance wouldn't be much lower expecially because BVR capabilties have been used with the previous generation of seekers.
With Magic II, pilots would detect a low-IR signature KC135F before visual acquisition in optimum VMC. MICA IR seeker performances are way higher than that of the Magic II and there is no reason to believe that acquisition at 40 km is unrealistic, expecially using the high level of sensor fusion seen with the Rafale.

Quote: I was referring to determining the range to an aerial target. It looks like you were, too. I'm not talking about using any process like "long baseline interferometry" to geolocate a stationary emitter
.
You are right to point out that the targets are fast moving but it wouldn't be too much of a problem if another axis wasn't added, increasing the already high level of complexity, this requiers different algorythms and a lot more computing power. Air combat is about 3D, it is involving an element which doesn't exist (or nearly doesn't if one includes terrain elevation) in the A2G role.

Quote: Well, these are some interesting details.... I remain dubious.

So do i, i have been looking for indications that this capability existed out of the labs (because no doubts engineers are actively working at it, porting the existing A2G targeting/designation capability to the A2A role, but infortunately, even a single work of the eventual progresses on the developement of this capability i have never seen. More to it, i think that if it did exist even at trial stage, we would not know about it.

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Dwightlooi. 7/29/2009 7:16:05 AM

Wingman 7/28/2009 6:20:37 AM

"Herald12345
to handle the slip through the transonic range that ALL delta wing aircraft have. Its not the same sweep as the F-22".

Sorry to say but.... You clearly have NO idea what you are talking about...

I know the guy who posted the picture you use and i can tell you for a FACT that he doesn't comprehend the subject the slightest, this might explain why you got mislead so badly.

For example he REVERSED the angle used to calculate the sweep angles, that of F-22 is 42*, that of F-35 is 35*, that of F-16 is 40*.

The leading edge sweep determines the critical Mach, weither the Mach lines you describes with the help of this picture have insignificant effects of aircrafts performances and negligible on their handling (which would be the issue if ever).
link target="_blank">link /> link target="_blank">link wave

Here are a couple of article from a proper source for you to read in order to start to comprehend the issue.

Rough explaination:

. The Critical mach is the point at which the effects of compressibility will start to be felt in terms of transonic DRAG.

. F-35 is designed as a transonic/low supersonic airframe, with a LOWER critical mach than even F-16, all these aircrafts have a similar wing thicknes ratios so values are equal in scale.

. The higher the sweep angle, the later in the Mach scale these effect will be felt, the lower the transonic and supersonic drag pic value will be, the lower their mpact on performances.

. The difference comes from their wing profiles and in this respect the F-22 and F-35 drag slightly more in supersonic due to the use of a supercritic profile as opposed to laminar profiles for others.

. F-22 CAN handle it with a very High TWR and a delta wing (YES the Raport lift is vortex lift like a croped delta), the F-35 canot and is limited to M 1.6 with NO supercruise capabilties.

Now regarding YF-22, the leading edge sweep angle was 48* as is the case for Rafale.

This was reduced to 42* and dont tell me the document disclosed by Dryden in behalf of Lockheed Martin isn't accurate, it is L-M own figures, as for Dryden, they know what they're talking about, they halpt L-M with the design and aerodynamics.

Now with regard to the question of EM return it is obvious that the closest to the ideal 45* angle are the sweep angles of F-22 and Rafale, NOT that of F-35, even F-16 design is more suited to EM return from front and sides.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rufus:
Now now... I have already had to cautioned more than a couple fanboys about making things up on this message board.
[linked image]

You might be interested to know that RAND sees things differently, L.O ands V.L.O are clearly different levels of Low Obsevability, as for "making things up", how about your collegue above who rewrite all known aerodynamic books?

Both F/A-18 were in the R.O category because of the characteristic of their airframe designs and radars, they already were above the MIN category by a fair margin.

With the use of more discreet sensors in the A2A role, IRST and AESA LPI radars, they are now L.O. as opposed to V.L.O which involves the use of internal weapon storage and more developed RAM.

In some aspcect, Rafale have more discreet features then even F-35 and F/A18, its IR signature is particularly low and its leading edge sweep angle is closer to the ideal 45*.

Rufus:
It is becoming obvious that while you might have an interest in fighters, you have no actual experience with them or the technologies involved.

This is a hell of an assumption to make, please give some attention to my posts...

Rufus:

The Rafale is not a LO airframe, regardless of which radar it is fitted with, even flying clean.

Accorsing to RAND criterias yes it is, and the use of an AESA LPI radar matters.

L.O is define it terms of "Observability" but can also be regarded as vulnerability to "Detection", be it Electromagnetic, InfraRed, Radar, Radio, Visual etc.

It is the degree of measures vs these and the design features which are involved which makes the level of Observability.

BOTH F/A-18 and Rafale (as opposed to what you say probably by lack of informations) have been treated accordingly to their primary customers requierements, i.e. reduction of EM return by shaping and uses of RAM, including S-shaped inlets, engine vanes, serated materials etc.

In the case of Rafale, the IR reduction measures goes even further than any US in-service fighter thanks to its engine design, it also use totaly passive sensors to minimise its radar emitions while tracking and conduction intercptions.

Rufus:

France has extremely minimal RCS reduction experience and they had none at all at the time the Rafale was being designed.

I'll have to agree to desagree.

France used a lot of Signature management features from Rafale A design stage without compromising with aerodynamics in particular with the choice of materials, the conceipt with Rafale C (in reality named Rafale D for "Discreet" at roll-out) was pushed much furtger with redesigned inlets and use of serated material + RAM.

The RAM paint was developed and applied to serie Rafales with the addition of a Visual reduction characteristic.

Perhaps you don't know it doesn't mean there was no experience, but ONERA in France was working on the subject of EM signature management long before ACX for both aircrafts and weapons like SCALP, they also conducted the researches on increased engine TET and IR reduction of M88 wirh SNECMA.

link target="_blank">link link target="_blank">link

Rufus:

It isn't that France is incapable of building a reduced RCS airframe, but they certainly haven't done it yet and it would require a long time and a lot of effort to develop the technology.

It is not the opinion of the specialised press on the subject, we know from our pilots that a Rafale will detect a Typhoon at TWICE the range of another Rafale using the PESA RBE2 in a head-tohead engagement.

Your assumption that they have similar RCS is already known to be false.

Rufus:
The Neuron program will probably help to develop the skills of French engineers given time, but even that is only a single aircraft, and a demonstrator at that.

France flew the first V.L.O UAV in Europe in 2000, the second one, instable tail-less in 2002.

Rufus:

As for the Rafale... late in the game its designers took a few very basic steps to limit its RCS. This HAS helped reduce its RCS, but it is nonetheless right amongst the pack with other late 4th generation aircraft from an RCS standpoint.

It is WAY above the rest and i can name all the appearent EM reduction features for you if you wish but for one thing, in the L.O UAVs designed by Dassault, the frontal cross sectional design, (YF-23-like) with a mid-fuselage mounted wing and large wing/fuselage blended area was used.

It is known not only to reduce radar return from the sides it also reduces ionduce drag in transonic and supersonic.
link target="_blank">link

Something else, nEUROn and F-35 will have similar RCS, nEUROn will fly earlier in 2011 than F-35 will enter service, this gives you an idea on how "far behind" the USA Europe really is technologicaly.

The Operational version of nEUROn and the follow-up technology derivated European Future Air Combat System are at two different stages of DGA programe progresses.

The Operational version of nEUROn is at initial research stage...
link target="_blank">link

EFACS was at technology risk study two years ago (2007 Annual repport).
link target="_blank">link

EFACS is the remplacement for Tronados and (non-French service) Mirage 2000 using technology developed for nEUROn.

I think your problem over there is the lack of proper information about what is done over here, this said with due respect of course....

Just to make my points...

Now about maneuvrability...

Two trophies for the Rafale

[linked image]

Rafale Technical Display.

Captain Cedric Ruet, Rafale demonstrator achieved a historic double at the airshow Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), held on 18 and 19 July 2009, Fairford, Great Britain.

The fighter pilot himself, winning two trophies in its first participation in RIAT:

Sir Douglas Bader Trophy Best Solo Display Team (first prize in the solo presentation awarded after the vote of a panel of English general of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy) and the Royal Air Marshall Ben Crowley Milline equivalent price to the public.

For this first display in the UK, the fighter pilot performed in front of 20,000 people, along with a wide variety of aircraft which came to commemorate the 60th anniversary of NATO: Swiss F18, English, Finnish and Spanish Eurofighter Typhoon, Dutch and Belgian F16, Swedish and Hungarian Grippen, Boeing Steerman...

However, the season is not complete, the pilot of the fighter squadron 1/7 "Provence" based at Saint-Dizier and his team of engineers represent the French Air Force in Russia and Poland, from the end of August.

[linked image]

Capitaine Cédric Ruet.

[linked image]

Le démonstrateur Rafale a gagné deux trophées.

[linked image]

link target="_blank">link

Here, the pilot describes his display Maximum g load: 10. 10.5 looking at 11.0 g.

link target="_blank">link

Here is the RIAT display...

I know of him, too, Wingman. You incidentally are irrelevant with all that bull sincve the angles he calculated were not sweep but the angle of the shock tubes (look it up, fanboy). Cut and paste also does not show that you even understood what I said, which is that the leading edge angle of the Rafael was NOT INVOLVED with any low observable featire design but was actually a designer compromise for angle of attack (lift versus drag) in the mainly turn oriented energy regime, the French designers used for their choices in designing that bomb truck aqs an "agile' dogfighter with the underpowered engine they expected SNECMA to deliver.. That was your lie LO or reduced RCS lie, that I wanted to shoot down. As for Dwightlooi's numbers? He acknowledges that it was a simplified case, and then he shows why he used those analytical tools. If you want to read what he actuallt said, its here.

Source.

" target="_blank">link

Nice bluff by the way, Wingman (fanboy). When you grow up I might actually be able to teach you how to tell the truth!

Herald

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Dwightlooi. 7/29/2009 7:18:01 AM

Source is here..

Quote Reply

Herald12345 Physics is physics 7/29/2009 7:41:02 AM

The data link doesn't tell you which way the signal goes or what it is, AMATEUR.

Of course, it must be some other secret undocumented data link on the AIM-120A/B...

No its not. Its a radio flare. You could see that from the position alone if you knew .what you discussed.

Wrong again. The radio flare is a position and ID aid. It frees a tracking channel up for the radar. You don't know this?

Someone more superficial in his understanding of the way things actually work BA I would fire immediately out of our shop.

The ones to which you bring the cans you've collected all day long?

Ah the classic response of the FANBOY.

Just how does the THALES StIrling engine work, again?

IT USES A WORKING LIQUID TO GAS CYCLE.

Yes, a CLOSED cycle.

Not what I said. I said it didn't work because it was a heat sink undersized to the heat birden, and that it was never fixed. You don't read very well.

Well, it's correct that this will eventually happen, after a few thousand hours of running...

Actually a mechanical fail (reservoir crack) will destroy a Stirling instantaneously, and with the quality of THALES engineering?

What will be the next excuse? I realize you're never going to admit you were mistaken but it's getting boring real fast.

I realize that you don't know what you discuss. and yes you are real boring.

One of these days I will explain a Herald TRAP to you.

If it's like a honey trap but with you instead, I'm afraid I don't swing that way. But I'm flattered by the offer.

Again with the fanboyism.

ONly a frenchmen would come to the conclusion that when both a/c state the MIPS, of course all the rest are scueiing the numbers and only the french and their rafail are being accurate.

That would be "Rafale" and "skewing".

Why do you think you experimental version has the xtra TWO applehead?

NOT because the rafail has MORE then enough power as you claim. Everyone knows it is beyond straining its limits to keep up as it is.

Everyone being you and...?

Raytheon.

Physics based on the size of radars. The Hornet's is considerably LARGER and is an AESA not a mechanically scanned array. It also doesn't have the sidelobe issues..

Nice to see I have you pegged as well, as part of the imported BW brigade.

Any more of you out there?

Herald

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/29/2009 7:42:51 AM

Source is here..

Well; try DRYDEN and Critical Mach for a change.

You visibly FAIL to understand BOTH, and BTW i posted links to the source your pal Dwight should read a LOT more, i.e. DRYDEN/NASA = on Mach line and Crital Mach.

When one doesn't understand the subject, one abstends to post on it and btw, on F-16.com, Dwight Looi have made hiself a deserved reputation of a true fantasist, ask L-M Raptor what he thinks of him...

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/29/2009 8:12:43 AM

Quote: You incidentally are irrelevant with all that bull sincve the angles he calculated were not sweep but the angle of the shock tubes (look it up, fanboy).

WRONG: He done BOTH and his calculation of the F-22 and F-35 Sweep angles are VISIBLY WRONG.

I understand you are from the SAME school, i, myself am mor from that of L-M Raptor, so we know who the fanboys are...

Quote: but was actually a designer compromise for angle of attack (lift versus drag)

Not to say it was solely designed for L.O it still is a far better abgle for radar return than a 35*.

As for your fanboy explainations on aerodynamics let me correct you here.

Angle of attack have little to do with this, what the designers were looking for was a specific Critical Mach in view for optimisation of its maneuvrability within a defined part of its flight envelop.

You and Dwight Looi are FAR from being advanced enough on the subject to comprehend the principle of drag, let alone transonic and supersonic, and it SHOWS.

About Rafale aerodynamic requierements:

The previous experience with Mirage 2000 showed that the sweep angle and aspect ratios were giving maximum turning performances at a Mach which was considered too high for the percentage of engagement in turning fight.

Aspect ratio was increased from 2.0 to 2.2 and sweep angle from 58* to 48*, this moved the maximum turning performances to a lower Mach trhan that of the Mirage 2000, looking for Mach 1.6/1.6 where 90% of turning fight takes place rather than 2.0/2.2.

Quote: in the mainly turn oriented energy regime,

Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing"...

Quote: the French designers used for their choices in designing that bomb truck aqs an "agile' dogfighter with the underpowered engine they expected SNECMA to deliver..

Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing" but i SURE can flame...

Quote: That was your lie LO or reduced RCS lie, that I wanted to shoot down.

EM L.O obbeys to physics, physics says the best angle for low reflectivity is the closest to 45*, NOT that of F/A-18 NOT that of F-35 but that of Rafale = FACT.

Quote: As for Dwightlooi's numbers? He acknowledges that it was a simplified case, and then he shows why he used those analytical tools. If you want to read what he actuallt said, its here.

He should aknowledge that he still CANT grab the most elementary basics and get it all wrong trying to write way above his knowledge base, and so should you, taking him as a reference is the worst you could do while trying to make your case...

Every time he posts, he got his nose bloodied by the first airman available in any forum, one canot INVENT aerodynamics, they exist and when doesn't know them one should LEARN.

Quote: Nice bluff by the way, Wingman (fanboy). When you grow up I might actually be able to teach you how to tell the truth!

Please give yourself a favour, try to learn to distinguish between a fanboys like Dwight, yourself, your pal 123456, and someone who knows what they are writing about.

This way you might give yourself a chance to learn and graduate from flamer to genuine aviation enthusiast, for the time being it is pretty obvious that you guys have absolutly NO clue...

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

	News As History - November 25, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us