THAT is why I know you are full of it.

 

Ah, another cryptic comment, the trademark of Herald.

 

What are we supposed to see?

 

(and in plain English without the usual typos, if possible).

well this was a fun thread, trolls have so much energy and dont let the facts get in the way of trying to wind people up

they dont seem to care that even the french wiki showes them up ...

[excuse the google translation]

 

"""The front-sector optronics (OSF) is a visual processing system comprising: 
     * A track Sagem Défense Sécurité infrared dual-band (3-5ìm and 8-12ìm) always able to target more than 100 km. It will be deleted because of its obsolescence in the transition to standard F3.
     * A television channel Thales able to identify a target, to detect weapons, etc. to more than 40-50 km. The TV sensor is coupled to a laser rangefinder weak and little discreet."""""

 

 

 

""""The French Navy prefers the F/A-18
In February 1987, President François Mitterrand announced the launch of a derivative aircraft operational Rafale The latter does not apparently Rafale M will arrive too late to replace its F-8 Crusader , he preferred to rent or purchase "shelf" of a thirty F / A 18 Hornets used that have worked on the U.S. carrier

In 1990, when the Gulf War, even François Mitterrand would have regretted this choice: "I acknowledge that I made a grave mistake. I should opt for the F - 18. Today, I would favor the purchase of United States, even if this would displease Mr. Dassault """""

 

english wiki

""""Initially the Rafale B was to be just a trainer, but Gulf War and Kosovo experience showed that a second crewmember is invaluable on strike and reconnaissance missions, and therefore more Rafale Bs were ordered, replacing some Rafale Cs. 60% of the aircraft will be two seaters. A similar decision was made by the Navy, who initially did not have a two-seat aircraft on order; the program nevertheless was stopped"""" 

english wiki

""""mid-2007, when the type should be fully operational as an omni-role fighter/fighter-bomber with MICA air-to-air missiles, SCALP EG cruise missiles, GPS-guided bombs, and laser-guided bombs (LGBs) (though the latter will be designated by other platforms or by ground based systems)."""""

 

 

sorry , i left out this bit of quote, this will add weight to the problems its having with its kit

eng wiki

"""In 2007, after a "crash program" enhancement some six Rafale were given the ability to drop laser-guided bombs, in view of engaging them in Afghanistan. Three of these aircraft belonging to the Air Force were deployed to Dushanbe in Tadjikistan, while the three others were Rafale Marine of the Navy on board the Charles De Gaulle.^[24] The first mission occurred on March 12, and the first GBU-12 was launched on March 28 in support of embattled Dutch troops in Southern Afghanistan, marking the operational début of the Rafale.^[25] However, they still have to rely on Mirage 2000Ds and Super Étendards carrying laser designation pods to illuminate their targets.^"""""

Figure it out, "expert". 

Not that you will be able after you took two days to concoct your last "answer".

Figure it out, "expert". 

 

I'm supposed to be the amateur, remember. So explain what the hell we're supposed to see in this pdf on page 15 or admit you were just trolling.

 

you took two days to concoct your last "answer".

I didn't know spending the week-end away from all computers to attend a wedding was a crime...

And its in your court now., Now you have to supply the proof. I'm tired of supplying  you an education. Its your turn to put up or be silent. I've already given you everything you  need.

 

Herald

 

Now you have to supply the proof.

 

 

It seems that he's talking about how there is a French fuse in the base of that bomb body (or at least is projected to be used as of the date of that briefing), and how that French fuse is (or will be) used  in GP, LGB (including Paveway II and Enhanced Paveway II from Raytheon), JDAM, and AASM bombs--according to pp. 14-17 of that briefing.

 

I would say that "base fuse location" is not exactly the terminology I would use.

 

There is also a little deception in the words "base fuse location" as it implies something and encourages and assumption which is incorrect.

 

However the terminology I would use would give the thing away.

 

As for Thales fuses I found this:

"http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3653598"

 

 

 

Hem, that's a good summary of my position. Except that the FBM 21 is now in service and replaces the mix of French Matra 905 and FEU 80, US FMU-139 and FMU-143.

 

His position has been the the French use the FMU-152 and FMU-159 fuzes, demonstrably false there is no trace of any export contract and neither references are in the general DGA component index (you'll notice that both FMU-139 & FMU-143 are there with the FBM21 in the "Fusées - Détonateurs categories).

 

He also seems to believe that page 15 of the pdf somehow indicates that this cannot be the case. But he won't tell us why.

 

As for Thales fuses I found this

Paveway 4 should have been in service last year, but the Thales Missile Electronics-developed all-electronic fuse suffered significant performance shortfalls during capability trials at China Lake in April 2007.

That led to a major redesign of the fuse along with changes to a large number of components, according to Phil Jones, the managing director of Thales Missile Electronics.

The cooperation between the MoD, Raytheon and Thales to overcome the problems in such a short time was a "remarkable achievement," Holdsworth said.

 

But then my guess is that most posters including this one are not really here to discuss technology.

 

They want to discuss the "cool" stuff the saw on TV. The unfortunate fact being that television programs give you the idea you understand something when in reality you don't. So you end up with discussions about technology which can only exist in fiction where the opposing force speaks Klingon.

I advise anyone pissed off by the last remark to try and get a computer working again by merely uttering the words "Computer reroute power supply" to get the point.

 

 

 

 

Herald is the one who first used the label "base fuse location," and because of that I referred to the fuse being in the base of the bomb body.  BA had nothing to do with that.  If this argument is now going to morph away from the point that it is a French-made fuse in their bombs, and shift the goalposts to being a lame-ass pissing match over which terminology is more correct: "tail" v. "base" v. "bomb" fuse, that would be PATHETIC.

 

The PROOF was presented, the fuse in use by France is made by a French company.  If someone wants to now present additional evidence that the proof isn't really proof after all, and the fuse in question is not the fuse that is used, or that the fuse in question is not really a French design (although that would not suffice to prove wrong what BA said), it would be completely incombant upon THAT person to now present HIS proof.  BA has done all he needs to do.  Saying, "It's in there, look harder," is LAME.  BA has already admitted he does not yet see whatever Herald is referring to.  Either Herald actually explains what he meant, or as far as I'm concerned for one, Herald has FAILED to rebut BA's proof.