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       8/28/2009 4:56:56 AM
What definition for fuze will be used?

An interesting question but if you start including all external devices in the fuzing chain as "fuze", you'll end up qualifying the inertial reference system in an ASMP nuclear missile as a "fuze" (as it tells the nuclear charge when to detonate).
 
Personally, I draw the line at the parts that are needed for the fuze to work in its most basic configuration.
 
the FBM21 didn't work at China Lake.
 
Source? As far as I know FBM 21 has not been tested outside France yet.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    You are ,mistaken as in all things.   8/28/2009 8:44:58 AM

What definition for fuze will be used?



An interesting question but if you start including all external devices in the fuzing chain as "fuze", you'll end up qualifying the inertial reference system in an ASMP nuclear missile as a "fuze" (as it tells the nuclear charge when to detonate).

 

Personally, I draw the line at the parts that are needed for the fuze to work in its most basic configuration.

 

the FBM21 didn't work at China Lake.
 

Source? As far as I know FBM 21 has not been tested outside France yet.


The GERMAN fuse had to certified for the Paveways (which it failed in testing) , and that means Raytheon had to try it out HERE. Try to keep up, kumquat.

Herald
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       9/1/2009 9:42:24 AM
The GERMAN fuse

So German it's called the Fusée de Bombe Modulaire...

The GERMAN fuse had to certified for the Paveways (which it failed in testing) , and that means Raytheon had to try it out HERE.
 
So you admit you can't provide a source.
 
You know, repeating the same lie a thousand times won't make it any truer or you any less of a liar.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    FJV provided tour source five pages ago.   9/1/2009 10:53:54 AM

The GERMAN fuse



So German it's called the Fusée de Bombe Modulaire...



The GERMAN fuse had to certified for the Paveways (which it failed in testing) , and that means Raytheon had to try it out HERE.

 

So you admit you can't provide a source.

 

You know, repeating the same lie a thousand times won't make it any truer or you any less of a liar.

Now quit wasting everyone's time.

Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Still a weird thread   9/1/2009 12:08:49 PM
Strange that no-one seems interested in why you would move the fuse from the tail position to the midway position or add a midway fuse to a bomb.
 
After all placing the fuse at the tail where it is as far away as possible from where the bomb will impact would be my first choice of where to put the fuse.  Keep the fuse as much as possible away from those huge stresses the bomb will experience during impact.
 
My hunch would be that the fuse got moved because of (standing) waves in the bomb's shell. Think of the bomb shell as a weird shaped church bell that gets struck really, really hard during impact. The "ringing" could cause accelleration sensors in the fuse to go haywire.
 
My hunch for having 2 fuses in different positions, because in some situations the midway postion is in a (standing) wave maximum and in some cases the tail position is (depending on frequency).
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    LEARNED SOMETHING.   9/1/2009 12:29:28 PM

Strange that no-one seems interested in why you would move the fuse from the tail position to the midway position or add a midway fuse to a bomb.

 

After all placing the fuse at the tail where it is as far away as possible from where the bomb will impact would be my first choice of where to put the fuse.  Keep the fuse as much as possible away from those huge stresses the bomb will experience during impact.


 

My hunch would be that the fuse got moved because of (standing) waves in the bomb's shell. Think of the bomb shell as a weird shaped church bell that gets struck really, really hard during impact. The "ringing" could cause accelleration sensors in the fuse to go haywire.


 

My hunch for having 2 fuses in different positions, because in some situations the midway postion is in a (standing) wave maximum and in some cases the tail position is (depending on frequency).


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought it was a transverse force in the shockwave pro0blem, bit that makes more sense.
 
 
And for the liar, BA......
============================================
 
 

RAF Readies Paveway Precision Weapon for Service

By andrew chuter
Published: 31 Jul 14:58 EDT (18:58 GMT)
Print  Print  |  Print  Email

LONDON - Britain's Royal Air Force (RAF) is almost ready to field its latest air-to-surface weapon following completion of operational evaluation trials July 22 at the U.S. Navy's China Lake air warfare center in California.

The Paveway IV could see action on the Harrier in Afghanistan.

The Ministry of Defence expects to get Raytheon System's Paveway 4 precision-guided weapon into service later this year after trials dropping 14 bombs from a RAF Harrier GR9 completed the test program, and demonstrated that the program's fuse problems had been overcome.

Related Topics

The weapon could "potentially" be deployed on the Harrier in Afghanistan before the aircraft type is replaced on the front line by Tornado GR4 strike aircraft in spring 2009, according to MoD project leader Capt. Howard Holdsworth.

Within the next two months, "several hundred" Paveway 4s will have been delivered to the MoD, Holdsworth said.

To date, the Harrier is the only strike aircraft in the RAF inventory cleared to operate with the weapon. Integration is currently under way on the Tornado GR4, Typhoon and Joint Strike Fighter.

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.

Paveway 4 uses a 500-pound Mk82-type warhead with dual-mode laser and GPS guidance. The Aurora fuse is fully programmable with height-of-burst, post-impact and delay arming options.

Raytheon System's precision systems director, Tobin Touchstone, said the company is already looking at growth options for the weapon and has started a dialogue with BAE Systems over the possibility of integrating Paveway 4 on its Mantis long-endurance UAV, unveiled at the Farnborough International Airshow earlier this month.

Mantis is a technology demonstrator program initially aimed at investigating intelligence, surveillance, target-acquisition and reconnaissance capabilities, but later phases of the project could include arming the platform.

Touchstone said Raytheon was already investing in future growth options, including work on potential integration on UAVs. He reckons the smart fuse would make Paveway 4 ideal for launch from a slow-moving platform.

None of the officials would comment on whether the weapon could find its way onto RAF Reaper UAVs currently operating over Afghanistan. The weapons load on Reaper includes the enhanced Paveway 2, an earlier and larger member of the Paveway family operated by the British.

=========================================

Where was that again? CHINA LAKE. We want our bombs to explode.


Thank you very much again for that observation about shock waves, FJV .
 
Herald
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV       9/1/2009 3:11:58 PM
I have to restate though that it is only a hunch.
 
This means that I have to leave the possibility open for someone with a demonstrable better reason for adding an extra midway fuse to change my mind.

After all they don't include me on the list of recieving Paveway design documents.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       9/3/2009 3:04:28 AM
 FJV provided tour source five pages ago
 
For heaven's sake, I've already pointed that this is an article about the AURORA fuze, a UK program led by Thales Missile Electronics which has nada, zero, niets, nothing to do with the FBM, a French program led by Thales Munitronics & Microtechnics.
 
 
Strange that no-one seems interested in why you would move the fuse from the tail position to the midway position or add a midway fuse to a bomb.
 
Maybe because there simply is no midway fuze (fuze as "explosive detonator") and Herald is making things up?
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345       9/3/2009 3:21:22 AM
 
 
Who is making things up?
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       9/4/2009 2:39:41 AM
"What does the Aurora do? And what FUNCTION was tested in that article again?"
 
"For comparison purposes MAFIS."
 
 [sigh] Once again you're tackling an area you have near to zero knowledge, make some wild interpretation based on some kind of fundamental misunderstanding of the technology involved. You then expects people to answer your "challenges", hoping to make fun of them if they don't provide the answer you expect.
 
Of course it's impossible for a normal person to provide such answers as he/she would have to:
1) be as fundamentally wrong as you about the matter involved
2) share your warped thought process in order to make sense of your vague, cryptic comments
 
And even if your bluff is called (which I have no intention of doing as discussing UK fuze programs is simply not germane to this discussion about French weapons and systems), you'll still be able to modify your position, moving from one item to the other; all the while being able to bury the people trying to understand what you  mean under a copious amount of insults and other verbal abuses because you've been "clever" enough to avoid making any specific claim in your posts.
 
(As everyone can see, this time we've got two large pdf linked and no mention of a specific page. The troll has learned his lesson and sharpened his skills.)
 

Who is making things up?
 
Obviously, the person who states that issues in a fuze designed in the UK means that another fuze designed in France does not work.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Times.....    9/4/2009 8:55:42 AM
The Aurora has been around for a while (about 9 years-so why test function?) . It doesn't involve any of the "secret" gibberish you tried to use to cover yourself  to prove that the fuse incorporates an unique  separation and orientation sensor as its chief claim to fame; or that it is NOT designed specifically for the hard target penetration as well as the air burst, surface burst function which is what the multifunction FMB-21 was/is designed and fails to do at least until recently.
 
Herald 
 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Blue Apple is correct, my hunches were wrong.   9/4/2009 5:06:04 PM
Maybe because there simply is no midway fuze (fuze as "explosive detonator") and Herald is making things up?
You are correct on the fuze part, and my hunches were wrong.
 
As for Herald, on a lot of topics he is absolutely "spot on", especially missiles seem to be his "thing". Of course anyone can make a wrong assumption occasionally.

The FZU-48 is a small generator (and arms the bomb?).
"https://www.atk.com/datasheet_PDFs/FZU48B.pdf"
 
The FZU-55 seems to do similar stuff. (Could not find a datasheet)
 
PS
Hope I didn't give you too much of a "hard time".
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

breaka       9/5/2009 6:04:00 AM
The FZU-48 and 55 are both ram air driven alternators that provide power to electric fuze and sensors.  The FZU-48 powers FMU-139s fuzes and DSU-33 prox sensors and allows the fore and aft fuze wells to transmit data to each other (i.e prox sensor can set off the tail fuze).  The FZU-55 does similar functions, but improves the power output for long flight and blanking conditions and is used for the FMU-152 & DSU-33.

They don't exactly arm the bomb, the provide electric power required by the fuze to arm after the set delay. 

If you go to link there is a few bullets about the changes for JDAM and a cut-out view of the bomb with the fuze arrangements.

Generally speaking, putting the fuze midbody would seem like a bad idea for frag pattern management and potential bomb body breakup issues, but that is speculation on my part without any empirical data to back it up.  
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       9/7/2009 4:52:21 AM
The Aurora has been around for a while (about 9 years)
 
Start of Aurora program: 2003...
 
(from your own link, might try reading what you're posting from time to time)
 
so why test function?
 
They tested the Paveway IV which wasn't in service back in mid-2007 and would include an Aurora fuze as the UK is the sole user of the weapon...
 
It doesn't involve any of the "secret" gibberish you tried to use to cover yourself  to...
 
Could you translate such sentence in plain English because it's quite hard to follow what you're actually saying. As I've never said anything about the Aurora program, it's hard to see how your little rant in on-topic.
 
the multifunction FMB-21 was/is designed and fails to do at least until recently.
And of course you can't provide a source for these supposed failures.
 
 
Of course anyone can make a wrong assumption occasionally.
 
As far as I can tell, whenever he talks about French weapons, systems and operations, he's mostly making things up. And given that the only two regular French posters on this board are notorious trolls, he seems to be able to push his agenda of trashing everything French without much opposition.
 
 
They don't exactly arm the bomb, the provide electric power required by the fuze to arm after the set delay. 
 
Actually, they do arm the bomb. Or at least provide one of the safety layers (i.e. if the lanyard and its pin is not pulled from the initiator, the bomb shouldn't be able to detonate). They also realy the arming command from the plane.
 
But there are of course many other layers (e.g. the fuze in the back itself has its own pin/lanyard that has to be pulled before the flight). 
 
Quote    Reply

FJV    Hmmmm....   9/7/2009 1:43:03 PM
As far as I can tell, whenever he talks about French weapons, systems and operations, he's mostly making things up. And given that the only two regular French posters on this board are notorious trolls, he seems to be able to push his agenda of trashing everything French without much opposition.
 
Could be, he seems to have a beef with some French weapons manufacturers, but is an admirer of Ariane Space. And some remarks he makes about French management culture is backed up by what I have read in other sources.
 
There is definately something holding him back from getting from "above average" to "being top notch".
 
 
 
 
 
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