Rafale F3 leading Brazilian F-X race on the promise of extensive tech transfer over Super Hornet

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 NEXT

Phaid 9/14/2009 8:53:59 AM

Ha Ha Ha, what the hell?

French tech transfer is for KC-390, not Rafale!!! < link >

"A key issue to securing the deal in Brazil is technology transfer,
and France has chosen to provide that by aiding the development of the
KC-390 twin-turbofan tanker/transport. Paris also indicated it may buy
12 of the aircraft.

Brazil?s decision to allow the technology transfer to take place not
on the core fighter program but on an unrelated project was a surprise,
says an official at one of the other bidding companies. It also could
upset Washington, which struggled to satisfy Brazil?s extensive demands
for technology transfer and tried to devise an alternate approach."

Yeah. I like this bit:

"Embraer launched the KC-390 this year and is still working on system requirements with the Brazilian air force, although it is making progress toward freezing the basic design, a company official says.

The aircraft maker also has started reaching out to potential suppliers, including those for the 27,000-lb.-thrust powerplants. The KC-390 is to carry 19 metric tons of payload and have a ferry range of around 3,300 naut. mi."

Translated, the KC-390 is a completely paper airplane and they want France to fund the design.

Which makes sense really, because all those claims of "exclusive marketing of the Rafale" are so much hot air anyway. There is no "market" for the Rafale in South or Central America, so "exclusive rights" is bogus to begin with. The real money maker for Brazil would be the KC-390, for which there is a much larger potential market.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 9/14/2009 10:10:43 AM

Rufus :

""The Super Hornet is a significantly more capable aircraft with a significantly lower price.""

I disagree strongly on both points . The maintenance cost for a Rafale fleet is lower than for a SH fleet and after few years , the Dassault fighter represente a cheaper deal .

Then , it is not because the Rafale doesn 't have its Damoclès pod integrated for the reasons myself an others have already explaind hundred times , that the fighter is less capable . The Rafale F3 is superior in A2A (both BVR and WVR) and its survivability is better in any foreseen mission .

Rufus , you can also stop the insults . You have the write to post BS but stay correct .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Aussie Diggermark 2 9/14/2009 10:19:34 AM

You're not sure? Why not? Rafail doesn't have a working targetting pod TODAY.

If we move past the use of the word "rafail" that nevertheless indicates the poster limited mental abilities, we can see here a classic example of someone unable to grasp the simple notion that an innanimate object capabilities is conditioned by its users. In this case, the poster should explain why the AdA (sole user of the Rafale so far) should have integrated its previous generation laser designation pod only to spend the time & money a couple of years later to integrate the new pods when it was much easier (and cheaper) to use its plentiful older platforms (Mirage 2000 & Super Etendard) for target designation roles.

(one should also note that the Damocles pod has been integrated to Dassault test planes for a long time, the Swiss flight trials already included the pod last year)

AS for AASM, yeah, this is a special weapon alright. A 125kg warhead with GPS/INS guidance only.

Let's analyze this statement. First the poster seems to ignore that AASM kits can be used on 125, 250 and 500kg bomb bodies. He also seems to ignore that AASM kits can include and IR guidance nose sensor (a laser one will be tested in 2010). Finally he manages to miss the most obvious part of the AASM, its rocket booster. One could conclude that the poster does not know what he's talking about.

No equivalent within US inventory?

Indeed, the US does not have a "cheap" smart bomb with a release eveloppe close to the AASM (e.g. a Rafale can fire 6 AASM at any target within a 15km/180° cone while hugging the ground, or at targets beyond 50km from higher up).

Of course the US doesn't need such weapon as it has the platforms to deliver JDAM from altitude unchallenged (B-2 and F-22 or even more conventionnal fighters with lots of jamming support). Smaller air forces on the other hand may be interested by such a weapon and its higher flexibility.

which is repeatedly demonstrated by FACT that French forces are dropping Paveway LGB's over Afghanistan, rather than AASM.

Actually, they've dropped AASMs too. But as it's 3x more expensive than a Paveway kit, it was mainly done for commercial purposes ("combat-proven" label).

Let's analyse this post then shall we?

1. Includes frequent use of ad hominem attacks, presumably due to little to no ability to continue discussions in a meaningful manner.

2. Includes mistruths about a weapon system obviously dear to his heart.

It is NOT true that the AASM can be used operationally on bomb bodies OTHER than 250kg bodies at present. What "might" happen in the future is that the kit is adapted for other bomb bodies including the 125kg variant which is still undergoing qualification. I will take Sagem's word on this matter, rather than yours I think...

It is the case that the laser guided version MIGHT exist. At some point. Just like the F4 variant of the Rafail or an AESA radar. Or a fully operational Spectra EW suite. Or, whatever other "pie in the sky" that you might like to pretend exists right now, but is in fact, when you look at the capability that CAN be used right now, is in fact merely "in development".

Just like the Damocles pod itself really. Integrated on test aircraft you say? Wow. Has it achieved IOC with the French Air Force yet? I saw today that Sagem will be rather extensively upgrading the pod. Here's the announcement in fact, just add a w:

ww.defense-aerospace.com/articles-view/release/3/108037/france-orders-new-pod%2C-helo-weapon-stations.html

Interesting that as part of a "recovery" plan they feel the need to upgrade a pod that hasn't achieved IOC with it's primary user in it's existing state, but perhaps that's my "limited" mental faculties leading me astray...

AS for the idea of wanting to employ air weapons at low altitudes, I would direct you to Tornado pilots in GW1 as to what sort of an idea that is under the current circumstances and WHY people, the FuAF on operations included, tend to drop their weapons from medium or high altitudes...

But yeah, I suppose there are plenty of "smaller nations" that wish to fly their limited fighter fleets into trash fire altitude levels, just like there is PLENTY of operational capability currently inherent in these French "wonder weapons" we keep hearing so much (rubbish) about...

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 9/14/2009 11:37:55 AM

Aussie Digger :

""It is NOT true that the AASM can be used operationally on bomb bodies OTHER than 250kg bodies at present.""

That 's correct , for now .

""What "might" happen in the future is that the kit is adapted for other bomb bodies including the 125kg variant which is still undergoing qualification.""

It will happen for the 125kg and the 500kg version . Different versions of the kits will also be available :

""It is the case that the laser guided version MIGHT exist. At some point. Just like the F4 variant of the Rafail or an AESA radar. Or a fully operational Spectra EW suite.""

First , it is Rafale and not rafail (?) . I do not call the F-22 the rapetor (?) .

I expect the FAF/MN to buy the laser guided version in 2012 , two years after the operational implementation of the Damoclès pod . To get it before that doesn 't make sense . Also , you can 't cay that an AESA RBE2 "might" exist one day , the radar is actually fitted as as speak on existing aircraft . Also , what do you bloody mean by "fully operational" Spectra suite ???

Spectra F1 was fully operational on Rafale F1s , same for the F2 version and now same for the actual F3 version . Furthermore , a plug & play high tech ECM/ECCM suite should always been kept up to date (library databank , 3D map mapping , etc) . Where is your problem ?

Are you simply jealous because your Hornets don 't even have half of something like Spectra Aussie Digger ?

""AS for the idea of wanting to employ air weapons at low altitudes, I would direct you to Tornado pilots in GW1""

The RAF Tornado Pilots during GW1 were absolutly amazing (to start with) but they did not have the weapon for the task , as simple as that . They had to fly over the target to drop their stuff (highly dangerous) . If they could have fired their weapons 15 to 20km away while keeping a low profile at low altitude (AASM) , they would have performed even better than they did with probably no casualties . Your point is irrelevant and comes from the past , GW1 was 18 years ago .

""But yeah, I suppose there are plenty of "smaller nations" that wish to fly their limited fighter fleets into trash fire altitude levels""

Yes there are and they are right to do so . Look back at how NATO flew over Serbia in the Balkans , first we flew at medium altitude but the Serb 's Air Defense pushed us back higher were we also lost few planes including a F-117 . Then , we went "belly on the ground" and our strikers found their targets and destroyed most of the Serb stuff they found .

It all depends on the terrain under you . As an exemple , the AASM is absolutly perfect for A-Stan and his chaotic aspect .

""just like there is PLENTY of operational capability currently inherent in these French "wonder weapons" we keep hearing so much (rubbish) about... ""

Maybe you are just too biased to accept the facts ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Rufus 9/14/2009 1:55:11 PM

"The Super Hornet is a significantly more capable aircraft with a significantly lower price.

Hard to see what one plane can do that the other can't (and vice versa). Except for specific weapon integrations."

Hard to see? Only if you are burying your head in the sand...

The SH is fully operational with an AESA radar that is longer ranged(larger aperture, more modules and more advanced MMICs), more sophisticated(a true blank slate AESA design, not a first-generation AESA antenna upgrade for an older back-end), than the AESA scheduled to become operational on the Rafale in the 2013 time frame. Not only that, but the SH's AESA is capable of EW and communications functions that the Rafale's AESA will not have.

The SH has a newer, more advanced, and more capable self protection jammer and EW system than the Rafale including a towed decoy.

The SH is fully operational with a longer ranged and more advanced BVR missile, which combined with its superior radar, and EW systems gives it a large advantage over the Rafale in BVR combat.

The SH is fully operational with a helmet mounted sight, which combined with the AIM-9x and its already exceptional maneuverability gives it a large advantage over the Rafale in WVR combat.

The SH is fully operational with a state-of-the-art targeting pod that has already seen extensive use in combat while the Rafale continues to wait for its targeting pod.

The SH is fully operational with a whole range of air-to-ground munitions while the Rafale is currently capable of employing only a handful of guided munitions, only a couple of which it can employ without another aircraft on hand to locate and designate the target for it.

The SH is currently in full rate production and has been for years while the Rafale is being produced at the minimum possible level, less than a plane a month, driving up costs and defects. Not only that, but France is trying to find ways to reduce their Rafale procurement rate, not increase it.

These are not trivial issues...

Quote Reply

Rufus 9/14/2009 2:35:25 PM

"Your analysis seems to completely miss the French point of view. Let's put it bluntly, ever since the start of the F-16 program the US has been ruthlessly pushing other Western combat fighters teams out of the market, using both political and commercial pressure to snatch every potential deal."

Ruthlessly pushing other Western combat fighter teams out of the market using both political and commercial pressure to snatch every potential deal?

More like... with the F-16 and other jets offering a level of performance at a price no competitor could match the US has seen many of its former competitors go out of business. Lockheed is making money on those jets, it isn't out there giving them away as part of some big bad plan.

You try to make it sound like there is something underhanded about building a better product than your competitors and thus selling far more of them. It is true that US companies benefit from the huge amounts of money the US itself spends on its programs, but at the end of the day the F-16 has sold like crazy because it is an amazingly effective plane.

"The F-35 program is a perfect demonstration of this strategy, it managed to lure small (and not so small) countries into locking themselves with a US design by using a carrot & stick approach; at the same time killing most export prospects for SAAB, Dassault or Eurofighter. The only possible long term result of this strategy is for European aeronautic inductries to become second-tier suppliers to US firms, losing all guenuine design capabilities."

Again, there is nothing nefarious about the F-35 program. Its competitors hate it because they can not hope to compete with it, but it is a great deal for its participants. Only a handful of countries in the world today can dream of building a first-rate fighter domestically, for everyone else their best bet is to get on board with a program like the F-35 that will provide valuable high-tech work for their companies while providing them with a far more capable aircraft than they could have hoped to get any other way. A smaller piece of a very very big pie can still be a lot of pie...and the F-35 is some very tasty pie.

"Faced with the prospect of disappearing or becoming simple subcontractors, a firm like Dassault seems to have decided for a third option, go down in flame by sharing most of its know-how to emerging new actors. The end result may well be a pyrrhic victory for the US."

The simple fact is that Dassault screwed up badly. It had an opportunity to collaborate with other European states but instead decided to go it alone with the Rafale. At the very least they might have tried to recruit some second tier states to participate while they still had the chance but they didn't do that either and ended up biting off more than they could chew. France just isn't willing/able to fund the Rafale sufficiently for it to be competitive. It needs to at least double its production rate to achieve any kind of economy of scale, and it needs a raft of new features that France doesn't seem to be willing to pay for.

If France does end up transferring everything it knows about the Rafale to Brazil or some other state it will be no big concern to the US. It would take many years for the recipient of that information to assimilate it and the Rafale is not competitive with 5th generation aircraft anyways.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 9/14/2009 3:39:34 PM

One more time , Rufus is doing his usual propaganda stuff mixed with gross innacuracies and blatant lies .

First , it is up to him to look down on French AESA technology . French tech on Radar have always been very good and we can design a new radar extremely well at the first try as we did many times before . The AESA RBE2 has nothing to be ashamed of compare to the APG-79 . It might have a slightly lower range (30km less) but its fonctions and integration is as good . Unlike what Rufus is saying , the MMICs are of the same generation and I might even say that the inert material (non-conductive) of the European MMICs is better , I let you look into it by yourselves .

Then :

""Not only that, but the SH's AESA is capable of EW and communications functions that the Rafale's AESA will not have.""

Completly untrue as I speak . Some work has been done on the F-22/F-35 's radars but that ' s it . The technology can probably be implemented on the -79 but nothing has been done .

""The SH has a newer, more advanced, and more capable self protection jammer and EW system than the Rafale including a towed decoy.""

That is completly untrue . When the SH will be capable to jam two or more different sources independently of each others (range , frequencies , precision) at the same time with onboard AESA jammers , you 'll let me know .

The towed decoys are the reason why the newest Mica has been made , there is a clever turn around trick .

""The SH is fully operational with a longer ranged and more advanced BVR missile""

Usual US propaganda who can 't stand scrutiny . One has to look at the claimed stuff and at the real operational kill ratio of the AMRAAM (less than 10%) . Enough said . Then , don 't come to me talking about the end game ...

""The SH is fully operational with a helmet mounted sight, which combined with the AIM-9x and its already exceptional maneuverability gives it a large advantage over the Rafale in WVR combat.""

Totally untrue again . The truth is that the SH will be dead before it enters REAL visual contact (it doesn 't know how to jam the Mica EM and the Mica IR which both have a longer range than any AIM-9X . Then , the French Rafale pilots themselves said that they could defeat HMS equipped fighters with the right tactics and their superior manoevrability ...

""The SH is fully operational with a whole range of air-to-ground munitions while the Rafale is currently capable of employing only a handful of guided munitions, only a couple of which it can employ without another aircraft on hand to locate and designate the target for it.""

This is again grossly exagerated to try to make a point . As it stands (without the Damoclès pod) , the Rafale F3 can do more or less whatever you ask it to do , Deep strike , CAS , CAPs , SEAD , mini-AWAC , buddy-buddy refueling , naval strike , interception , ELINT .

Then , if we try to compare their flying characteristics , the Rafale wins hands down in all regimes and attitudes . The Rafale also has 14 hardpoints against 11 for the SH and can take 9.5 tons of military weapons .

Rufus , I think it is YOU should try to make a case for the SH and not me for the Rafale .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 9/14/2009 3:52:25 PM

Rufus , your last post is total BS !

I don 't even want to follow you on such non sense ground ...

I mean , what is this :

""It had (Dassault) an opportunity to collaborate with other European states but instead decided to go it alone with the Rafale.""

And we did fu**ing well , look where is and what is the Eurofighter Typhoon right now !!! Operational speaking , its users are still wandering if they are ready to go over A-Stan ! Rafale has been there for yeaaaars . The Typhoon tranche 2 is still in the making ...

Pfff , you are so biased that some might think that you are trolling .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Kovy 9/14/2009 4:21:01 PM

the damocles is operational in the french navy SEM since 2001

it is also operational on UAE Mirage 2000-9, malaysian SU-30, and saudi Tornado

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 9/14/2009 4:23:36 PM

I think I can sum up this thread:

Me: "I think the Rafale's a great airplane, and it'll become greater once the bugs are worked out, which will likely be soon. Good for Brazil."

Bluewings: "WHAT? The Rafale is great NOW! It's the greatest airplane ever because it is FRENCH! It can tear apart everything that flies, turn invisible, and fly up its own asshole because it...it CAN!"

Assorted Other Posters: "The Rafale's okay, but it's not as combat proven or as good as the Super Hornet."

Bluewings: "AMERICAN PROPAGANDA! The Super Hornet SUCKS! It's not FRENCH!"

Rufus: "Here's a list, well supported by evidence, why the Super Hornet right now is a better aircraft than the Rafale."

Bluewings: "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING AMERICAN PROPAGANDA!" *begins singing the Marseillaise*

I'm being childish, I admit, but I'm dealing with a childish person here...

Quote Reply

Rufus 9/14/2009 4:51:17 PM

"First , it is up to him to look down on French AESA technology . French tech on Radar have always been very good and we can design a new radar extremely well at the first try as we did many times before ."

The fact is that AESA radars are extremely challenging to build and this is France's first attempt. The AESA being developed for the Rafale does not even attempt to do what the most modern US AESAs do. It is an upgrade to an older back-end, not unlike the first AESA's the US put in some of its F-15s.

"The AESA RBE2 has nothing to be ashamed of compare to the APG-79 . It might have a slightly lower range (30km less) but its fonctions and integration is as good ."

The AESA RBE-2 is nothing to be ashamed of but it absolutely does not include the "fonctions" of the APG-79. (and its range is a heck of a lot more than "slightly" less.) The APG-79 is a larger, more sophisticated, and far more powerful radar than that which the Rafale may eventually receive in another few years.

"Unlike what Rufus is saying , the MMICs are of the same generation and I might even say that the inert material (non-conductive) of the European MMICs is better , I let you look into it by yourselves ."

LOL, thanks truck driver. As usual your opinion on matters of technology is completely useless, but nonetheless amusing. France has had continual problems obtaining suitable MMICs since the beginning of its development effort when it was forced to use US MMICs to construct its first functioning prototypes. While France can now obtain acceptable MMICs these are still not comparable to those going into the latest US radars.

To top it all off, the APG-79 is operational TODAY while the Rafale is as always waiting for an upcoming feature...

""Not only that, but the SH's AESA is capable of EW and communications functions that the Rafale's AESA will not have.""

Completly untrue as I speak . Some work has been done on the F-22/F-35 's radars but that ' s it . The technology can probably be implemented on the -79 but nothing has been done .

As usual bluewings your ignorance is simply embarrassing. What compels you to try to talk about things you clearly know nothing about is a mystery to me...

h*tp://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_generic.jsp?channel=awst&id=news/aw022607p2.xml

The newest version of the Boeing Super Hornet, equipped with an advanced, Raytheon-built APG-79 active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, can spot small targets--even stealthy cruise missiles--at ranges great enough to allow an effective defense. Navy officials are loath to talk with any detail about the metrics of electronic attacks and admit only to "extremely significant tactical ranges" for EA effects against air-to-air and surface-to-air radars, Gaddis says. However, other Pentagon and aerospace industry officials say that while air-to-air missiles are struggling to reach the 60-100-mi.-range mark, some sophisticated electronic attack effects can reach well beyond that.

"That's at least 100 mi.," says a long-time Pentagon radar specialist. "There are different forms of electronic attack, and they include putting false targets or altered ranges, speeds and positions of real targets into the enemy's radars. Those are effects that require less power than jamming and therefore are effective at longer ranges."

An industry official with insight into AESA development says that the ability to affect a foe is limited by the enemy radar's range because the signal has to be captured, manipulated and returned. Therefore, long-range ground-based radars and even AWACS radars could be electronically attacked at ranges well over 100 mi. For air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles, the techniques would be the same but the effective ranges would be shorter.

The U.S. Navy's first AESA-equipped squadron has been developing combat procedures as the unit works up to its first deployment. VFA-213, flying all two-seat F/A-18F models, already has been through training cycles at NAS Fallon, Calif.'s "Strike U."

The Navy's concept of operations is to use combinations of EA-18 Growler electronic attack and the advanced Block 2 F/A-18E/F strike aircraft to offer self-protection, almost instantaneous location and identification of targets, and a variety of forms of electronic and conventional missile attack. That entity will be part of the advanced air wing in the Carrier Strike Group of 2024.

Soooo.... you think the technology can "probably be implemented" but that "nothing has been done" huh?

I guess that is why people don't usually ask truck drivers for their opinion on RADARs then isn't it? The above article is from early 2007.... this is old news at this point and even a fanboy should know better than you seem to.

""The SH has a newer, more advanced, and more capable self protection jammer and EW system than the Rafale including a towed decoy.""

The towed decoys are the reason why the newest Mica has been made , there is a clever turn around trick .

LOL, pooor fanboy... did I hurt your feelings? Does it upset you to read that maybe your dream plane isn't the best at everything? Spectra is a decent EW system, but it is neither the newest nor the most capable system available and its lack of crucial features such as a towed decoy are major drawbacks.

The SH has a bag of tricks the Rafale just doesn't: Incredibly high powered jamming with its AESA allowing it to degrade radars at extreme ranges, a capability previously limited only to standoff jamming platforms... a state-of-the-art EW system capable of handling the software driven LPI signals that Spectra can not... and a towed decoy allowing it to attack missile seekers without the risk of being targeted by a HOJ mode...

""The SH is fully operational with a longer ranged and more advanced BVR missile""

Hilarious bluewings.... really. The AMRAAM has been employed by multiple countries in multiple engagements, with excellent results. Is it any wonder it is by far the best selling missile of its type in the world today?

I would suggest we compare it with the MICA but as usual your favorite (ie French) missile has only achieved a handful of sales to mostly obscure forces and has no operational record to speak of.

""The SH is fully operational with a helmet mounted sight, which combined with the AIM-9x and its already exceptional maneuverability gives it a large advantage over the Rafale in WVR combat.""

Ah yes, we have already had the truck driver's theories on radars and electronic warfare systems, why not add in his theories on air combat?

The fact is that in long range engagements the Rafale is out ranged and out smarted by the SH's superior missiles, radars and electronic warfare equipment.

In close range engagements... if one took place...the SH retains the advantage with its helmet mounted sight.

The whole world knows this by now bluewings, you are the only one left that can't bring yourself to admit it because your favorite (ie French) plane does not have this key feature. F-16, F-15, F-18, SH, Eurofighter, Mig-29, Su-27, Su-30, Gripen, etc etc etc All of these aircraft have helmet mounted sights. The Rafale doesn't... and it isn't because the Rafale has magic powers as you seem to believe. The truth is simpler, France just doesn't have the money to develop one...

LMAO

"Deep strike" - Provided you don't want to use anything other than a 250kg rocket boosted GPS guided bomb or a cruise missile.

"CAS" - Provided you don't want to use anything other than a 250kg rocket boosted GPS guided bomb or a cruise missile.

"SEAD" - Provided you don't want to use anything other than a 250kg rocket boosted GPS guided bomb or a cruise missile.

"Mini-AWACs"- WTF? LOL The Rafale's inadequate radar is one of its largest weaknesses yet you think it is cut out to be a "mini-AWACs!?"

etc etc

The fact is that the Rafale has a single guided bomb in a single size available today, an overpriced one at that. The SH has a huge range of weapons in all classes and sizes with all available seeker types. The SH can do anything needed today. Once again the Rafale is still waiting for features the SH had years ago.

"Then , if we try to compare their flying characteristics , the Rafale wins hands down in all regimes and attitudes ."

Of course not, once again if you had any actual knowledge you would know that this is a silly thing to even attempt to assert and even if it were true, it wouldn't matter... with helmet mounted sights and HOBs missiles you are never going to be able to gain a meaningful advantage over another 4th generation fighter with marginally improved maneuverability. (That applies to any comparison of 4.5 generation fighters with the exception of something like a Mig-31...)

Quote Reply

Rufus 9/14/2009 4:54:26 PM

"I'm being childish, I admit, but I'm dealing with a childish person here..."

A good summary ... I don't know why I waste my time with him.

If France put a biplane back into production he would be on here singing its praises and making up lies about it as well...

Quote Reply

french stratege 9/14/2009 6:49:06 PM

Rufus

The fact is that AESA radars are extremely challenging to build and this is France's first attempt.

No first French electronic scan radar was build in 1970 and it was the C Band Louxor radar with PIN diods

ht*p://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=2005546

Several low wave AESA radar were done in eighties and nineties.

X band radar for fighters needs low cost affordable module and we do not achieve a proper module price before 2007

However we use AESA antenna for jammer like in Spectra for years (they need less modules with less power output)

The AESA being developed for the Rafale does not even attempt to do what the most modern US AESAs do. It is an upgrade to an older back-end, not unlike the first AESA's the US put in some of its F-15s.

As you don't know anything in radars, you don't understand that digital signal treatment and antenna management are separate physically.

The back end is brand new for REB2 for current Rafale

"The AESA RBE2 has nothing to be ashamed of compare to the APG-79 . It might have a slightly lower range (30km less) but its fonctions and integration is as good ."

To be proven.RBE 2 is given for 150 km for a sqm

Yes since ours were not ready for the same generation

Me I'm not a truck driver but closer to an MIT Phd

While France can now obtain acceptable MMICs these are still not comparable to those going into the latest US radars.

Hum....It is probably why Thales was contacted to be second source for US radar manufacturers since US have production probleme for quantity for F35

To top it all off, the APG-79 is operational TODAY while the Rafale is as always waiting for an upcoming feature...

True since US have a 3 to 4 years lead.

However once we fill the gap, US enjoy no big advanatge until the next generation.

Etc.

Rufus, you are at the same level than BW so you should not be too arrogant.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 9/14/2009 6:54:41 PM

Gentlemen , many French posters left SP because of your very attitude : you are biaised to the highest imaginable degree .

Myself , I stay here because your posts are just a pity and it is so easy to make fun of it .

Sentinel , your post was indeed childish and doesn 't reflect at all my beliefs .

Rufus , your post is the usual internet US fan bla-bla . I post numbers , studies and pictures , you , you talk .

Fortunatly , most good posters here on SP don 't get involved because they have better things to do than bash what many wordwide airforce professionals see as the most efficient 4.5 generation fighter-striker .

There are other and far more profesional sites around than SP and some should check what they say . The most critical site about the Rafale is probably AirDefense.net (a French site) and is also the best site to check if you want to know everyhting about the Rafale . There , I can tell you that the jet is going through surgery and autopsy every day . The difference with Strategypage lies in the fact that some very clever and impartial people , as well as foreigners , talk about facts and facts only .

Here , less than 5% of you know the Rafale enough to be able to talk about it intelligently . Rufus is not in these 5% , not even close (Phaid is hundred times better than him) .

I would like these internet US fan to explain to me (I am sure they can 't) why the Rafale always trashed the SH in every evaluation the two aicrafts participated in . If they cannot even trust the foreign pilots and foreign air forces who flew the Rafale , they will certainly not trust me but I couldn 't care less . The SH has been dumpted first in almost every competion it did participate during the technical evaluation the past 8 years while the Rafale won them all and finished second overall for political reasons in 2 big markets and 1st in the latest one .

What these internet US fans should understand is as it stands , a Rafale F3 is seen by most if not all AirForces as the better and more capable platform when compared to any F-teen . When they will get that in their little mice brain , they will have made a step forward . Until then , I 'm going to keep playing the cat , chasing them around .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 9/14/2009 7:03:52 PM

FS :

""Rufus, you are at the same level than BW so you should not be too arrogant.""

C ' est vrai que t ' es un sacré connard toi . Je t 'avais plus ou moins pardonné les conneries que tu m 'a sortis il y a 2 ans mais la , tu me gonfles .

Cheers .

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 NEXT

	News As History - March 21, 2010
	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