NO SALE. Not even to states that buy Russian equipment.

 

For your benefit, poseur 2 that is called OCCAM's RAZOR.

 

I just slit your throat with it. 

 

Herald

Very poor post poseur3 .

Btw , France may sold 100 or more Rafales in 2009 and 2010 which I disagree with but it 's another story .

 

Cheers .

100 Rafale's in the midst of the worst economic downturn in 60 years?  Yeah right....IF they are sales I'll eat my hat...the sale and re-purchase of Mirage's in complex swap-backs or buys isn't really a sale is it?  Or if it is, the question is what does the French taxpayer get from it as compared to D'assault and French politicians?

 

And at .5 air frames a month that'll take what, 200 months to fill the order(s)?  Only about 15 years....

"First , I am not ignorant . "

 

lol

 

"In the past 6 years or so , I believe that I 've demonstrated quite a good knowledge of the FAF ."

 

What is sad is that you really haven't, you are continually being corrected by various posters here on all sorts of topics related to the FAF.  All you want to talk about all day long is your favorite plane, but you are still making clueless fanboy mistakes. 

"If I was unwilling to discuss like an adult , you wouldn 't even bother to respond to my numerous posts and I always learn something new at every thread ."

 

Kid, if you were learning something new in every thread you have screwed up with your idiocy you wouldn't still be making the dumb mistakes that you are.

 

"I know that I 've an entire Website against me but I coudn 't care less ."

 

People here are sick of you because you are a troll, and an idiot.  Over and over and over again you have jumped into threads that have nothing to do with the Rafale and posted dozens of posts full of nothing but stupidity. 

 

"I am not there to polish my Ego , I 'm here with a different voice and a diffrent opinion than yours . "

 

You are here to protect the honor of your favorite airplane because you can't stand the thought that France wasn't able to produce the very best.  You are just like any other fanboy on the internet.  Some like a certain car, or a certain sports team, or perhaps a certain type of computer.  You just happen to like a particular airplane.  Sure, you know basically nothing about aircraft in the first place, but why should that prevent you from lecturing people who know ten times what you do?

 

 

"The answer is simple and I wander why you ask : SPECTRA + IR MICA .

I explain with the help of few factsheets : First , SPECTRA RWR will detect and track the opposite radar with a 1deg accuracy and pass on the information to the IR MICA . Within less than 2 minutes (if the pilot did not ask earlier) , the IR MICA will act as an IRST . Note than the Pilot can choose to use the MICA as an IRST without having any kind of detection or lock ."

 

Lets get something straight kid... while it is of course possible to cue a missile seeker to look in a particular location, and it is even possible for the missile to perform a limited sort of autonomous target search, neither a MICA nor another other IR missile provides a meaningful IRST capability.  There is a vast difference in the level of sophistication and performance between an actual IRST and the seeker in the nose of a missile.  

? Delivery of tracking and guidance orders to the missile autopilot

? Autonomous threat search capability in a very large field of regard

? Lock-on before and after launch in any presentation against fighters "

 

LOL  First you go and try to claim that you aren't ignorant... then you misuderstand something like this and try to lecture people.   Yes, modern IR missiles are capable of a searching for targets within certain constraints.  What you just don't seem to get is that these capabilities are intended for use at very short ranges, either at the edge of visual range, or during a lock on after launch engagement where the target was beyond the seeker's range at launch. (Forcing the missile to aquire its target in flight.)

 

 

"Your questions have been answered Warpig . Write it down , this way you will not come back at me with the same questions over and over again (that goes for all posters) ..."

 

And this goes back to why nobody has any patience with you... not only do you give an answer that shows you lack even the slightest clue what you are talking about... but you then go and act like a jackass on top of it.

 

 

I will let someone else correct the rest of the stupidity in this post, virtually everything you said was wrong or at the very least misunderstood.

 

 

I was just thinking the other day about this, because I was wondering if you understood this or not.  Your recent comment above regarding MICA, it's supposed 80km range, and taking a shot at a target when it's 150km away tells me you still don't.  This has been explained to you before, but here it is again. 

 

Do you understand what it means when a missile is credited with having a range of, for example, 60km?  Let's say Points A and B are two locations in the air, separated by 60km.  If your missile has a range of 60km, that does NOT mean that if you are flying directly toward Point A and fire your missile exactly as you reach it, that then the missile will fly out toward the target until it hits it just as the target reaches Point B, 60km away from Point A.  In other words, if an air-to-air missile has a range of 60km, that does not mean it can travel 60km before it hits its target.  The reason it doesn't mean that is because that isn't really a very useful way of measuring an air-to-air missile's range.

 

Similar to other subjects, like RCS, the range of a missile is dependent on multiple variables, and thus citing a single value as its "range" is about as meaningful as citing a single value as an "RCS":  *IF* you know what the conditions are for that value, it is useful, or *IF* you know the general assumptions that value represents as a sort of average value over the possible ranges of the different variables, then that value is somewhat useful.

 

Missile ranges are based on the distance to the target at the time of launch, not based on the distance between where the launch occurred and where the target was eventually hit.  Therefore the range depends heavily on what the target's heading is compared to yours, what the bearing to the target is at the time of launch, whether those relationships change during the duration of the missile's fly-out, what altitude the target is at, what speed the target is at, what altitude the launch aircraft is at, what speed the launch aircraft is at, and maybe some others I don't remember (I don't claim to be an expert at aerial combat).

 

The *only* way a MICA could hit a target "84km away" is if both were closing directly toward each other at the time of launch, the target continued on that vector for basically the entire engagement, both were at high altitude, and both were at high subsonic speed at least, and maybe even one or both were supersonic, and the target was 84km away from the launch aircraft at the time of launch.  Thus the total distance traveled by the missile would have been much less than 84km.

 

It is really hard to have a nice and cool discussion with you gents , really . But I keep trying .

 

I 'm 46 end of April so you calling me Kid is pleases me , thank you :-)

 

Modern IR seeker equipped missiles, even the incompetently designed MICA, use a chiller to cool down the IR sensor so that they can get a good temperature sensitivity contrast locally so that they improve their sensitivity threshhold to detect and sample a heat source either by pure contrast path across a FoV, photon energy state sampling, or blink comparison against background. Many chillers use a gas cartridge and a small refrigerator circuit whose useful chill time is measured in the tens of seconds as the gas is used up after which the sensor sensitivity DEGRADES as the rocket's nose HEATS UP. You'd know this if you bothered to read and learn just the stuff I dropped in this thread for the genuinely interested.

 

But no; to quote a fictional character: "Arrogance and stupidity all tied up in the same package: how very efficient of you!" 

 

Incidentally, Warpig is absolutely right. There is no such thing as constant range in a chase or intercept profile or a crossing profile above or below (count them, pseur 2, those are six base aspect variables, constantly changing,  to add as vector sums as well as at least three velocities.over TIME which is to say over INTERVAL) . If you knew the first thing about the three moving body and four moving body problem, which I explained to you, a year ago, you wouldn;'t keep posting the same stupid assertions you post..  

.

I doubt that you can even intuitively work out a two dimensional merge involving two moving bodies on a flat surface with one aspect variable over interval!

 

In sum, poseur 2, you don't even know the simple stuff and that gives you away as the uninformed troll.you are.

 

But keep posting. Today I'm bored and you've earned yourself a good whipping for the nonsense you post. 

 

Herald

 

 

Herald , I asked you to go away . You 're not welcome anymore because you cannot stop posting BS .

Again you are wrong and again I have to correct you , it 's getting tiring .

Because you only are an internet addict and a clown , you think that what you read years ago somewhere is the truth . Well bad luck clown . About the IR Mica you said (I quote) :

 

 

 

 

 

earlm :