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
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Thread
Softwar    3/9/2009 9:47:25 AM
Started with hope that BW will limit his comments here instead of in every other Fighter thread. I'll start off with: 1 - no export sales 2 - no laser designator 3 - no AESA 4 - overpriced 4th gen fighter
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
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 51 52 53   NEXT
locutus    AESA   4/26/2009 5:43:38 PM
An article from Defense Talk regarding the AESA on the Rafale.
 
h**p://www.defencetalk.com/aesa-radar-successfully-tested-on-rafale-fighter-aircraft-18117/
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/10/2009 8:32:22 AM

 

It's kind of cute the fact that you ignore that you're completely wrong about science and basic facts, ignore it then later make a short post to try to make up for it.
 
You have no clue. You're simply mining for superficial information in a cmples subject then applying it to even more complex subject judgments.
 
Sure Bluewings... you have no sales, your own country is cutting production, your accessories are late out, the ones you say it is superior to has all these things... at least you admit the F-22 is superior. I remember SP said it was nearly equal to the F-35 and one of u Rafale lovers said 'this page is the ultimate judge of debates to be had here' and then I linked to the aircraft combat index on SP.  LOL
 
So sure... go on, believe your plane is better than what every person responsible for defense purchases around the world knows, including your near abroad of Algeria, Africa, ME and your own nation liking it less than before.
 
You're only spending a hobby in delusion.
 

  It seems to me that yourself are in a total state of reality denial.
 
  I would love to see you coming up with any form of hard evidences which wouldn't be the results of the type of commercials you seems to be feeding yourself with...
 
  For a starter, aircrafts performaces and charactyeristics speaks for themself, we are still to SEE any of the version of F-35 performing at Rafale levels.
 
  It doesn't supercruise, It is limited to a dash speed 0.4 lower, have a 10.000 ft operational ceilling deficit and is structuraly limited to 7.0,  7.5 and 9 g when a Rafale is guaranteed to 90% above this for its life time and can easly pull 11 g in case of emergency.
 
  I know tons more about the F-35 and its programe than you apparently do and passed all the gliter and commercial magic you take for granted, all what remains is an overweight, underpowered overhyped commercial CON.
 
  Not everyone ignore what numerous redesign and aeropdynamic problems means in terms of performances or what requierements vs design vs performances means either.
 
  As for the progresses made in Europe on the subject of Optical, Near-IR and IR sensors, you guys are a couple of decades late for your information at the very least.
 
  France have a few recent world's first under her belt to prove this point including the use of dual bandwidth IRST in the West, you being in an advanced state of denial is not helping your case.
 
  Here is a non-updated summery of thecnologies uses in both aircrafts, sources are Jane's and other notoriously informed ones.
 


>>>>>
F-35 Avionics and Systems developements:

From first tests to up to 2000 h+.

Source: Jane's Wordl's Aircrafts.

FCS = ------------------------TESTED IN April 1998.

Avionics = -------------------TESTED IN 1999.

HMD = ------------------------TESTED IN 2000.

ATC/EOTS = -------------------TESTED IN 2000. SNIPER DEIVATIVE.

Comparison:

SPECTRA/Rafale F1 = ----------TESTED IN 1996. Standard F1.

SPECTRA/Rafale F2= -----------TESTED IN 2000. (NATO MACE-X = F2 Standard).

NEW MDPU = -------------------TESTED IN 2000.

DVI = ------------------------TESTED IN 2001.

MIDS/LVT = -------------------TESTED IN 2002.

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (1) dev = ------ 2002.

DGA contract F3 dev = --------------Feb 2004. STILL being developed today..

DGA contract RBE2 AESA (2) dev = ---Jun 2004.

OSF NG = --------------------------STILL R&D.

APG-81 FIRST TEST-FLIGHT: = --------Aug 2005.

Source: Jane's and some other reputable specialised press....
  So realy what is MORE "advanced" in an aircraft which uses similar-to-less advanced technologies and boosts lower overal performances PLEASE?

 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand       5/10/2009 8:43:32 AM



I have been away working , much have been said since my last post ...



 



Since the discussion is very much 'intellectual' orientated , allow me to switch to a more visual experience . I always said that the Rafale was one of the best flyer around and it was an enormous quality in itself . The jet can move in a fast turning 3Dworld faster than most other aircrafts and is probably the best dogfighter around , put aside its supersonic capabilities .



I 've chosen a recent video never posted here so you 'll see how the new Demo looks like  . If you speak a bit of French , the gentle voice is from another Rafale pilot explaining the 6.30 minutes demo . It is an eye ~and ears~ opening :






The fact that this guy is a pilot doesn't mean you're understanding what he is saying properly.

How about you try to get in touch with this pilot and ask him his honest opinion on what you could compare the Rafale too?



If you knew a hundredth of what is necessary to become a pilot even for gliders, you would speak a tad differently, let alone a graduate from a US and French Flight-Test Center like many of Dassault pilots are...
  From where i'm standing i haven't seen any of you with ebough credential to bring anything remotly technical to the debate.
 
  Having a go at Bluewing is easy, coming up wit hthe goods and demonstrating that what you are saying is based on facts is yet another sroty.
 
  So do you carfe to ellaborate and enlight us?
 
Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Herald if you whan science, here is some for you...   5/10/2009 1:42:35 PM

http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/missiles/aim-7c_range.png" width="623" />

 

Maybe that will help.

 


 

And that might help too. Strictly speaking the flyout of a missile is measured in burn seconds as well residual energy (potential momentum left versus drag, lift, and gravity.)  While you may get repeatable ballistics trajectories from an arttillery piece firing from one spot on the earth to another, that is a static two body problem. Aircraft are different. A air to air missile is an aircraft  that is shoved hard early and then coasts. Even the METEOR will coast through much of its trajectory.  

 

Anyway the missile will not act like an artillery shell, which is why it takes a differential calculus more advanced than what we have to predict exact outcomes for a three or four maneuvering body constantly moving problem. Simple trig will do for that artillery comparison example I set up. So we do estimates for the engagement interval around a launching aircraft and assign probabilities to the PK for our missiles based on known flyouts and potential energy left after burnout. I'm confident about RAYTHEON's figures. I'm also confident about MBDA's. RAYTHEON doesn't have to exaggerate. They don't have to since they have actual war data to back up their marketing and their rockets..

 

Same can be said for RAFAEL, BAE, and Vympel Design Bureau.

 

Note that in the case of MICA and ASTER, MBDA cannot?

 

Now if someone wants to dispute data presented, maybe he can explain first what the simple presented data means or why light still remains light despite assertions to the contrary. A photographer (some of you are camera bugs?) knows exactly why you cannot use a camera or an infrared detector to measure range.

 

Anyway I read this thread for the past week, and its the same old thing as before.


 

If the physics or the technology is against you, its because of an anti-French bias? Is that so? 

 

PROVE IT. Not with brochures and publicity releases, either. Discuss the science.   


 


Herald   

 




 

 

 

 


  If you were comparing AIM-120 and MICA in terms of  burn seconds, you got your little maths and wires badly crossed.
   MICA flies 1 Mach faster and pulls above 10G more than ANY AIM-120.
 
  As for ranges they are a lot more variable then what you allege so simplisticaly...
 
  Operationaly speaking, they are divided into 4 distinctive fractions:
 
  Maximum aerodynamic Range.
 
  Maximum launch range.
 
  No excape range.
 
  Minimum launch range.
 
  All of which are dysplayed to the pilot using HUD or HMDs.
 
  All of which depending on burn time, aerodynamic configurations and characteristics of the AAMs but also the diverse  situations that you illustrated with your picture.
 
  It becomes then obvious that a MICA will have a much longer Maximum aerodynamic range and longer No escape range than an AIM-120, in particular the latest croped-wing versions, by simple virtue of the lift provided by its wings.
 
  This will be even more obvious where energy is echanged with altitude be it in the snap-up or snap-down mode.
 
  A
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    Herald you got it wrong again:   5/10/2009 2:14:36 PM
Quote: "A photographer (some of you are camera bugs?) knows exactly why you cannot use a camera or an infrared detector to measure range".
 
 WRONG.
 
Focal plans are exactly this; a range of distances between the focal and the point where the lense is in focus, more to it the depth of field also shrinks as focal length increases for the same apperture, the longer the lense the narrower the focal plan.
 
  This means that even without a range finder which have been used by photographer for decades, one can well estimate the range of an object with a camera with enough precision fo fire an IR AAM.
 
  All you need to know is that the intended target is within range of your AAM and use LOAL mode.
 
  If we have no evidences that this have been done, we know that it is perfectly technicaly feasible.
 
  As for the use of the laser rangefinder with Rafale it was first and foremost for ground targets and gun fire, as is  the tradition with AdA, Jaguars, Mirage F-1 etc.
 
  Then its use was extended for the MICA EM to validate remote firing using Link 16, in the case of a MICA IR this wouldn't have been necessary as its seeker range is way greater than that of the laser used in OSF.
 
  
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/10/2009 4:12:46 PM


  It becomes then obvious that a MICA will have a much longer Maximum aerodynamic range and longer No escape range than an AIM-120, in particular the latest croped-wing versions, by simple virtue of the lift provided by its wings.


  This will be even more obvious where energy is echanged with altitude be it in the snap-up or snap-down mode.

 
 
 
 
 
What a shame.  Until you posted this, I was hoping that maybe a Francophile had appeared who actually knew what he was talking about based on personal experience/training, rather than just making claims based on stuff he has read on some website and regurgitated.  Sadly, since you stated the part above in such a 100% certain fashion. this shows me that I can't trust anything you say as if it is personally-experienced fact, and can only assume everything you say is just something you read on the internet.  Now you sound like just another FS/BW clone.  Incidentally, if you actually want to correct any simplistic approach to determining missile ranges you ought to be instructing BW, not Herald.  Oh well.  Where are the French pilots or engineers who will acknowledge the truth?
 
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    @warpig   5/11/2009 3:35:28 AM
 
 Well you are more than welcome to enlight us as to what exactly is "shameful" into believing that US AAMs obbeys to the laws of physic and aerodynamics the very same whay than any other AAMs.
 
  As far as these laws are concerned turn rates results on the combination of :
 
 And boy, remember that assumption is the mother of all fcuk-up, you have no clue where i got my informations and knowledge base from the combination of:
 
Cl, High atmospheric Density, High load Factor, Low Wing Loading.
 
  Now you find us any reasons to believe that my analysis was wrong based on the FACT that range is based on thrust vs lift at 1g , computed in stablelised flight and that MICA pulls can nicely 10 G more than AIM-120...
 
  One can reasonably conclude that at 1 g a short wingspaned AAM flying 1.0 M faster, having higher Cl, Load Factor and Lower Wing Load will have a lower drag Coeffiscient than a simple tube with delta wings and control surfaces which needs a higher AoA to produce less LIFT and sustain level flight before even mentioning any form of maneuvring.
 
  Oh and i nearly forgot, how does this NOT apply even in a more visible maneer in the case of snap-up and snap-down scenarios?
 
   I am awaiting your reply impatiently and PS as opposed to many over here i know enough not to take "the internet" for godhimself @whatever.copy.paste.
 
   Regards, PlG
 
Quote    Reply

PierreLeGrand    @warpig    5/11/2009 3:51:03 AM
 
 I might i have given you the impression that i was implying MICA to have a range superior to that of an AIM-120D.
 
 AIM-120 D motor have been redesigned if i remember well and i was refering in terms of Maximum Aerodynamic Range to the 120-Cs even the C5.
 
  I stick to my comment about Maximum No Escape Range for all AIM-120 types based on my previous post for obvious reasons.
 
  I think you know what i mean...
 
  Regards. PlG
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       5/11/2009 5:42:00 PM
  Alas, I no longer visit StrategyPage to try to win arguments by presenting a more convincing set of internet-linked articles.  This isn't a high school debate club.  I only come here to learn truth (as opposed to someone's "facts") and to share what I know is truth.  I don't require you to... or even care if you do... believe me or not.  If you wish to believe the lie that MICA outranges AIM-120C in any version (given the same launch conditions, naturally), then go ahead.  MICA performance--particularly vs. AIM-120-- has been beat to death on StrategyPage over the last few years (most notably back around 2007) and should be easily searchable, if you care to learn.  As I said, I am disappointed and wish some Frenchman would step up who actually acknowledges the truth.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       5/11/2009 6:37:35 PM
""MICA performance--particularly vs. AIM-120-- has been beat to death on StrategyPage""
 
Yes and MICA won on all accounts  .
Myself I would trust the Mica over any other missile in between 500m and 60km (to make sure) . The thing is a killer , make no mistake . It 's coming at you muck quicker than an AMRAAM and it can pull Gs an AMRAAM can only dream of . It EM seeker is of the latest generation and has been tested intensively in anechoic chamber , the Mica EM computer/radar combo allow fast frequency jumps and band blinding to counter a possible jamming . When the thing has a lock , it is locked .
Amraam has been known to get jammed (ie : M2000 over Kosovo jamming a Dutch Amraam fired by mistake) .
The AIM-120C is not cuting the mustard , far from it . It is slow for a BVR missile , it can 't turn and its end game is very poor compare to Mica ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics