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: 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

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
JFKY    BW   7/28/2009 4:30:03 PM
you keep saying the same sad things over and over, it won't make them true, you know.  Rafale is NOT Low Observable...the tail fin and the fuel probe demonstrate that.
 
Please stop trying to make this pig's ear into a silk purse...it is what it is, a low altitude multi-role fighter, with some RCS control measures.  But it was NOT designed from the outset, unless the designers were drunken idiots...and as I don't believe too many first rate a/c engineers are drunken idiots it's very unlikely that it was designed to be LO......
Please give it up...you are CLUELESS.
 
There is a nice Psych study about the clueless...they are lacking in the ability to self-examine, it's why they are CLUELESS.  They can not see that they have jumped off the rails and it is INCONCEIVABLE to them that they have, and so it becomes impossible to explain their errors tot hem.  because they can not accept they have made errors.
 
You are clueless.
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    BW get help, you have a disease   7/28/2009 4:41:12 PM
Dictionary.com

pathological liar
Function: noun
 - an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.
  -a person who lies to the point of it being considered a disease or condition, an abnormally habitual liar.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       7/28/2009 5:07:04 PM
The truck driver returns!  Long trip?
 
 
"The French fighter is definitely a ?low-observable? aircraft, and its systems will set new standards in terms of low-observability and survivability. Every effort has been made by the engineers to minimise its infrared and radar signatures. The objective was not to make the aircraft undetectable or to match the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the F-117 or B-2, but to significantly reduce the detection and tracking range of hostile airdefences. Accordingly, the airframe has been carefully shaped to cut down its RCS. Other signature reduction measures include state-of-the-art Radar-Absorbing Materials in various areas of the airframe, ?sawtooth? edges on the foreplanes, on the flaperons, and on some access panels and doors, specially treated canopy, plus ?double-S? shaped air-intake ducts to hide the engine compressor faces. Thanks to the Hot Spot treatment, infrared signature is minimised, and the Snecma M88 turbofans have been optimised to limit infrared detectability."
(From Rafale International Fox-Three No 4)

 
Ooh, a marketing brochure!  I don't doubt that they made "every effort"  I am just making it clear that considering the extremely limited level of expertise France possesses in LO design "every effort" just didn't amount to much.   It is a lot like saying that India made "every effort" to design a competitive fighter with their Tejas program... but look what that got them...
 
 
I remind you that the Rafale has been designed from day one to be LO (not VLO) . The design started in 3D CAD , then the prototypes have been validated after spending weeks in anechoic chamber with various load . I 've got a piture of a Rafale in the chamber loaded with 2 different fuel tanks (1250 l and 2000 l) and 2 Micas , unfortunatly the picture is part of a pdf and I can 't post it here . Notice the "carefully shaped airframe" to start with .
 
Of course not.  They didn't even bother to clean up the airframe.  The very first step that would be taken if in fact an aircraft were being designed to be LO would be to ditch the vertical stabilizer, get rid of the various probes and protrusions, and address the Rafale's fit and finish issues such as the proud rivets, poorly fitting panels, and poorly concieved work-arounds like that heat shield at the rear of the aircraft.  
 

Then :
"The fuselage and wings are manufactured entirely with composite materials and alloys (carbon fiber, kevlar, titanium and various alloys) and received treatment reducing the reflection of electromagnetic waves, making the jet discrete ."
(From a French DoD publication , january 2006)
Also :
"The Rafale is low observable and it can operate by night or day in all weather conditions. It features the latest technologies including multisensor fusion and digital voice control."
(From Dassault Aviation Publication , february 2002)
 
Ooh look! More marketing claims.  I guess I should throw out my years of experience and start believing something that is obviously false because a truck driver on the internet read a marketing brochure. LOL
 
 
You see Rufus (and other non believers) , there is plenty of official material who clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge (and bias) . I 've got some more but it should be enough for now , I 'll dig out extra studies as I see fit .
 
Yeah, marketing pamphlets.  Want me to fetch some for the Eurofighter, Super Hornet, and Gripen?  Wanna bet they all claim  things that the others would disagree with? Watch out!  I can dig out "studies" as I see fit! LOL
 
Here is one!
 
"The combat-proven F/A-18E/F Super Hornet delivers cutting-edge next generation multi-role strike fighter capability that is available today, outdistancing current and emerging threats well into the future. The Super Hornet has the capability, flexibility and performance necessary to modernize the air or naval aviation forces of any country."
h*tp://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/docs/EF_overview.pdf
 
Wow! Look what I just proved with this "study!"
 
The Super Hornet could modernize ANY COUNTRY'S airforce!  That includes France.  That pretty well settles this argument I think.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/28/2009 5:41:11 PM
Warpig :
""I think there is no question at all that the RWRs in the F-15/16/18 could ID the SLOT BACK and display an indication of a MiG-29""
 
I agree but the systems are not going to tell the pilot where the Fulcrum is . Is it coming toward you , is it behind you , and where exactly ? Spectra does it with great accuracy .
 
""the relatively new thing would be the fusing of the emitter's identification, azimuth, and elevation from the RWR with the location data of the bandit derived from the radar.""
 
What about doing it without the radar ? A single Rafale can do it at up to 35-40km with the LRF and two Rafales can do it by sharing the Spectra data (triangulation) . The Link-16 is not fast enough to provide a clear firing solution but is fast enough to provide a drop basket small enough to fire LOAL . It is not a tactic actually used by the AdA or the MN but it is feasable and tacticaly correct while expensive (small kill-ratio and Mica is expensive) .
 
""What I didn't see was whatever information you used to conclude that the Rafale was not using its radar during that engagement (...) that I did not see what indicators might have shown the reaction to the pop-up target was radar-off ""
 
Easy , the "Mig-29 alert" was on the right screen (provided by Spectra) , then it is put on the main screen (battle display) already withing the Mica 's NOZ because the Mica was asked by Spectra to look there and found the target , which is computed automaticaly radar on or radar off as soon as a sensor is getting something . From this info , the pilot shoot or most probably lase-shoot for a better kill .
 
""I did not recognize the information that leads you to conclude the particular MICA launched was necessarily a MICA-IR""
 
-1) The distance told me .
-2) You can fire an EM Mica LOBL without the radar and just with the LRF but an IR Mica will perform better WVR and the end game is silent .
 
Locutus :
""Your RCS figures are for the aircraft clean""
 
Of course , they always are . Now take 2 aircraft , one with a RCS of 0.1m Square and the other one with a RCS of 3m Square which is 30 times higher (ie: Rafale/F-16) , then load them both with external stores . Which one will still have the lowest RCS is a given .
It is the reason why I asked people to try to guess the RCS of this :
 
http://img188.imageshack.us/img188/9177/rafale52.jpg" width="640" height="480" />
 
From the front , the RCS is just below 3m Square which is similar to a F-16 clean . A SU-27 or a F-15 Eagle loaded as Interceptors trying to kill this Rafale will both have a RCS about 10 times higher . Which one will see the other(s) first ?
I am not even taking into account jamming who can divide the detection and tracking range by 2 or more . Also , a Rafale loaded like this is in a deep strike penetration and will try to stay EM silent , relaying on passive sensors to work its way through .
We 're not talking about a loaded F-15E or F-15K  (barndoors) , nor a F-16 Blk42 (small barndoor) or a SH but about a Rafale .
 
Cheers .

 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/28/2009 5:53:54 PM
Rufus :
""The truck driver returns!  Long trip?""
 
No , not really . Dijon-Paris and return twice .
So Rufus , you discard every French paper ? Even coming from the French DoD ?
Ok . 
I 'll do the same with the Boeing and LM Bullsh*t .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

usajoe1    here is another one Rufus   7/28/2009 6:03:23 PM
When I visit the Typhoon web site it says; "Nothing Comes Close", so I should believe that the Typhoon is the best right. LOL! get help BW.
 
 
Dictionary.com

pathological liar
Function: noun
- an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.
-a person who lies to the point of it being considered a disease or condition, an abnormally habitual liar.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/28/2009 6:19:57 PM
Since you are all so clever (not) , you tell me why there is a 30 time fold RCS difference in between these two :
 
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/4870/kzdoxbcg6pmd21b6xk4047t.jpg" width="640" height="427" /> 
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/28/2009 6:20:23 PM

Warpig :


""I think there is no question at all that the RWRs in the F-15/16/18 could ID the SLOT BACK and display an indication of a MiG-29""
 
I agree but the systems are not going to tell the pilot where the Fulcrum is . Is it coming toward you , is it behind you , and where exactly ? Spectra does it with great accuracy .


""the relatively new thing would be the fusing of the emitter's identification, azimuth, and elevation from the RWR with the location data of the bandit derived from the radar.""
 
What about doing it without the radar ? A single Rafale can do it at up to 35-40km with the LRF and two Rafales can do it by sharing the Spectra data (triangulation) . The Link-16 is not fast enough to provide a clear firing solution but is fast enough to provide a drop basket small enough to fire LOAL . It is not a tactic actually used by the AdA or the MN but it is feasable and tacticaly correct while expensive (small kill-ratio and Mica is expensive) .


""What I didn't see was whatever information you used to conclude that the Rafale was not using its radar during that engagement (...) that I did not see what indicators might have shown the reaction to the pop-up target was radar-off ""

Easy , the "Mig-29 alert" was on the right screen (provided by Spectra) , then it is put on the main screen (battle display) already withing the Mica 's NOZ because the Mica was asked by Spectra to look there and found the target , which is computed automaticaly radar on or radar off as soon as a sensor is getting something . From this info , the pilot shoot or most probably lase-shoot for a better kill .

""I did not recognize the information that leads you to conclude the particular MICA launched was necessarily a MICA-IR""

-1) The distance told me .
-2) You can fire an EM Mica LOBL without the radar and just with the LRF but an IR Mica will perform better WVR and the end game is silent . 
 


All RWRs in use today on US aircraft will give an indication of what azimuth the threat is on to within something like around 10 to 20 degrees or less, tell whether the threat is above or below your altitude, and I am pretty sure they try to guesstimate relatively how close or far away they are in a rough sort of fashion.  RWRs on the F-18E/F, EA-18G, F-22, and soon the F-35 will tell the azimuth to within less than a couple degrees, and can geolocate ground-based emitters.
 
I flat out do not believe you that the LRF has a range of 35-40 km.  Even if it theoretically does, there's no way that range can be anything other than the absolute maximum range under optimal conditions, such that it will rarely have that great a range in actual combat (very similar to my reaction to your insistence on saying the MICA-IR has a range of 35-40km, and for essentially the same explanation).
 
Okay, you are actually just suggesting the part about the triangulation, and not saying it is actually done, so I've deleted the insults I had started typing when I rushed to judgement because I thought you meant it was being done now.  Several of us tried educating you and FS about using the RWR for determining the range and tracking aerial targets a couple years ago.  No, it is not yet possible that I know of.
As I said, I do not know the various symbology and indicatoions used, so I can't tell, but I still fail to see how what was shown must mean that it was a radar-off intercept.  I'm not asking how it could be a radar-off intercept, I'm asking how what was shown *proves* it was a radar-off intercept.  Either something on some screen says the radar is in standby or whatever mode, or else the symbology used is exclusive to when the radar is off.  Otherwise, it is not proven.  In any event besides that, I will also remind you that it was just a marketing video (made, I think, in 1997!) as opposed to video from inside a fully-functional simulator that matches the real thing, and therefore does not exactly seem all that au
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/28/2009 7:24:06 PM
Warpig , I am glad that ~unlike some other posters~ you think . I read carefully your last long post and will try to respond it in kind .
 
""RWRs on the F-18E/F, EA-18G, F-22, and soon the F-35 will tell the azimuth to within less than a couple degrees, and can geolocate ground-based emitters.""
 
I know . Spectra is not the only ECM suite to use interferrometry but the system 's AESA imbedded antennas (and not a pod) give it a small edge in precision and discretion . It also frees one hardpoint .
 
""I flat out do not believe you that the LRF has a range of 35-40 km.  Even if it theoretically does, there's no way that range can be anything other than the absolute maximum range under optimal conditions""
 
Of course it is the maximum range under the best conditions ! In some case , the LRF can also be totally useless .
 
""very similar to my reaction to your insistence on saying the MICA-IR has a range of 35-40km, and for essentially the same explanation""
 
You are talking about the seeker 's max range and you are correct . Nevertheless , keep in mind that bad weather don 't affect much the IR band as it affect lasers .
 
""Several of us tried educating you and FS about using the RWR for determining the range and tracking aerial targets a couple years ago.  No, it is not yet possible that I know of.""
 
Determining the range with Spectra F3 against a mechanical radar is today a given . The problem is to deal with fast LPI radars . Spectra must keep a constant track to archive the trick and doing so against a fast LPI radar doesn 't work yet .
 
"""The distance told me"?  First off, how do you know what the distance is?  Do you know the scale of that display or see a range to the target indicated somehow? ""
 
At 5:30 , the pilot says "ECM contact" and the display is shown . Spectra is actually scanning inside a 80km bubble (top right corner) and the Mig29 icone is within the first blue circle which means that the signal is real strong and real close (the approximate distance is shown in the bottom left corner (18 nm) . Spectra knows the approximate distance because the Fulcrum radar is well known , is mechanical and is in the databank . At 5:34 , the main display shows the Fulcrum (the yellow dot) almost within the Mica 's NOZ (small thick yellow oval) . The RBE2 is off because it is usually reprensented in blue .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/29/2009 12:21:21 AM

"Spectra is not the only ECM suite to use interferometry but the system 's AESA imbedded antennas (and not a pod) give it a small edge in precision and discretion . It also frees one hardpoint."

I admit I do not know of any evidence, but I suspect it's quite likely the F-22's AN/ALR-94 is using electronically steered antennas for its RWR.  Maybe not.  The BAE slide Dwightlooi posted (maybe in the F-22 v. Eurofighter thread, I think) that shows the F-35's RWR antennas certainly does not rule it out—but again, I don't think it explicitly said they are, either.  Incidentally, none of these aircraft need a pod for any of this capability.  I am unfamiliar with the details of the F-16 Block52 and Block60 RWR systems, but I would be surprised if they weren't pretty close in capability, too.  It seems to me the most important potential differences still lie in how well each system fuses the data with the other sensor data on the aircraft.

 

 

"You are talking about the seeker 's max range and you are correct . Nevertheless , keep in mind that bad weather don 't affect much the IR band as it affect lasers."

 

Well, yes and no.  I am talking in part about the seeker, but only because that is one of the limiting factors in how the whole missile is limited in real life such that LOBL shots taken at targets that are 40km or even 30km are lower Pk and may well not even be possible (depending on the set-up of the engagement), for reasons explained in excruciatingly great detail many times.



"Determining the range with Spectra F3 against a mechanical radar is today a given . The problem is to deal with fast LPI radars . Spectra must keep a constant track to archive the trick and doing so against a fast LPI radar doesn't work yet."

 

I was referring to determining the range to an aerial target.  It looks like you were, too.  I'm not talking about using any process like "long baseline interferometry" to geolocate a stationary emitter.  I'm talking about trying to obtain data on a threat radar flying at M0.9 and maneuvering.  It is not a given to determine the range to an aerial target that I am aware of, and not even particularly accurate.  I would love to read about details of this sort of capability, if anyone can provide them.


"At 5:30 , the pilot says "ECM contact" and the display is shown . Spectra is actually scanning inside a 80km bubble (top right corner) and the Mig29 icone is within the first blue circle which means that the signal is real strong and real close (the approximate distance is shown in the bottom left corner (18 nm) . Spectra knows the approximate distance because the Fulcrum radar is well known , is mechanical and is in the databank . At 5:34 , the main display shows the Fulcrum (the yellow dot) almost within the Mica 's NOZ (small thick yellow oval) . The RBE2 is off because it is usually reprensented in blue."

 

Well, these are some interesting details.  I still reserve judgment regarding some of it (like that the range of 18NM is derived from the RWR), but if the color is truly indicative then I'll believe you that the radar is simulated as being off.  If the radar is off and if the missile was launched at anything more than a half-dozen NM, then I agree it appears to have been a MICA-IR that was simulated for this engagement.  It would be nice if it works that way/easily/quickly in real life. Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics