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
Rufus       7/29/2009 2:18:11 AM
"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 ."
 
Ah yes, nothing like another trip to fantasy land...
 
It is funny how you just keep cooking up the scenarios and they just don't match the facts in the slightest.  We already know that Super Hornets have a large detection range advantage against Rafales, and that was with their conventional radars...
 
But hey, facts that interfere with your fanboy dreams aren't really facts are they?
 
"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 ."
 
LOL What is that? News?  You  have already shown yourself to be impervious to any information that doesn't fit your fanboy view of the Rafale.  It could come from Boeing, Lockheed, or any respected publication.  All that matters to you is that your favorite plane is just the best and most pretty in the world!
 
"Since you are all so clever (not) , you tell me why there is a 30 time fold RCS difference in between these two"
 
Well, the F-16 actually has a 50 fold advantage over the Rafale.  This is because it has received some RCS reduction work while the Rafale still had proud rivets and fixed refueling probes!
 
Look, we can BOTH make up numbers!
 
You act like posting a picture is somehow evidence.  You don't have a clue what you are talking about. Everyone here knows that.  Even the other French posters think you are a joke.
 
I can't imagine what it must be like to watch a football game with you.  Nothing is worse than a loud mouthed clueless know-it-all.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Rufus       7/29/2009 2:23:33 AM
 
 
Warpig...  you are trying to discuss facts with Bluewings.
 
Even if he knew, he would lie before saying anything that suggested the Rafale couldn't easily beat a Tie Fighter in space combat by using "Spectra."
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/29/2009 3:34:06 AM
The data link doesn't tell you which way the signal goes or what it is, AMATEUR.
 
Of course, it must be some other secret undocumented data link on the AIM-120A/B...
 
And following your ludicrous radio flare suggestion, I suppose Hugues/Raytheon engineers could be incompetant enough to design an antenna that can send a signal back to the plane but can't receive one. I mean, that's cutting-edge technology, only a hundred years old...
 
Someone more superficial in his understanding of the way things actually work BA I would fire immediately out of our shop. 
 
The ones to which you bring the cans you've collected all day long?
 
Just how does the THALES StIrling engine work, again?
 
IT USES A WORKING LIQUID TO GAS CYCLE.
 
Yes, a CLOSED cycle.
 
I see that now you're trying to morph your (incorrect) claim that the MICA seeker would run out of coolant during an extended travel to its target because it relies on a Joule-Thomson cooler as a claim that the gas in its Stirling cooler would evaporate. 
 
Well, it's correct that this will eventually happen, after a few thousand hours of running...
 
What will be the next excuse? I realize you're never going to admit you were mistaken but it's getting boring real fast.
 
One of these days I will explain a Herald TRAP to you.
 
If it's like a honey trap but with you instead, I'm afraid I don't swing that way. But I'm flattered by the offer.
 
 
ONly a frenchmen would come to the conclusion that when both a/c state the MIPS, of course all the rest are scueiing the numbers  and only the french and their rafail are being accurate.
 
That would be "Rafale" and "skewing".
 
Why do you think you experimental version has the xtra TWO applehead?
 
Actually, it's two more boards populated in the MPDU vs the PESA equipped Rafale. There is room for an extra MDPU rack next to the currently installed one but I'm not aware of any Rafale equipped with it.
 
NOT because the rafail has MORE then enough power as you claim. Everyone knows it is beyond straining its limits to keep up as it is.
 
Everyone being you and...?
 
 
We already know that Super Hornets have a large detection range advantage against Rafales, and that was with their conventional radars...

Any source? Because the only thing I could find were about Hornet vs Rafale F1 engagements way back. The RBE2 performance has matured a lot over the last years (first version was myopic, latest ones have about  the performance of a same diameter MSA).
 
Quote    Reply

locutus    Rafale RCS   7/29/2009 5:08:00 AM
   BW,
 
 Would you like to explain how the Rafale maintains a low RCS while carrying external stores?  Remember, the figures you quoted are for the aircraft clean.
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/29/2009 5:58:59 AM

Quote: 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.  You are right, there are curently four aitrcrafts which systems are using interferometry; Mirage 2000 Mk2/9, Rafale, F-22 and F-35.

Quote: 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. 
 
The capability gab is as large as between a steered array and an AESA.  Quote: 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.

French DGA counts on a 75% kill rate in LOAL with MICA used with RBY, so you can bet that results in LOBL at this distance wouldn't be much lower expecially because BVR capabilties have been used with the previous generation of seekers.
With Magic II, pilots would detect a low-IR signature KC135F before visual acquisition in optimum VMC. MICA IR seeker performances are way higher than that of the Magic II and there is no reason to believe that acquisition at 40 km is unrealistic, expecially using the high level of sensor fusion seen with the Rafale. 

Quote: 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
.
You are right to point out that the targets are fast moving but it wouldn't be too much of a problem if another axis wasn't added, increasing the already high level of complexity, this requiers different algorythms and a lot more computing power. Air combat is about 3D, it is involving an element which doesn't exist (or nearly doesn't if one includes terrain elevation) in the A2G role.
 
Quote: Well, these are some interesting details.... I remain dubious.

So do i, i have been looking for indications that this capability existed out of the labs (because no doubts engineers are actively working at it, porting the existing A2G targeting/designation capability to the A2A role, but infortunately, even a single work of the eventual progresses on the developement of this capability i have never seen. More to it, i think that if it did exist even at trial stage, we would not know about it.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Dwightlooi.   7/29/2009 7:16:05 AM
Wingman       7/28/2009 6:20:37 AM

 
"Herald12345
 to handle the slip through the transonic range that ALL delta wing aircraft have. Its not the same sweep as the F-22".
 
  [linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/F22Dryden3.jpg" /> 
 
  Sorry to say but.... You clearly have NO idea what you are talking about...

  I know the guy who posted the picture you use and i can tell you for a FACT that he doesn't comprehend the subject the slightest, this might explain why you got mislead so badly.

  For example he REVERSED the angle used to calculate the sweep angles, that of F-22 is 42*, that of F-35 is 35*, that of F-16 is 40*.
 
  The leading edge sweep determines the critical Mach, weither the Mach lines you describes with the help of this picture have insignificant effects of aircrafts performances and negligible on their handling (which would be the issue if ever).
link /> link wave

  Here are a couple of article from a proper source for you to read in order to start to comprehend the issue.

  Rough explaination:

. The Critical mach is the point at which the effects of compressibility will start to be felt in terms of transonic DRAG.

. F-35 is designed as a transonic/low supersonic airframe, with a LOWER critical mach than even F-16, all these aircrafts have a similar wing thicknes ratios so values are equal in scale.

. The higher the sweep angle, the later in the Mach scale these effect will be felt, the lower the transonic and supersonic drag pic value will be, the lower their mpact on performances.

. The difference comes from their wing profiles and in this respect the F-22 and F-35 drag slightly more in supersonic due to the use of a supercritic profile as opposed to laminar profiles for others.

. F-22 CAN handle it with a very High TWR and a delta wing (YES the Raport lift is vortex lift like a croped delta), the F-35 canot and is limited to M 1.6 with NO supercruise capabilties.

  Now regarding YF-22, the leading edge sweep angle was 48* as is the case for Rafale.

  This was reduced to 42* and dont tell me the document disclosed by Dryden in behalf of Lockheed Martin isn't accurate, it is L-M own figures, as for Dryden, they know what they're talking about, they halpt L-M with the design and aerodynamics.

  Now with regard to the question of EM return it is obvious that the closest to the ideal 45* angle are the sweep angles of F-22 and Rafale, NOT that of F-35, even F-16 design is more suited to EM return from front and sides.

 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rufus:
 Now now... I have already had to cautioned more than a couple fanboys about making things up on this message board.
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/RAND1.jpg" /> 

  You might be interested to know that RAND sees things differently, L.O ands V.L.O are clearly different levels of Low Obsevability, as for "making things up", how about your collegue above who rewrite all known aerodynamic books?

   Both F/A-18 were in the R.O category because of the characteristic of their airframe designs and radars, they already were above the MIN category by a fair margin.

    With the use of more discreet sensors in the A2A role, IRST and AESA LPI radars, they are now L.O. as opposed to V.L.O which involves the use of internal weapon storage and more developed RAM.

  In some aspcect, Rafale have more discreet features then even F-35 and F/A18,  its IR signature is particularly low and its leading edge sweep angle is closer to the ideal
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Dwightlooi.   7/29/2009 7:18:01 AM

Source is here..
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Physics is physics   7/29/2009 7:41:02 AM

The data link doesn't tell you which way the signal goes or what it is, AMATEUR.

 

Of course, it must be some other secret undocumented data link on the AIM-120A/B...

No its not. Its a radio flare. You could see that from the position alone if you knew .what you discussed. 

And following your ludicrous radio flare suggestion, I suppose Hugues/Raytheon engineers could be incompetant enough to design an antenna that can send a signal back to the plane but can't receive one. I mean, that's cutting-edge technology, only a hundred years old...

Wrong again. The radio flare is a position and ID aid. It frees a tracking channel up for the radar. You don't know this? 

Someone more superficial in his understanding of the way things actually work BA I would fire immediately out of our shop. 

The ones to which you bring the cans you've collected all day long?

Ah the classic response of the FANBOY.
.
Just how does the THALES StIrling engine work, again?

IT USES A WORKING LIQUID TO GAS CYCLE.
 
Yes, a CLOSED cycle.

I see that now you're trying to morph your (incorrect) claim that the MICA seeker would run out of coolant during an extended travel to its target because it relies on a Joule-Thomson cooler as a claim that the gas in its Stirling cooler would evaporate. 

Not what I said. I said it didn't work because it was a heat sink undersized to the heat birden, and that it was never fixed. You don't read very well.

Well, it's correct that this will eventually happen, after a few thousand hours of running...

Actually a mechanical fail (reservoir crack) will destroy a Stirling instantaneously, and with the quality of THALES engineering? 
 
What will be the next excuse? I realize you're never going to admit you were mistaken but it's getting boring real fast.

 I realize that you don't know what you discuss. and yes you are real boring.

One of these days I will explain a Herald TRAP to you.

If it's like a honey trap but with you instead, I'm afraid I don't swing that way. But I'm flattered by the offer.

Again with the fanboyism. 

ONly a frenchmen would come to the conclusion that when both a/c state the MIPS, of course all the rest are scueiing the numbers  and only the french and their rafail are being accurate.

That would be "Rafale" and "skewing".

Why do you think you experimental version has the xtra TWO applehead?

Actually, it's two more boards populated in the MPDU vs the PESA equipped Rafale. There is room for an extra MDPU rack next to the currently installed one but I'm not aware of any Rafale equipped with it.

NOT because the rafail has MORE then enough power as you claim. Everyone knows it is beyond straining its limits to keep up as it is.

Everyone being you and...?

Raytheon.

We already know that Super Hornets have a large detection range advantage against Rafales, and that was with their conventional radars...

Any source? Because the only thing I could find were about Hornet vs Rafale F1 engagements way back. The RBE2 performance has matured a lot over the last years (first version was myopic, latest ones have about  the performance of a same diameter MSA).
Physics based on the size of radars.  The Hornet's is considerably LARGER and is an AESA not a mechanically scanned array. It also doesn't have the sidelobe issues..
Nice to see I have you pegged as well, as part of the imported BW brigade.
 
Any more of you out there?
 
Herald
 
 

 
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/29/2009 7:42:51 AM




Source is here..






  Well; try DRYDEN and Critical Mach for a change.
   You visibly FAIL to understand BOTH, and BTW i posted links to the source your pal Dwight should read a LOT more, i.e. DRYDEN/NASA = on Mach line and Crital Mach.
 
  When one doesn't understand the subject, one abstends to post on it and btw, on F-16.com, Dwight Looi have made hiself a deserved reputation of a true fantasist, ask L-M Raptor what he thinks of him...
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/29/2009 8:12:43 AM
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/992/f35f22shockum9.jpg" width="550" height="450" /> 
Quote: You incidentally are irrelevant with all that bull sincve the angles he calculated were not sweep but the angle of the shock tubes (look it up, fanboy).
 
  WRONG: He done BOTH and his calculation of the F-22 and F-35 Sweep angles are VISIBLY WRONG.
 
  I understand you are from the SAME school, i, myself am mor from that of L-M Raptor, so we know who the fanboys are...
 
Quote: but was actually a designer compromise for angle of attack (lift versus drag)
 
  Not to say it was solely designed for L.O it still is a far better abgle for radar return than a 35*.
 
  As for your fanboy explainations on aerodynamics let me correct you here.
 
  Angle of attack have little to do with this, what the designers were looking for was a specific Critical Mach in view for optimisation of its maneuvrability within a defined part of its flight envelop.
 
  You and Dwight Looi are FAR from being advanced enough on the subject to comprehend the principle of drag, let alone transonic and supersonic, and it SHOWS.
 
  About Rafale aerodynamic requierements:
 
  The previous experience with Mirage 2000 showed that the sweep angle and aspect ratios were giving maximum turning performances at a Mach which was considered too high for the percentage of engagement in turning fight.
 
   Aspect ratio was increased from 2.0 to 2.2 and sweep angle from 58* to 48*, this moved the maximum turning performances to a lower Mach trhan that of the Mirage 2000, looking for Mach 1.6/1.6 where 90% of turning fight takes place rather than 2.0/2.2.
 
Quote: in the mainly turn oriented energy regime,
 
  Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing"...
 
Quote:  the French designers used for their choices in designing that bomb truck aqs an "agile' dogfighter with the underpowered engine they expected SNECMA to deliver.. 
  Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing" but i SURE can flame...
 
 
Quote: That was your lie LO or reduced RCS lie, that I wanted to shoot down.
 
  EM L.O obbeys to physics, physics says the best angle for low reflectivity is the closest to 45*, NOT that of F/A-18 NOT that of F-35 but that of Rafale = FACT.
 
 
Quote:  As for Dwightlooi's numbers? He acknowledges that it was a simplified case, and then he shows why he used those analytical tools. If you want to read what he actuallt said, its here.
 
  He
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics