I'm confused, then.  I'm looking at my Heller Rafale M, and it only has nine hardpoints (four wing, two wingtip, the recessed rear Mica ports, and the centerline).

 

I freely admit that I might've missed something on the kit--since I have it armed with two Magics, two Micas, a centerline tank, two Harpoons and two HARMs.

 

 

To Senty first:

 

Yes, other aircraft have used radar cueing to put a TV on the target.  A couple years ago Phaid posted some wonderful pics of video from F-14s of Libyan jets about to be waxed that we taken through exactly that sort of arrangement, as you no doubt are well aware.  If your question was partly in reaction to what I and Hamilcar both said, I was noting that the Rafale's TV was cued in one example by the RWR, and presumably not by the radar (although I suppose the article did not explicitly deny use of radar data in that instance, but it certainly seemed implied to me)..  I'm not aware of anything like that before, and as far as I know the only other aircraft that have RWRs good enough to even do it in the first place are F-22, F-35, and EA-18G.

 

BW:

 

While it seems reasonable that the pilot may be able--given extensive personal knowledge/experience--to guesstimate the approximate range to the target, that does not supply range data to the missile, nor update the missile with range data in-flight.  Thus, the missile can only engage in a purely pursuit type of trajectory.  Therefore, the pilot would need to estimate for himself whether the target is within the range of the missile in such a mode where it does not have range data available to it.  In the case of MICA IR, I will assert without any interest of hearing your opinion to the contrary--as we have beat this subject to DEATH over the last few years and my version of the truth has been *conclusively* supported as far as I'm concerned-- that means at *most* in the most optimum sort of conditions, about 20 to 30km to the target at time of launch, and if the target turns away or otherwise violently maneuvers that could still easily miss as the target moves out of range.  In less optimum conditions (things like crossing target, high target offset angle, tail chase, non-co-altitude, etc.), the maximum range of such a shot could be significantly less.  In its favor, even though the MICA IR uses one of the first IIR sensors, and certainly is not as good as the sensor in the AIM-9X for example, it still is much better than any non-IIR sensor, and is much better than the sensor in the AIM-9M and AA-11 for example, and the missile is very likely to kill its target if the pilot is correct in his engagement envelope estimation..

 

Given those inherent engagement envelope limitations of needing to be within 30km, or even much less than that in some cases, of the target, and as long as the cueing from the RWR can be passed to the MICA IR and it can lock on to the target, then "silent" engagement of radar-emitting targets that the RWR can track is certainly feasible.  Or, you could just turn on your radar, light up the target, and shoot it in a not-so-silent mode.  I suggest that it takes a pretty contrived scenario to make some "silent" engagement capability particularly operationally significant.  Most of them seem to revolve around insinuating a single small covert strike through an active IADS where the couple of jets involved have to do double- or triple-duty because there aren't enough airborne assets available to devote each to a single role.  Thankfully, America rarely needs to worry about limiting itself to such a small-scale airstrike.

His flight description is about an hour in the air. That is rather firm.




Still  needed an external  fuel tank with more than 4 tonnes of onboard fuel. That means it is not likely to negate my comment at all. Just makes it as bad with 25 minutes tacked on..

That is a weapon's proof of type. Two is not a real deployment.

ONCE, I believe there were three as part of a mostly M-2000 squadron rotation. It was a weapon proof, a repetitive one to tweak qwhat went wrong in each previous Rafale deployment.

Electronic obsolescence is a positive choice? What killed the F-22 again?

So would I. Frankly the implied capability to link with current USAF USN telemetry data bit stream nodes I suspect is an exaggeration and dubious. I seem to recall voice only for the Rafale in Afghanistan  when operating with allies. I could be wrong about this..

This can be taken two ways. If he talks anything less than Block 60 F-16 or the BEAGLE then its not a favorable comment about Rafale at all..

Given his lack of currency in types, how could I take it, MK? I had to be charitable and accept that he might have spoken early block models. Did you want me to come right out and say he was a Pierre Sprey? He's not that incompetent or out of current touch by any stretch of the imagination. 





He actually describes atmospherics and flight conditions at the time of target lockup, including the aspect and clutter conditions, so just how bad is that radar? Very. It doesn't help to draw attention to its real performance parameters.

what twaddle.  he hasn't flown any contemp aircraft or peers and he is making comparisons against contemp generation platforms?  he left the RAF in 93.  He therefore is in no position to form an opinion on peer capabilities because he hasn't flown them.

if he is going to make comment then he is subject to the same review as anyone else.

use some logic before defending the position.

I would say exactly the same if someone made glowing comments about any other aircraft and had not flown any peers.

Peter Collins can only says that Rafale dynamic performance, man machine interface, awareness are exceptional that every person knows.Probably it can says positive things on WVR performance knowing that Rafale is known to beat F15, F18E, F16 (even with HMS).

However he has no clue on RCS, ECM, ECCM, captor ranges, level of network integration if he has no access to data package of Rafale but also best contender like F22, F35, Eurofighter.

We know in France (or Nederland) and by analysis that (futur) Rafale (in 2014) is the closest  contender to compete with F35 or even F22 (thank you LO et Spectra) but M. Collins can not garantee it since he doesn't know key performance parameter in AtoA combat or survivability vs advanced air defense.

 

Hamilcar :

I said :

So much wrong there but the most telling and clear was in RED even with the bogus 2D^1 correction tacked on. All the threat receiver recorded was the slant angle and bearing from signal transmitter second to second as aspect changed to receiver aircraft.

 

 

It was the pilot who SAW through the camera wth his eyes and compared to the ground the vector of the Mirage who concluded that the plane flew low to the ground.

 

Its obvious mistakes like this that separate serious discussion from wild eyed advocacy and shows just exactly why a discussion on the Rafale is difficult. Lack of understanding of the simplest concepts reduces everything to a  lengythu discussion of why a wrong statement is a wrong statement. Who has the time? I just note the ridiculous and drive on.

 

I agree, being able to ID your target *IS* a huge bonus.  Being able to ID and then engage, all without using any active sensors (which is what we've been talking about here with regard to using the RWR and the TV), has not been shown to be much of a bonus at all as far as I'm concerned, and I assert again that it takes a pretty contrived and selective scenario to dream up circumstances where such capability is a huge bonus.  Whatever examples you think Tiger Meet et al. provide, I'd bet that in those engagements where the TV was used for ID, they still either involved lighting up the target with the radar or else in whatever few cases they did not use the radar the target was engaged without radar mostly only "just because it can" and not because of any significant operational advantage/need to not use radar during the engagement.

 

No, my comment was not "false."  The RWR does *not* supply range data, whether before or after launch.  It supplies azimuth/bearing data and I'll agree it apparently provides good enough elevation data (since it was good enough to either put the TV on the target or at least cue the pilot to put the TV on the target), as well, before launch.  I remain unconvinced that the missile is fed data from the RWR after launch, particularly if there is no range data from the radar or LRF.  Regardless of whether it is or is not fed azimuth and elevation data from the RWR after launch, that is not sufficient for anything other than a pursuit form of tracking of the target, because there is no range data.  Also, because there is no range data, I find it very difficult to believe that the missile can be launched LOAL at all.  In any event, regardless of whether it is LOBL or LOAL, because there is no range data and therefore the missile's trajectory can not be optimized as has been explained in great detail in the past