Amiga500The A-10 can’t do a lot of what a F-16 can do – the F-16 can do just about everything the A-10 can.
Apart from take some small arms fire to the engine…
Amiga500Really, exactly how far can the Rafale supercruise? You say the plane can hit 1.4 with “internal fuel,” but how much internal fuel? At what altitude?
Lift dependant drag is a small portion of the drag polar at supersonic speeds.
Lets assume the altitude is optimal.
Can the F-35 do the same with 6 AAMs at any fuel load?
Sweeping clueless statements like this are exactly what I am talking about. Some manufacturer issues a press release, and suddenly people go making a whole heap of unsupported assumptions.
Even worse is people acting smart when they are unable to discern what is important to that performance parameter and what isn’t.
Given that it allows the pilot to see through the airframe I suspect it won’t be a problem to look any way the pilot wishes. :rolleyes:
The problem would be a software issue… does the pilot have to crane his/her neck 180deg to see directly behind them?
Rover will not require a pod. At least the F-35 will have a targeting pod capability when it goes operational, unlike the Rafale. 😉
Yes… when it goes operational. Whats this week’s estimated date for that again?
At what speed? At what altitude? Are these little marketing tid-bits supposed to prove something? None can be used as a basis for comparison without complete information.
You don’t always need complete information to make a useful comparison.
i.e. Can a fully-laden F-35 sustain a 5.5g turn at any altitude/speed combination?
The Rafale is limited by its aerodynamic configuration. A single tailed delta is just not a good configuration for (controlled) high AoA. The F-35 will be capable of 50°, far in excess of the Rafale’s 29°. (and is being tested beyond this) This is a fact.
The Rafale is not a single-tailed delta. I assume you mean canard-delta.
But it should be noted that the general rule is not always applicable. The X-31 was a canard delta* and was pretty handy at high AoA maneuvring….
*The Rafale may get thrust vectoring at about the same time the F-35 is available to operational pilots 😎
Amiga500A-10 cannot operate in anything other than a permissive environment
Yet that is the airspace environment the US Army has found over its head in the majority of its conflicts in the last 20 years….
Amiga500Think of it as BACN on steroids.
Bacon on steroids?
Where?!?! :eagerness:
Amiga500ATDL = Everything brought together
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225832[/ATTACH]
Meh… I see your ATDL and raise you one DS:
Putting up a fancy power point slide means nothing.
Amiga500There seems to be this whole attitude now from the US planners perspective that
“We have been fine with this dirty little wars so far,
But that’s the thing – they haven’t been fine – even in these dirty little wars.
The troops want persistent on-demand air support. The only platform that exists which can do that is the A-10. All others are limited by endurance and/or loadout.
but when we have to fight a real war we need real stealth, lots of unmanned and a massive technological edge. If we don’t get that now, then we will have some tough questions to answer when the fan gets messy”.
Some of which is valid, although I would prefer to think that they won’t need to plan for a real war….
Some of which is definitely valid. However, following age-old USAF reluctance to do their primary job they are beating the CAS A-10 with the interdiction stick and it has great potential for disaster when the fan gets messy…
Although since it’ll be primarily US Army blood that gets split, perhaps some USAF generals don’t really care.
Amiga500First, I hope we avoid any more conflicts where an aircraft where the A-10 is relevant- read Afghanistan.
Hmmm…. lets examine the last, say, 25 years for “major” conflicts in which the US have got involved.
1. Afghanistan. A-10 critical to supporting those at greatest risk (i.e. the troops on the ground, not the pilots in the sky.)
2. Iraq II. A-10 critical to removing any armoured vehicles and to providing on-call air support to troops in country and city.
3. Kosovo. Originally not used due to the interdiction nature of the strike plan, but eventually critical in destroying military equipment in Kosovo itself [the A-10s being the prime tank/artillery killers in the end]
4. Bosnia/Serbia/Yugoslavia. Not used extensively. No troops on ground.
5. Iraq I. A-10 critical to scud hunts, removing armoured columns and on-call support. The initial proposed retirement of the A-10 was halted due to its performance.
So, in 4 out of 5 conflicts the A-10 has seen extensive use.
In the 3 conflicts where troops have been on the ground, the A-10 has been absolutely essential. Given the assumption that the primary role of the USAF would be to support the US Army in any conflict where they are engaged, you have to ask… why are they being retired again?
Amiga500I don’t doubt that this stuff works, but I do wonder though, just how expensive would the PAK-FA be to maintain if it’s so reliant on RAM to achieve RCS reduction?
That’d depend on the ruggedness of the applied RAM and the ease of application.
We shouldn’t forget that the PAK-FA is brought to you by the bunch that insisted on rough field capabilities in its current generation of front line fighters… maybe even the PAK-FA too, and the crowd that had the wisdom not to bother with major engine overhauls in the field, but swap them out for replacement units and ship back to the factory for a refit.
as in – anything that is delicate to operate and difficult to maintain is not likely to meet Russian requirements (based on historical trends).
[Which could of course also mean these patents and research notes will be still-born, and not go on the aircraft.]
Amiga500A400m for SAR
Well, I expect if the timelines had been a bit more compatible when the programs were initiated, then the MRA4 systems would have been fitted to A400Ms, not Nimrods.
Amiga500From Dassault’s own page”
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/defense/rafale/the-sheer-power-of-multisensor-data-fusion/
Notice that it’s mostly about decluttering tracks? This is inline with the 1st slide I showed.
Are you serious?
What on earth do you think this means:
Overcoming individual sensor limitations related to wavelength / frequency, field of regard, angular and distance resolution, etc, by sharing track information received from all the sensors,
For the purposes of that sentence, you might want to consider the mis-use of the world “track”.
Amiga500It’s about the components talking to each other to develop a picture and not just combining (de-cluttering) their individual tracks into a single picture.
and we keep telling you the others do this!!
Yes, the number of sensors involved will vary, with the F-35 almost certainly having a higher number due to DAS, but that is an incremental improvement.
For instance (this isn’t an official site, but its solid info nonetheless):
http://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/sensors.html
PIRATE incorporates both a Forward Looking Infra Red (or FLIR) and Infra Red Search and Track (or IRST) capability. The system itself utilises a highly sensitive Infra Red sensor mounted to the port side of the canopy. This equipment scans across wavelengths from 3 to 11 µm in two bands. This allows the detection of both the hot exhaust plumes of jet engines as well as surface heating caused by friction. By supercooling the sensor even small variations in temperature can be detected at long range. Although no definitive ranges have been released an upper limit of 80nm has been hinted at, a more typical figure would be 30 to 50nm. The use of processing techniques further enhances the output, giving a near high resolution image of targets. The actual output from the system can be directed to any of the Multi-function Head Down Displays mounted within the cockpit. Additionally the image can be overlaid on both the Helmet Mounted Sight and Head Up Display.
The IIR sensor is stabilised within its mount so that it can maintain a target within its field of view. Up to 200 targets can be simultaneously tracked by the system using one of several different modes; Multiple Target Track (MTT), Single Target Track (STT), Single Target Track Ident (STTI), Sector Acquisition and Slaved Acquisition. In MTT mode the system will scan a designated volume space looking for potential targets. In STT mode PIRATE will provide high precision tracking of a single designated target. An addition to this mode, STT Ident allows for visual identification of the target, the resolution being superior to that provided by CAPTOR. Both Sector and Slave Acquisition demonstrate the level of sensor fusion present in the Typhoon. When in Sector Acquisition mode PIRATE will scan a volume of space under direction of another Typhoon sensor such as CAPTOR. In Slave Acquisition the use of off-board sensors is made with PIRATE being commanded by data obtained from an AWACS for example. When a target is found in either of these modes PIRATE will automatically designate it and switch to STT.
Once a target has been tracked and identified PIRATE can be used to cue an appropriately equipped short range missile, i.e. a missile with a high off-boresight tracking capability such as ASRAAM. Additionally the data can be used to augment that of CAPTOR or off-board sensor information via the AIS. This should enable the Typhoon to overcome severe ECM environments and still engage its targets.
Amiga500Saudi’s buying 72 of them….
Amiga500Erm… again, the question is… What does it do that sets it apart?
The EF-T, Gripen and Rafale all present one unified picture of the battlefield. I’m not sure about the Su-35… no-one knows about the PAK-FA and J-20/31.
Yes, it has more sensors in the form of DAS etc, which require more parameters to be processed by the system and its AESA can probably produce some slightly more refined data with more parameters that require analysis than the competition…
It adds the niche capability of HMS tracking through the airframe… (and I’m not even totally sure thats entirely unique to be honest).
Its an evolutionary step above in some aspects. Not a “game-changer” or “paradigm shift” in air combat.
Amiga500In this specific case, why not from a single aircraft?
From a single aircraft that was not devoted to shadowing the adversary?
Unless you can track:
(1) how long the aircraft has been in the air, and at what speeds with a corresponding estimated drag polar… which needs stores history (to build up a history of fuel burnt).
-or-
(2) the engine speeds along with altitude/airspeed in conjunction with an estimated drag polar which needs stores info (to get an idea of how much total weight is in the aircraft).
Your not going to be able to determine fuel state.
Amiga500Where do they claim that the AESA radar is connected to and can be used for Spectra data collection and active jamming attacks?
I could tell you that I know.
But you prob wouldn’t believe me…
Interview with General Joël Rode, former Commander of the French Air Force’s CEAM test centre
What is your assessment after the first phase of testing of the AESA radar?
What I understand today, based on my experience as an air defence pilot and my discussions with the evaluation teams, is that this new radar will give the Rafale capacities that are not only largely superior to what it can do today, but also to those of the Mirage 2000-5F, which is the French reference in air-to-air combat. In addition, the arrival of the Meteor made the integration of the new radar imperative.
How will this new capacity be transferred to the forces?
Experimentation is still in progress, and many areas of the operating envelope have still to be validated. An example is electronic warfare, which will be significantly impacted by the arrival of the RBE2-AESA. We also have a lot of work to perform concerning the use of the radar on a day-to-day basis, in order to determine new tactics in line with its performance. We also have to prepare our technicians for the arrival of the new system, to ensure that it can be easily transferred from one Rafale to another.
So… how would EW be significantly affected if the EW suite doesn’t use the AESA.
Answers on a postcard to:
OnlyLockheedAreAllowedToHaveBrains
1600 PowerPoint Avenue
USA
Sign In
