I think he means that the resounding note throughout the majority of problems is that Hydraulics and movement are involved, and therefore are more complex and prone to failure than their fixed counterparts. I would direct him to the mental complexity of even the most simple fly-by-wire system where there are usually three main systems, each with three backups on the primary controls (only two on the rudder) and COUNTLESS things to go wrong.

Now, imagine what happens when a stray .50 cal round goes into the avionics bay….

Tornado: Pilots record a slight bump in the flight and continue on their mission.

french-thing: Avionics shut down, aircraft crashes.

Now analyse what happened – for the mirage / Rafale, the flight profile allowed a stry round to penetrate vital systems and cause loss of control.
– for the Tonka – no damage, except to the sniper who was hit by the aircraft as it passed overhead in its usual mission profile flight path.. ie. 0 ft.

I think this is utter bull***t. No Mirage 2000 was ever lost due to FCS malfunction or loss. The FCS is a heavily redundant system with mechanical back-up. On the other hand, a German Tornado was lost just due to flying near the Radiop Free Europe antenna on the 6th July 1984 near Munich.

Rafale got its first victory against a Libyan Galeb. Ironically the plane was destroyed on the ground using an AASM.

Flying at low alt, it could have been hit by a flock of birds, it happened several times to french fighters flying low-mid level over Tchad. Could have had a fuel system malfunction like this Rafale which was lost recently …
How can we conclude w/out any fact?

I’m not sociologist and I’d like to know what was happening in Libya, is Ghadafi regime terrorizing people or French mercenaries/Libyan traitors wants Libyan oil, to help economic crisis in EU.
Please if somebody knows, share it with us who do not.

Anyhow I admit French pilot’s heroism, I wonder what was satisfaction to off bombs to another country.
Maybe it is lesson for other less developed countries to start building SCUD-like missiles or other means of retaliation and for us to understand when something bad happens.

Rational and honest people try to educate themselve and to get information on a situation before making such comment.

http://blog.francetv.fr/capitaine-ro…e-sur-rafale–

Actually, the Indian pilot was able to fly a single seat Rafale after only one morning briefing, this is pretty good and a testimony of the simplicity of the user interface and of the precision of the flight controls.

Another interesting point is made about the AASM which were fired in a salvo on targets that were “découverts et recallés en cours de mission”, discovered and retargeted in flight. Does that mean that F3 Rafales now have the ability to extract GPS coordinates of a target to reprogramm AASM in flight or that the target coordinates were transmitted while in flight?

No, if the f22 receives updates, and if the Rafale emits, then they can triangulate between their bearing and the AWAC’s.

If that was the case, the Rafales would keep their radar silent and use OSF to search for the raptors. And maybe try to detect the datalink between F22s and AWACs.

Nic

Please try to read again and to understand what I mean.

The F22 does not emit to the AWACS but only receives (that’s one of its limitations, being a superb ESM collection platform but unable to share except with other F22).
We don’t know if the F22 can target using AWACS/GCI information, I doubt it, and it may need triangulation from its wingmen to target passively.

We have no information on OSF IRST range, efficiency, volume search that prove that it would be sufficient to detect the F22. So the pilots may have preferred to rely on their radar. If the article is true …

It seems to me that you are forgetting another possibility: F22 or Rafales are not blind even if their radar is turned off as they can receive information from GCI or AWACS. An international DACT exercice is probably “played” on an instrumented range with radar cover. So this result could mean that the Raptor knew where the Rafale where thanks to GCI or AWACS, while Raptor stayed out of detection range from the GCI/AEW thus forcing Rafale to light their onboard radar on to find them. IRST are probably nice but their range is probably not as great as in brochure where only the best performance are shown, in real conditions it could be well below 30km (total guestimation here) depending on weather and target aspect/behaviour.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/release/106821/mbda-demos-vl-mica-for-coastal-defense.html

The test firing was carried out on Wednesday, 8th July at the DGA (Délégation Générale pour l’Armement) Centre d’Essais de Lancement de Missiles (CELM) test range in Biscarosse (S.W. France). Following its firing from a vertical launcher, the MICA missile registered a direct hit against the intended target flying at a range of approximately 15km. The intercepted target was representative of a missile flying at about 10 metres above the surface of the sea.

…

The missile used for the test was equipped with an imaging infrared seeker and was fired from a vertical launcher in which MICA was housed in its CLA (Conteneur Lanceur Autonome – or Autonomous Launch Container) which will equip both the ground and naval versions of the system. The CLA was installed in a vertical launch vehicle which was operated under the control of a system command module (Tactical Operation Centre).
A distance of 6km separated the two elements, replicating the operational deployment of VL MICA in a ground-to-air, area defence configuration.
Representing the 15th consecutive successful firing of MICA from a vertical launcher, this latest firing demonstrates the great reliability of the missile as well as its high precision guidance. The intercept confirmed VL MICA’s unique capabilities such as its terminal guidance mode, its seekers – both infrared and electromagnetic – and its proximity fuze in intercepting low signature targets at very low altitudes, even above the surface of the sea.

I post this information in the Rafale thread since MICA is the main air-air armament of the Rafale and it is very informative on MICA capacity. I found it amazing that the MICA can reach a target at 15km at sea level knowing previously published data gave a 10km range for the MICA VL version. From the data of the surface to air shot disclosed in this trial we can try to estimate the performance of an air to air shot.

MICA is known to accelerate +2.5 mach above launcher speed, in the case of a surface launch from 0 speed it would give a top speed of approximately mach 2.0 provided 0.5 mach is lost when the missile goes from vertical to horizontal flight. Assuming the average speed over 15 km is 1.5 mach which is 510m/s at sea level, it gives a 30 sec flight. A subsonic target at mach 0.8 will travel 8 km during this time. The kinematic range of the MICA VL is near 23 km at sea level. How does it translate for a launch from a Rafale whose max speed is mach 1.4 at sea level? Missile speed would reach a max speed of mach 3.9 (which seems a bit high) so let’s consider a set of average speeds over the course of the missile: for an average speed of mach 2.0 the missile would travel 20 km in 30 seconds, and for an average speed of mach 3.0 the missile would travel 30 km in 30 seconds. Against a non manoeuvrable mach 0.8 target it would give respectively 28 to 38 km firing envelope at sea level. The kinematic range of a missile is typically 3 times longer at high altitude which would translate in nearly 90 – 120 km range against a subsonic target. Against a non manoeuvrable supersonic (mach 1.5) target it would give almost 130-140 km in a head-on. This is probably an overestimation but the published range of 80 km doesn’t appear irrealistic or overestimated in view of this, even for a 112 kg missile.