I was always laughting how some peoples like to use “double thinking” about capability of cruise missiles VS SAM’s.
Round goes like this: Reader A says: 30 _subsonic_ cruise missiles will overhelm pretty capable MIG-31 + S-300 + Tor + Tunguska AD system. Next minute they talk how 30 _supersonic_ cruise missiles would not penetrate a AD system of an average carrier group – which, by the way, have MUCH weaker AD than an average army AD network. My opinion here is what 80x generation SAM’s have exellent chances to shot down subsonic cruise missiles IF warned in time. Fighters may have problems detect stealthy missiles at large range, SAM’s have a luxury to stand just near target to protect.

I think you miss the point here.
A CVBG concentrates all needed defense assets at the same point and would focus on one mission: defending the carrier station.

A Mig31 + S300 +… system, if ever fielded in decent quantity by any nation, would have to cover a immensely bigger area with hundred of potential targets in a more complicated environment (terrain masking, air corridors, cities, no fire zones, free fire zones, …).

In addition the CVBG moves constantly so it is unlikely that you can fire at it from hundreds of km, and if so you need to provide forward designation from aircrafts or submarines that are suscetptible to be detected (raising alarm) and destroyed.
On the other hand it is possible you catch the CVBG in a vulnerability position during an alpha strike for example, with limited air cover.
But anyway, apart from Russia during Cold War, who would have enough capacity to attack a US CVBG with any chance of success?

Want an account of a Mirage F1CZ and Mig23 encounter?

http://www.piercy.co.za/

and go to the “my accident” page.

You’ll see that the reality of air combat has little to do with how much º/sec or kN/kG or many G an aircraft can pull. :rolleyes:

I finally need to resolve this question. Does Indian Force have the dedicated ground-attack version of Mirage 2000, the Delta or is it just a myth? If yes, how can I externally distinguish the 2000D from ordinary twin-stick Bravo trainers?

A mirage 2000D has no pitot tube and relies on additional lateral probes (on the nose, low).
In addition the 2000D has a new chaff/flare dispenser in the spine (materialised by a red dotted line on the spine), a relocated APU exit and 2 new ECM aerials on the fin. Maybe there is also a new refuelling point on the spine but I’m not too sure.

Here are some walkarounds of M2000D and M2000N
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin2/mirage_2000d_walk.htm
http://www.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin2/mirage_2000n_walk.htm

Hope that helps.

Edited to add that compared to a M2000-5 a 2000D lacks a missile-aircraft datalink on the fin.

Hasn’t the US protested against the sell of Black Shahines (a SCALP/Storm Shadow derivative) to the UAE cause it did break some 300km+ range cruise missiles non-proliferation agreement?

Jackonicko please give facts and let us make our own opinion

[QUOTE=Jackonicko]

[HTML]DVI is easy. Bigger vocabulary, lower error rate, though I can’t prove it.[/HTML]

So, if you can’t proove it, why mention it ? It is purely your opinion.
Let’s give some data for both system and compare.
Rafale DVI has been reported to have a 95%+ word recognition rate with a vocabulary of 50 to 300 words (according to customer demand) and a reponse speed of less than 200ms. It has been flight tested by pilots from different countries (different accents), and these data date from 2001 …

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_3.pdf

Both systems are reported to activate non critical systems and be modular (depending on customer need) thus should not contribute significantly to the superiority of any of the 2 fighters.

[QUOTE=Jackonicko]

[HTML]MMI is harder, because it’s so much down to subjective judgement, and it necessarily relies on my quoting what often nameless sources have said, though Typhoon’s huge HUD is obvious at first glance, and the brightness of the displays in direct sunlight is also apparent. I can only enjoin you to go and look at the manufacturer’s stands at the next Farnborough or Paris. Though the cockpits look very similar when ‘static’, you’ll notice that the Rafale pilot has to work much harder (eg make more switch selections) to achieve display and mode changes, and that automatic display changes in response to mode changes are less ‘intuitive’. Just wait for Fonk and PilotWAT to leap in and deny it, but anyone who has seen the two cockpits in operation, and who knows what they are looking at, will say the same. This makes Typhoon easier to fly, reduces pilot workload, increases pilot capacity, and thereby enables greater situational awareness. General Jumper expressed particular admiration for Typhoon’s MMI after flying the aircraft.[/HTML]

As you said yourself this seems a rather subjective interpretation. For Rafale we can rely on the descriptions of MMI done by several journalists (H-P Grolleau, C Yeo …) that have flown the plane. If you could, please, give us some similar informations about Eurofighter MMI, perharps we could judge by ourself instead of relying on your own commentaries

http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRheft/FRH0307/FR0307e.htm
http://www.miw.com.sg/publish/MIWPORTAL/public/lifestyle/military_interest/combataircraft_rafalethunder01.html
http://antislashe.free.fr/fly.htm

From this reading we can see that the system allow immediate engagement of any threat that has been detected by the weapon system. Not too much workload here.

Some excerpts:

‘The air to air and air to ground functions can be activated simultaneously, says Philippe Rebourg. It’s the real innovation giving the Rafale her superiority on her concurrents. During the SCALP attack, the air to air mode was active with radar and OSF dedicated to this function. Naturally the radar tracked some targets and the OSF has locked the target classified as the most dangerous by the system. Only one push would have been sufficient to engage this target. The complete firing sequence can be realised through the auto pilot by simple imputs given with the coolie hat of the stick. On the Rafale, the auto pilot is completely integrated to the flight control system : it is part of the command chain like the airbrake function for example.’

‘The pilot can choose between two firing domains : maximum range or no escape zone. Max range is materialized by a doted line and no escape by a steady line surrounding the target. In WVR combat a minimum shooting distance is materialized on the tactical display. As soon as we are in range the weapon system signals ‘shoot’ on the HUD, by cycling between the contacts the pilot can immediately engage the other targets, the second missile is automatically locked on the n+1 target. MICA can be fired every 2 seconds, the one from the airframe points are ejected up to 4G while wings pylons can release MICA up to 9G. The propulsed phase is very short (a few seconds) and the shooting is nearly undetectable, no smoke is produced by the rocket motor. For long range intercept, the missile follows an inertial trajectory toward coordinates continuously refreshed by the datalink then uses the seeker before hitting target. The time of flight of the missile is indicated on the HUD and the datalink duration appears as a decreasing camembert plot.’

‘After completing the cruise-missile delivery, the swing-role Rafale was reconfigured for the air-to-air role by pressing a single button. During air-to-air combat the radar searches above and below the horizon, and automatically selects high, medium or low pulse repetition frequencies to optimise detection range. Targets are IFF interrogated automatically, and a dogfight mode is available for close combat. For air-to-air interceptions, the RBE2 long detection ranges and multitarget capabilities enable the pilot to track up to 40 targets in the track-while-scan mode, irrespective of their aspects and flying altitudes. Interception data are calculated for the
eight priority targets, allowing firing of MICA missiles in quick succession in their full range envelopes. The weapon system automatically selects the nearest or most threatening target, and the pilot only has to accept the proposal and shoot (or instantly switch to another target if the tactical situation or orders received dictate another choice). On an operational aircraft equipped with a fully functioning datalink, radar, FSO, and self-defence suite, all tactical data is fused in the head-level display. For interception, the head-level display is divided into vertical and horizontal tactical images, offering a perfectly clear view of the evolving combat situation to the crew. The FSO image can be inserted into the main image to further improve situational awareness. Alternatively, for raid assessment, the magnifying function can be displayed on the head-level display. ‘

It seems hard to do simpler and more efficient. Remember me of some ancient flight simulators 🙂
.

By the way, LGB capability on Rafale has been reported in english as soon as 2001. However I don’t know if complete integration has been carried out since AdA seems more interested by the all weather GPS/INS gided AASM.

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/img/fox3_1.pdf

Have a nice day

www 🙂

Hello,
the Rafale F1 has a 14Mips CPU with 20Mb memory. The EMTI on F2 standard has a 65Mips CPU (PPC740 200MHz) with 30Mb memory.

regards