LindermyerI had replied previously but it appears to have got lost in the ether.
[QUOTE=TMor;1550996]No. In fact, it’s the contrary. The probe is an afterthought.
Thanks for that gem I was about to as if the probe was a late addition, or wether one service or the other is stuck in the 60s regarding the reliability of retarctable probes. (as an an Englishmen i am more than aware that senior commanders often hold onto cherished beliefs well past what is prudent)
Again, when one don’t know about the Rafale developpement phase, he cannot be accurate.
Independently, the probe is an army choice which wanted a strong fixed probe, because of the “Boom” for refueling which can easily break a probe. If AdA had took new means into account, a different choice would have been made. This induced an increase in weight, a certain increase in RCS. This is not an optimal solution. But there’s a gap between claiming that the probe is the proof that all efforts are wasted and the fact that this probe might have only a small impact.
It was never my point to imply it has a massive effect on RCS -especially given the external warload. However the fixed probe is an indication that the rafale (along with all the other later 4th gen aircraft) has been designed, then this design has been tweaked in order to reduce the radar signature, as opposed to the likes of the F22/35 which have been designed as LO/VLO aircraft.
From your posts you have no problem with this concept, my comment re mosquito testicles was merely a light hearted exageration, it was never intended to inflame youre good self, however in order to prevent confusion and avoid future conflicts i will refrain from my more colourful expressions.
My better half is French and speas fluent english but its suprising how big a language barrier we have once colloquillisms come into it
You are correct in that i post on SP, however i refrain from trolling or attacking others, although on occasion i have been a tad caustic with a few fanboys especially on the special forces threads.
The tone is much more civilised over here, dont feel the need to defend the Rafale to the death, i am sure the vast majority of people agree its a good aircraft.
Its just unfortunate that Bluewings (in various guises) has on various forums almost single handedly managed to inflame so many people that any mention of the Rafale degenerates into a slanging match.
I hope to become a respected poster on this forum in time.
Regards
Lynstyne
LindermyerSuperb !
I applaud those messages.
Well, at least, Rafale flies, doesn’t it ?
So, the Rafale design is so poor on RCS (especially with those badly fitting panels and RF reflecting fuel probe) that French did their best to add saw tooth at every panels.
The RBE-2 is such a shame that French are marketing a passive BVR fight capability.
What’s next ?
F-22 was such a failure in terms of RCS that they made they best to modify all the shape of the airframe, so as to compensate ?
APG-77 is so bad that they also developped a passive BVR fight capability ?
I am more than happy to discuss and debate – thats why we are here, but try to refrain from taking one line from my post and quoting it without context to give the appearance of a trolling.
There are posters on various forums who insist the RCS of the rafale is smaller than a mosqitos testicle – my slightly flippant remark was in context a minor exageration to demonstrate a point.
regards
LindermyerWith all due respect (Ahhmm) i don’t think you as an internet warrior are really all that well placed to dis Dassaults knowledge or ability with regard to rcs reduction based on throw away comments re refueling probes.
As you are so keen of asking of others…please provide your links and evidence that shows the probe, as implemented on the Rafale, is such a big glowing beacon for all radars.
Or are you just trolling?
The whole probe thing was done to death on another forum after blue wings/ dare 2/other incarnation insisted it was Ram coated.
quite apart from the angles, and that it sticks out lig **** on a fish, The probe has a big metal ball in the end (it has to be metal) The probe is a major reflector.
The probe alone probably gives a bigger return than some posters think the whole aircraft does.
I have speculated that the ultra low RCS figure given is with out the probe.
Does any one know if its quick (ish) release so could in theory be swapped in or out on a mission basis.
For the record I dont believe the Typhoon is stealthy either.
LindermyerThis is what puzzles me: if COMMON parts are shared by all three versions, then how come the % common-parts is different per version?
Some aircraft have a greater number of unique parts. this will change the commonality percentage.
Incidently re common cousin unique to my mind
common = identical part
Cousin = modified part – (possibly interchangeble eg landing gear)
unique = specific part for the type ie lift fan
LindermyerMack 8
Was Romania in a position back then to support even a smallforce of mig29. logistically and financially this could have been beyond the capability of the Romanian AF.
Lindermyerfree aircraft look good on aircraft but may well result in a false saving -given maintenance and life cycles.
Given romanias size, economy, etc I suspect the Typhoon may well be a bit rich for the romanian AF.
I would think the best choice would be the Grippen small lightweight cheap to operate.
I will admit to a small amount of Bias – defence cuts gutting the armed forces not withstanding – I allways felt he grippen could have been developed into a good JAG replacement.
As to other late 4th Gen – would romania be happy to buy Russian politically and militarily.
From bitter experience I refuse to mention any aircraft that dont begin with a C-number, F-number, G, M, S or T – it tends to stop Threads degenerating if a certain letter is avoided.
LindermyerAs someone who used to post on SP before finally giving up due to the complete lack of moderation there, I shake my fist at you in impotent rage. Not because you posted this, no, but because now I will be forced to go there and see whether your ploy worked.
You are a bad, bad person. 😉
ill save you the trouble it failed possibly because i was rumbled to soon – in hindsight Sqn Ldr Trenchard was perhaps a parody to far
LindermyerNo Lindermeyer
Myself , and i believe TMor even more, would be happy to believe in whatever you or “Trenchard” wrote IF…
There wasnt obvious errors on that text, errors no pilot would make.
You wont get a MAW notice of a simulated shot, because a pulse-doppler radar MAW needs something that is actually flying to detect…Then, most of the claims are simply preposterous, the “active cancelation thingy” Klingon device, is, to put it bluntly, ridiculous.
Then there this small problem of something that you called the “official” RAF Forum, whats that? Not E-Goat certainly…
And of course, that a Royal Air Force officer would writte this “thing” in an “official” RAF forum. The Royal Air Force has sent 453 pilots to the ATLC, so he would be well protected by anonimity… NOT
That pilot, would be imediatly traced, and “beach slaped”…So, we have a text written by an anonimous in an non existant “official” RAF Forum, that was erased by some naughty moderators, with factual technical errors and some pretty preposterous claims, and this was found out by a lurker who in is first post here, in Key publishing submits this “jewel” and starts the text with “Dare2 maybe this interset you”. Our “Daring” coleague by is own admission has an “anger management” issue, a text like this is bit like adding fire to gasoline.
So, yes, if you want to call this “bashing” (your own words) i am not going to chalenge your assertion.
Fair enough
I may have over egged the pudding somewhat with Sqn ldr trenchard,
The errors particuarly the MAWS were intentional (caveat there may be unintentional errors in there but i hope not).
It was im afraid a bit of an experiment to see how long it wold take bluewings to repost this on the strategy page forums as a credible scource.
I will close the chapter on this post and I will in future refrain from trolling and endevour to be a respectable poster.
LindermyerSo if person does not rate typhoon – it must be bashing
LindermyerDare 2
maybe this interset you
From a RAF blog – was link from e goat – official RAF Forum
-yesterday i copy some text as i could not make link work – but could not post intil today
big suprise the moderator remove link to blog and the blog is gone
pilot is SQN LDR Trenchard
The exercise was a blue team interception of a Strike packages Top cover
The 2 flights consisted of 4x typhoons & 4x rafale.
We were acting as an F14 flight (no mention of whose but ..) acting as CAP for a strike group. We were conducting active sweeps the rafales had AWACS support.
In the first engagement the AWACS vectored them into our 6 position. We never heard or saw them coming. Obviously vectored by the AWACS they made a completely passive attack at long range. Those MICA are a serious threat – the MAW system completely failed to give us any warning of a launch.
In the second engagement the Rafales were (simulating) only WVR heat seekers and for BVR had to use RH.
We did not get the result we wanted – we broke as soon as we heard the RWR and turned into them, But we just couldn’t detect them, that SPECTRA is really some thing as soon as they go active with that system the aircraft just vanishes of the scope.
Once we got into WVR it all went to pieces – we just couldn’t match the Rafales agility, If you turned with it we bled off to much air speed and the Rafale out accelerated us.
Our one ill was more down to a screw up by Frenchie than skill on our part.
It appears that yet again the RAFs been lumbered at 5x the cost with another BAE lemon.
Personally I say save a fortune on the F35 and fly the Rafale off the carriers. For our likely opponents its more than adequate, and maybe we can ditch the great white elephant known as Typhoon
Disappointed and disillusioned is how best to describe the squadron post exercise.
Sign In
