redreidyI think you are being quite biased here…
Rafale no doubt is an absolutely outstanding a/c — although it has some issues, mainly with costs and a very long time to mature due to lack of adequate funding.
However consider that it did participate in competitions against world-class fighters like the F-15 in Singapore and S. Korea — and those F-15 are quite formidable!
A lot is classified about these a/c we should always keep that in mind. However I believe it did leak that Rafale did quite well in those trials. Had it been more mature at that time it may even have won!?
Now it is facing an enormous challenge in the F-35 on the one hand, and 4.5 gen fighters on the other. It does not offer the low operating costs as Gripen NG, and it does not offer the political gain as SH or F-16.
India, Brazil, and some countries in the ME are IMHO the last chances for Rafale before the world starts to focus even more on the 5. gen fighters coming up.
Oh don’t get me wrong I’m not trying to be biased, i just thought that article and the subsequent on provided by Colibri shouldn’t be used as proof as they are written from a very pro rafale point of view. and was just suggesting that export sales may be a better indicator of aircraft ability because, no doubt the buying county will have access to all of the information we would love to possess and will make their judgements based on these facts.
redreidyDid I miss something ? Maybe you suggest that UK pilots didn’t want to comment ?
I mean… When it was Rafale vs F-16, of course, we had comments from the US pilots… Their machine is old and no match, no surprise.
But why would Typhoon pilots accept to tell “well, we couldn’t get the upper hand this time” considering that Rafale and Typhoon are from the same generation (whatever the british marketing will say), Typhoon is more A2A optimized, and French pilots have mainly A2G culture ?
There is something dis-gracious here.Be careful with all this salt. Every French sources are to be taken with a pinch of salt those times… ?
Your right! I beat up mike Tyson the other week, and because he won’t come out at say that this didn’t happen means I am telling the truth? Good argument!!
No not every French source should be taken with a pinch of salt, a statement from a source like ADA or the French mod, or even a single quote from a pilot would add more credibility to this article.
Also i think that article is pretty clear anyway!! The Rafale would be dead before it got to a WVR fight!! But in all honesty it’s all ifs and buts. I Could except that the Rafale is the more developed aircraft out of the two at the moment although theres very little in it. I also think that the typhoon in 10 years will far outstip the Rafale. But at the same time you have to wonder why the people who have the facts (the country’s dassult have tried to sell it to) have yet to buy a single specimen? what is it that puts them off so much?
redreidywere have the posts gone off track ?! when people build a house they give it a name, when people construct a car they give it a name! how is discussing what the ship will be called when its finished off topic?
tbh the last 20 post or so i think have been the most on topic this cvf thread has ever been!!
redreidyEEE lightning,
Here is the story beneath. Pure WVR dogfight here. Pics (HUD gunshots) at link. Post N°1513.
http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?137433-Rafale-News/page101
French publication, no actual quotes?! i’ll take that with a pinch of salt!
redreidySorry to go back by a few days and pages, but on reading through this thread since I last checked in this aspect in particular caught me at a level of ignorance. I’m not taking up a contrary position and saying the carriers should have Aster 15/30, these are just questions I found myself wondering without the knowledge to answer.
The point is made about an opposing passive sensor being able to watch SAMPSON making bearing changes in a manner effectively labelling it as a carrier in the process of air ops, though wouldn’t that also apply to the S1850M that the carrier will mount?
Also given that CVF won’t be going anywhere near trouble without a full complement of escorts, won’t the SAMPSON radar sets on the accompanying Type 45s give the group away in this scenario anyway?
Finally, if an ESM platform is in a position to monitor a fleet by its emissions, isn’t it in danger of being detected by those very emissions?
I’m not an expert on this but i imagine that the idea is the escorts will have their radars on and the CVF radar will be used only when required. I’d also imagine that the escorts will be a fair distance away from the carrier itself so wouldn’t really be required to steer into wind when the carrier launches aircraft. So the observer would see a couple of radar emissions out there but wouldn’t really see the whole picture.
But as i say im just guessing 🙂 im also intrested in hearing a expert answer!!
redreidyIs that saying that the CVF will never be hit by enemy fire? Does that imply that it doesn’t need to be built to naval construction standards, doesn’t need sophisticated damage control, doesn’t need any armour etc….?
Taken a bit out of context don’t you think?!
I never mentioned construction or armour, my point as Jonesy point out was that in an ideal world it would be great if we could have 2 super ships sailing around with every bell and whistle attached.
But at the moment with cuts being made left, right and centre I would rather that we have two carriers however basic people deem there in house air defence systems
The fact of the matter is that the T45 are designed to defend airspace around itself and whatever it happens to be escorting. why would you spend the money adding Sampson and Aster to CVF when you can just send out another T45 which will do the job better?
Hypothetical question: if – big if – CVF had Sampson or an equivalent radar and Aster SAMS, would there be a need for a Type 45 at all?
haha not unless your going to have CVF escorting other high value unites, which again would be pretty cool but not very cost effective i think.
redreidySeriously there is absolutely no need for any sort of air defence on the CVF. They will not go anywhere near dangerous waters without a T45 or two and a couple of frigates. On top of this there will be air support on tap, add to that the close in gun systems in case things get a little hairy! Let’s not spend money for spending money’s sake! Any potential attacker would have a hard enough nut to crack already.
redreidyI have been reading this forum for a good few years now and people seem to be getting more and more obsessed with who is trolling rather that having a civilised debate, people accusing people of trolling just because they disagree on a point!! they may actually believe what they claim, and if you disagree you should try to educate them and try to convince them to see your side of view without resorting to insults.
on the other hand am going to wade in with some massively basic presumptions and guessing (I’ll be honest imp not as smart as u guys and know nothing of radars) but can stealth be defeated like this?
if the previously stated fact of stealth being 70% diverted reflection and 30% radar, if you use one aircraft to emit the radar and several others to fly in a optimal formation to receive the reflected rays, in this era of tactical data links would it not be fairly easy to detect and shoot down even a large formation of stealth aircraft?? no doubt I am missing some key details so feel free to educate me!
redreidyRedreidy, this is totally unrelated, but I don’t believe there is any aircraft that can run down an F-111, at LOW LEVEL. The tyfoon or any other plane with such a large wing would give their pilots kidney damage from all the buffetting at M1.25 and 200ft. It’s been said a dozen F-111, flying at M1.25 and 200ft, over a heavily populated area (like Bhagdad), could do more damage due the sonic booms than if they dropped their full compliment of forty-eight 500lb bombs each.
why would the typhoon chase the f-111 at low level? they would sit at any height they would be most efficient. my point was that granted the f-111 can go really fast for a short while where as the phoon and f-22 can also go very fast (i suspect jsut as fast if needed after all most of the info i can find on the tiffy just says top speed M2 but what is the odds its exactly mach 2 i suspect i could go faster) for a short time but also just fast for a very long time.
redreidythe phoon has a reported max of mack 2, so it cant run down a f-111 anyway
as i said in a post above
then why are planes getting slower instead of faster, the f-15 could do mach2.5 30 yrs ago, the MiG25A mach 2.8
really I take it the F-111 has to go at full after burner, clean to reach M2.5, how long can it do this for before *******ing up the engines or running out of fuel. not as long as the typhoon can dawdle along without afterburner at M1.5 or 1.2 which ever source u believe I suppose, to sum up id bet typhoon would run down the F-111 eventually.
redreidythere isnt a need to develope there own, as its easier to get the one the americans are building
redreidyno but im sure if the need arised a stealth frame on a eurofighters insides wouldnt be to hard to accomplish problem is there isnt a need
redreidyA fact is something that cannot be argue with. in this sense generations of aircraft are not a proven fact or a proven way of defining said plane.
Aircraft generations would be fact if there was a set of parameters agreed fully by all parties involved in aircraft building, if this thread proves anything then it is that this is not the case.
The way I think of it is you have to break it down into individual attributes rather than the sum of those attributes. there are 5th generation attributes i.e. stealth, super cruise, AESA, high agility, next generation weaponry, pilot interfacing, HOBS, data transmission , ect…. and im sure many of you can name more. now many planes exhibit many of these abilities but none posses all! so for instance the F-22 has many of these, but does not have high of bore sight missiles. does this lack of a advanced tech make the F-22 not 5th gen, does the tiffys lack of stealth make it not 5th gen as it also posses many of the attributes as does the F-35 which doesn’t super cruise? Some obviously have more of these attributes but none have all.
therefore I think for the purpose of defining combat aircraft the use of generations is flawed, at worst is sized upon by fan boys as a measuring stick for a peeing contest. Just my thoughts
redreidyThe point of your American LHD’s and Harriers/F-35b is that its a hell of a lot cheaper to send a wasp class to a area that a Nimitz class, so for area of less urgency where a smaller presence is suitable they pay for themselves, also a Nimitz cannot do what wasp can do in amphibious duties but a wasp class can do (all be it in a limited capacity) what a Nimitz can in terms of strike and helo support, if anything I would suggest the opposite that the LHD’s offer the value for money not the fleet carriers.
Also the LHD are owned by the navy I believe not the marine corps although both the corps and navy come under the command of the US department of the navy. so I think its like calling your left and right side two different people.
As for the heat spot on deck, if the plane was travelling at 20k and the ship was travelling at 20K with consistent wind travelling over the deck the exhaust will still hit the deck at a continuous point only a tiny bit behind where it would if all was stationary! I think ha-ha.
plus a A-10s wingspan is far to big for a carrier haha but i take it u was joking about the A-10s on a nimitz
redreidynot sure if this is news to every 1, im sure every body noticed this already but i’ll put it up incase any 1 missed it?
http://www.janes.com/news/defence/naval/jdw/jdw100125_1_n.shtml
Sign In
