Mirage 2000 ?
This one reminds me of that infamous F-22 ‘kill’ from a few years back. 😀
NOT from Check6 but THIS forum and THIS topic and perhaps Mirage as well although i don’t know Rafale gun mode in HUD that i can remember, if it’s a Mirage it’s even better but i guess Rafale.
They even posted the link to here for clues, not every pictures they post there is from their simulations btw, many are real and this one is from a topic in the “Real aviation” section, posted by a guy called “Cougar”, D View .. Typhoon.
http://www.checksix-forums.com/showthread.php?t=157658
Also there might be a good reason for it to look similar since they would use thesame tactic. i.e a high yo-yo…
Rafale à Red Flag 08
envoyé par armee-de-l_air. – Regardez plus de vidéos de science.
Wrong again.
No, it is YOU who needs to pute two & two together.
Is that a FACT?
Length 51.5 ft
Height 14.2 ft
Wingspan 35 ft
Wing area 460 sq ft
Horizontal tail span 23 ft
Weight empty 29,300 lb
Maximum weight 70,000 lb class
Internal fuel 18,000 + lbs
Speed Mach 1.6 (~1,200 mph)
Range ~1.200 n. mi
Combat radius 610 n. mi
Power plant One P&W F135 or GE F136
Engine thrust 40,000 lb (with after burner)
http://www.lockheedmartin.com/products/f35/f-35specifications/f-35a-ctol-specifications.html
The Eurocanards were designed to be better 4th generation fighters than the US ‘teens’.
NO there was never any mention of US figthers in their requierements this is PURE invention as is most of what you post.
The concepts which guided their design was the same as it was for the US ‘teens’ just taken to a slightly higher level.
Absolutly NOT and btw, performance-wise F-35 design was taken to a lower level than LWF requierements.
BUT so long was their developement that some 5th generation like character were able to be included in their final design, such as reduce frontal RCS & improved MMI.
Revisionism, as expected.
The F-35 OTOH was designed to be a true next generation fighter rather than ‘just a better 4th generation fighter’. The concepts which guided its design being truly transformational in nature.
F-35 was designed as a STRIKE fighter, F-16 as a PURE air superiority fighter = LWF, with higher Mach and ceillings.
The Eurocanards are like the piston fighters of the mid 1940’s.
GEEEEEEEEESUS. 😀
Reaching the ‘pinnacle’ of their generation but no matter how much better they were than previous fighters, advances in technology & concepts of air combat had already passed them by & they simply could not compete with the next genration of fighters.
Now that’s the pinacle of the funny 2009 quote contest.
And these are NOT KPP but designed operational maximum or DASH; including the ceillings at which they are to be used.
KPPs have been published in other pages of L-M doc and well know what they are, they do not include Machs; thanks for amusing me.
Nite nite.
Yes says me. And what? How technical was this very post of you?
Sorry mate, as usual YOU start a flame bate and complain when people ask you to come square, it’s a lot asking for someone who YET another time have posted an innacurate information no?
You keep making allegations after allegations against other forum members, the latest on Arthuro posts in this topic, on Rafale’s M comments at the Paris airshow and are making a strongly sustained habit of it while never managing to make a technical point stay up because you can’t.
This is WHAT.
We know us since more than 4 years now and we certainly had more than enough discussions and we both know how they ended up.
Yeah. Your usual spining, twisting, reality and fact denial, “trolls” calling, we all know that and when it is not enough smear is the next best thing, when that fails the last ressorts is palying the poor victim of bad, insulting trolls.
How insulting is it from you to allege that everyone else here is actually doing what YOU do when you can’t keep up by lack of knowlege or simply because you canot deny FACTS that you do not like?
I see no reason to repeat that for the sake of forum peace and as I know that it is a waste of time.
Like you give a damned about forum peace! 😀
If you did you wouldn’t bother making allegations against others in a permanent basis and not only ONE person but virtualy everyone who posts something which is not going your way on the Rafale/Typhoon topic.
Make out of that what you want and throw as much dirt as you want, it neither impresses me nor does it make any of your claims more true or wrong and neither mine.
I do NOT make out things… YOU do, i make technical points, posts archives demonstrating how little you guys knew about Typhoon and Rafale, .i.e reasons for the long moment arm, %age of instability, possible turning performances, supercruise, technical characteristics of the close-coupled canards, avionics and system upgrades, Rafale politico-Industrial history and requierements etc.
All of which you obiously jumped up and down trying to derail any proper technical debate because you do not have the proper knowlege base or canot prove otherwise and more to it because reality didn’t fit the forum legends repeatedly posted in several forums among which this one.
Don’t complain if people rub your nose with your inventions such as Typhoon canards used in the roll axis (been told by a GAF specialist), Kenametic energy and the rest, it’s your lot not that of others and certainly not a reason for smear and allegation you are of course unwilling to prove because YOU makes them up, just like you made up this paranoiac comment you land to Arthuro.
I read his comments when he posted it and he was very careful not to invole himself, i would reproch him to be too litle opiniated if anything and he is always polite, so don’t try to tell everyone you are the victim here you are the perpetrator yourself.
BTW he thaught you were a friend and that the alleged “troll” was the bad guy, perhaps he will see you under your real light after this, as for me i’m ready to face the music any time i don’t look for escuses and can prove what i say including the facts i accuse you of, so don’t tempt me. 
Cheers
Sign In
