Well wing line complies with modern AAMs FOV,

No it doesn’t scorpion, whatever way you look at it, sweept or not.

so indicating beyond wing line doesn’t necessarily mean marginally beyond it, though it could be.

That’s what earlier staments says andthey still don’t say 180* at time of firing, the day they achieve this performance we will know.

Well 90° is already way off the axis, so definitely HOB. But I know what you are aiming at.

90° both side off bore is not the same, it is way higher than any AAM seekers in service unless there have been a real breakthrough i am not aware of.

Maig II was already capable of off boresight, high off boresight implies more maneuvrability off the rail.

The issue with using offboard data might be that you don’t have a supporting platform in space on time and in such conditions a HMS can be more useful. If you lack any indications on the helmet you also rely on looking on a screen into the cockpit. Though a lot depends on how things are going to work.

You need detection and cueing capabilties to fire first, then ifyou want true 360X360 capabilties you also need this to be donewhile IDing aircrafts.

L-M explains this clearly in their recent briefs in EODAS developement.

Did the MICA receive MCG during that trial and if yes how?

I don’t know actually, i don’t think it had been writen to this level of detail but i can try to find out…

SUCCESS FROM FRENCH AIR FORCE RAFALE

06/21/2007

MICA Press Release.doc

19th June 2007
MICA FIRING SUCCESS FROM FRENCH AIR FORCE RAFALE

On 11th June 2007, MBDA’s MICA multi-mission air-to-air missile successfully destroyed its intended target following launch from an operational French Air Force Rafale F2 aircraft.

The firing, part of an ongoing training programme being carried out by French Air Force pilots with MICA, took place at the DGA’s CELM missile launch test facility at Biscarrosse off the south west Atlantic coast of France.

For this latest firing, a complex combat scenario was created with a Rafale pilot being chased and threatened by an “enemy aircraft” (actually a C22 drone) approaching at a distance of several nautical miles from its rear sector. A second Rafale, acting as wingman, acquired the target and provided target designation information to the first aircraft via the Link 16 data link.

On being launched, MICA carried out an extremely sharp 180° manoeuvre in its inertial guidance phase, a manoeuvre made possible by the missile’s exceptional agility provided by its thrust vector control feature. MICA then advanced towards the designated target which it destroyed. The MICA missile used during this training session was the RF variant, featuring an electromagnetic active seeker.

Patrick Tramier, MBDA’s Director of Programmes, said: “This latest success proves MICA’s extreme efficiency in carrying out an out of sector self defence role with target data provided by a support aircraft. It is just one of a series of successful tests within the current training campaign which has shown MICA’s exceptional performance against targets flying at different altitudes and speeds as well as targets carrying out evasive manoeuvres and within a countermeasures environment”.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/ref/scripts/siteFO_publications.php?page=6&lang=EN&sel_rub=#

The problem is that isn’t the configuration F-16s go into combat with though.

Try adding a few more AAMs, some EFTs, 2 JDAMs, targetting pods, etc..
The F-35 carries all that internally, and doesn’t require EFTs.[/

Agreed, although in this configuration the cruising speed and Maximum g Load would be similar, and the range inferior.

This is actually not theorical but proven performances in the heaviest configuration.

The F-35 doesn’t need EFTs. The other aircraft do, aside from Flankers.

But they do not need them in Combat configuration as opposed to the common belief, it is not how they were designed, nor did the F-16, they only need them to reach the combat zone and patrol/loiter.

As for their respective Maximum Machs and g Loads in their actual A2A configurations they still are higher than what the F-35 have to offer, although difficult to estimate, acceleration of 45*+ sweept wings in transonic and supersonic, including A2A combat load is realisticaly also higher.

Critical Mach defines drag in these regions, and that of F-35 is way lower than even a F-16 in combat configuration.

Hence my insistance into making a clear distinction between the roles.

Typhoons and Rafales do not regularly fly M1.6, and they certainly don’t cruise at that speed.

Yes they do, only perhaps you do not know it and no one pretends their crusing speed to be M 1.6, (forgive my English if i mislead you to think i was), one doesn’t clear external tanks for M 1.6 for the stake of spending money but operational needs.

RAF pilots wrote in Pprune that they trained to merge at M 1.6 which is not very surprising considering that the aircraft is designed for being used at much higher Machs.

There is really NO point trying to pass F-35 for something which is designed for higher Machs and ceilings that it really is and then pretend that performances for which other aircrafts are designed and cleared to reach are not used in combat.

Several F-22 pilots insisted that superior speed and altitude provides a clear advantage in the A2A role, our pilots knows it too. 😀

faltenin said he works in the industry and has tested both, read some of his posts and make up your own mind

Some other pple actually works as weapon specialists in the AdA and did desagree with him too, question of opinion.

jackjack
who said a hms gives a 360 ? it wasnt with a hms, it was actually off-board, like the mica. but obviously a hms can deploys a loal missile anywhere in his viewing area
how is the rafale hms going ?

So the capability you quoted doesn’t exist just yet.

Originally Posted by jackjack
fanboys are funny
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/…-ASRAAM-05323/

any aircraft with hms loal or linked can do the same, it will be a long list

The MICA firing test gives a 360X360* detection and cueing coverage, due to remote Link-16 targeting, the current HMS capabilties are way lower, this test firing was done with onboard sensors, not remote.

BTW, HMS is already been long tested on Rafale and since no systems offers real 360 capabilties today (as does the Link-16) it is not of an order of priority yet (though it is already available for export).

Next generation of HMS will respond for a requets for a much lower weight, our pilots are using the Max g.

The 1.67 M was in real flights not simulated tests…How fast was the Rafale when less then the 10 % of the test programe was ready ?

First i don’t think any prototypes were in this configuration 240-3, you are missing something in particular the fact that F-35 had just been flown supersonic for the first time this year.

Rafale. Good question. 😎

C 01 went supersonic and supercruised during its FIRST flight, exactly 450 kt/M 1.2/ 4.0 g.

It reached M 1.6 somewhere well before 10% flight test, during its 27th flight to be precise, at which point it had already demonstrated 8.0 g and 30* AoA.

The first F 35 definitive version, the AF 1 will fly in a few weeks. How fast do you think it will fly? 1,6 M ? 😀

It will reach its designed Maximum Mach and perhaps a few Mach fraction beyhond that, F-35 is not designed for Mid-to-high supersonic performances.

As for their graphs as usual they are funny. Date: 11/20/2008.

A F-35 would NOT out-accelerate or out-turn a F-16 Block 50 in its designed COMBAT configuration which was 50% internal fuel and 2 X AIM-9s,it doesn’t have the thrust not the wingload nor the lift-enhencing devices called LEX.

Then, trying to compare F-35 with aircrafts with external tanks attached is laughable:

If it is common during peace time in exercises (they are expensive), it is more than a suicidal proposition in real combat situations and no Sweedish, French or British pilot would consider engaging a serious threat with their tanks attached.

A Typhoon or Rafale routinely flies at M 1.6 and supercruises with their combat load and External tanks attached, i guess Gripen NG will do just that btw the first graph in A2A configuration give you another clue, the Mach Max with tanks is M 1.6. but it looks to me that they used datas released with 2.000 l tanks before they were cleared to M 1.6 in the case of Rafale.

These graphs. LOL. A Gripen C out draging a Rafale, ask their pilots what they think of it.

AFAIK, it’s to cool hot spots, particularly the wing leading edges, not the whole exterior.

I’m afraid it is not so.

It is to cool all eletric/electronic systems including the actuators, those used for the leading edge flaps as well, nothing to do with IR reduction but EM. L.O, there is no scoopes and vents for cooling these systems.

Where was it stated that it was just marginally behind the wing line?

Early MBDA stament for that matter, they also said it was only “representative” of the potential of HMDS, not that it was done with the HMDS system.

With LOAL the missile can be launched beyond its seekers acquisition envelope and therefore behind the aircraft.

That’s ONLY theorical and in the case you haven’t go any friendly in the same volume of air.

Next stage, you need to be able to ID/FF and mid-course guide your AAM or you can forget about using them in a fureball, you’re just as likely to kill a friendly in LOAL mode than your intended target.

That’s what is likely to be meant with behind the wing line.

Find me an ASRAAM AAM seeker giving you 90* both side off boresight. 😀

As long as you can visually see the target, you just need to launch the missile in this direction.

That’s the nice, theorical version of reality.

At such short ranges reaction time is short and the target won’t move by far at all. It’s certainly not the most accurate way to do it, but it is possible

Not today no, this is why it is still not fully operational, this 360*X360* detection/cueing/refresh capabilty is still in the labs.

He said “1600 miles per hour”. Can’t get more clear than that. Crying about it just because he didn’t state it in language you could slice and dice doesn’t change the facts.

The FACTS are that in standard aviation measurements (as used at Edward AFB where Paul Metz most likely graduated) that 1.600 mp/h doesn’t necessarly results in a stupid Mach figure of 2.42 and is not even used in his line of work.

Crying about it just because he didn’t state it in language you could slice into standard measurements and dice into a higher Mach figure than it realy is doesn’t change the facts.

Even so you seems pretty unwilling to validate your claim, it still look like it doesn’t make F-22 all you try to imply with this non-standard mp/h figure.

Indy racing fan would be happy with it though, because the very basics of aviation is unknown territory to them.