I have a feeling it’ll be a long long wait, much like the links to LPI radars Fonk keeps promising us all.

Yeah who’s Konk?

And who doesn’t do LPI in 2009?

And do you have anything remotly not inflamatory as comments to make?

And are you so desperate as being trolling and flaming as you are now?

Please take a break. 😀

ls1 miata
True, but PIRATE’s overall performance isn’t better than DAS; don’t know anything about OSF.

Both OSF and PIRATE are WAY more performant in their FLIR role, you compare the incomparible and i am not talking about them though but current IR technologies.

EODAS is not a long range system as for EOTS it is limited by its technology and mono-channel/mono-bandwidth design, both OSF and PIRATE uses dual dandwidth today, OSF uses a dual channel too, next stage being bandwidth subtraction for even better all-weather performances.

The USA are not the only one to look at 360X360* Defense systems with Optical capabilties the difference is in the technologies in use Europe focuses in all-weather/long-range IR and have been doing so for decades.

Check this out.

http://www.thalesgroup.com/assets/0/93/238/200e3434-0ebe-41f5-a204-aec1499005fe.pdf?LangType=2057

Regarding the 2000 l tanks:
I was of the impression the max. load was 5.5 g when full.

You might well be right.

Is there any source about the supersonic clearance of these tanks?

Yes, the Fox3_PDFs release No5.

They were limited to sub sonic speeds at some time, but I read long ago it was planned to make them supersonic capable or possibly better said clear them.

Job done.

Some french claim M 1.3 is possible.

NOT with the tank, it’s how we figure the drag loss of the 1.250 l supersonic tank, = 0.1 Mach.

And which systems are superior(or even on par?)

Anything IR for example but this is yet another topic.

Well the threat aircraft are Su-35 and PAK FA, not Rafale and EF.

You never know.

How many Gs are your pilots stressed for?:eek:

11.0 g is not uncommon, even RedBull racing pilot does it without g suits.

What F-16 is going to want to enter the merge at 50% fuel and 2 AIM-9s?

F-16 was designed around these specification, now the real questions are:

1) Which pilot in his right mind is going to plan an A2A mission without looking at its best combat performance at the expected time of engagement.

2) Who would be foolish enough to keep the g/Mach limited external tank attached to the aircraft previous to engaging a threat?

A2A combat didn’t start with F-22.

Let’s talk real world agility with realistic combat loads of 6 AAMs. The F-35 at 50% fuel has >2x the fuel of an F-16, and a higher T/W ratio.

THIS is real world, only one you chose to ignore because it is not yours.

He was talking about kinematic performance in the quotes I posted.

NO He doesn’t mention kinetic energy here he mentions the kinematic offered by everything surounding the F-22 capabilties and performances which is different, check your Oxford.

When you add in superior avionics and VLO, the advantages become even greater.

NIL when your opponent have higher formances, 50 g BVR IR AAMs, higher combat ceilling, supercruise in A2A configuration, long range IR sensors, higher kinetic energy at all altitudes etc.

RichSmith
Besides I doubt a Rafale has higher kinetic perfomance than an F-35, well maybe unarmed it would but thats not much use to anyone, with the exception of those that are forced to run.

Doubt all you want, as i said, it pulls 11.0 g publicly below 450 kt at low altitude with two smokeys, it is stressed for 9.0+ with 6 of them, as for its speed, it’s M 1.8 Operational (6 X AAMS) and Mach 2.0 DASH, ALL external tanks are cleared for M 1.6, the supersonic 1.250 l for 9 g full, the 2.000 l 5 g full and 9 g empty.

Rafale Maximum Structural Load for all versions is way above the international standard, 1.86 vs 1.6.

There’s a lot of information about weapons systems that isn’t public knowledge.

True but we’re talking perfornaces which aren’t classified.

Better than legacies, and any projected threat aircraft I believe is somewhat close to his statement.

Not OURS by a FAIR margin, not even system-wise these days and he never mentioned projected threats performances either.

It means negligible in other words.

It means WAY inferior to what we got at home, sorry.

I’m not doing all of your homework for you.

No, i AM doing it for you.

Loaded vs. clean though, which is an important distinction.

AGAIN; a litle reminder a F-16 CLEAN in terms of COMBAT LOAD AND BEST TURNING PERFORMANCES AT 40.000 is EQUIPED WITH 2 x AIM9s.

It’s turning radius that counts most, and the C has a smaller turn radius than the A.

Sorry: Turning radius is only a valid proposition when not limited by Maximim Load Factor.

At the same altitude and probably Mach, ours pulls 11 g with two MICAs (Smokey ones but still), it would easly do 10.5 g with 4 X MICAs and is stressed for 9.0 g minimum with 6 of them…

One more time….

For the world, you got your wires all crossed.

F-35 is never going to be as maneuvrable as a F-16 as it was designed in its A2A configuration at combat weight.

Ours are stressed to carry 6 X AAMS in the same configuration and 11.0 g with at least two at low altitude and below 450 kt demonstrated day-in day-out.

Enuff said.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=34173

Read it again.

Now tell me again where Beesley was not saying that the F-35 was an excellent A2A fighter.

Mostly thanks to its systems; but we happen to be developing just as good if not better in some area, with higher kinetic performances giving our fighters the SAME advantage as enjoyed by F-22.

So again, F-35 is far from being “the buzines” in this role.

Originally Posted by Kapedani
Every single Eurofighter fan will tell you their Sopwith Camel had 90% of the F-22s capabilities in 1918. After all…its British.

Oh, OK then…

US deployment

The RAF’s 17 Sqn OEU has routinely deployed two aircraft and around 30 personnel to the USA to operate alongside US fighters including the Lockheed MartinF-22A Raptor. “The vast majority of this work is about making sure that the integration of the two platforms is working,” says Walker. Asked how the fighters compare, he says: “If you want to say that stealth is a determining factor then Typhoon stands second to the F-22. But I think that as we do more work, the Typhoon will more than hold its own. It’s the balance of how you use it, rather than what it is.”

BAE Typhoon project test pilot Mark Bowman sees even less of a capability gap. “The F-22 is three times the cost, but you would struggle to see any advantage in the cockpit design – the cost is there to maintain stealth,” he says. “Typhoon is most likely equivalent, if not better.

Air Vice Marshal David Walker, air officer commanding 1 Group
DATE:24/04/07
SOURCE:Flight International
Eurofighter Typhoon special: Blue sky thinking
By Craig Hoyle

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/04/24/213451/eurofighter-typhoon-special-blue-sky-thinking.html

Funny this is as when it came to French radar sets in another thread you were asked to produce evidence and you couldn’t instead saying that we’d have to rely on your trust and evidence that only you had access to. See this thread
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showthread.php?t=94299&page=15

Double standards, aren’t they a pain in the neck :diablo:
I think i’ve seen enough now Mr Fonk.

No sorry Mr: Double standards are NOT my standard.

The Link i provided is enough for this gentleman to do his own homework.

Taking the mikey as to assume that Thales is doing an AESA without LPI modes is of the relevance of double standards and flaming tricks, not me providing a link to the manufacturer for him to check for himself.

As for you, the usefulnes of your post speaks volume about your own standards.

I’m not interested the slightest in your opinion on my humble person and asked YOU to help resolve this little F-22/16.000 mp/h matter otherwise than with nothing but flame bates.

So, can you or not provide us with a link to an interview you seem to know the existance of?

So now you’re telling us he didn’t know what he was saying because you’re smarter?

I think the guy(s) who reporeted these comments IF ever they were made at all didn’t know what they were talking about.

And as he said, 1600mph wasn’t even the top speed as the top speed is classified.

LINK PLEASE> Enough of using Paul Metz name for taking us for the magic roundabout tour, we still are served with the “idiot” version of a conversation that might well never have taken place.

YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER TO BACK YOUR OPINION.

DO YOU?

What I’ve been saying isn’t opinion, it’s fact straight from the chief test pilot’s mouth.

NO, up to now it is what YOU say he said, like your friend interpretation of L-M-published standard Maximum and KPPs.

Is it too much asking to provide us with a link to this article please?

Whatever someone does claim. The “lifting-system” can be called an integral wing like the Russians do = an interacting wing and body to generate the lift in need with a minimum drag to do so. When stealth is no issue and just the lift is in need, you can use the F-16 solution or that of the Mirage 2000.
The SH and the Rafale are semi-stealth designs at best.

Sens: Boby lift is not even used to compute turning rate for the simple reason that fuselage own drag and weight (density) negates all the lift it could provide by a fair margin.

At best it would come nowhere close to reduces it enough to make a difference unless it is a specialised design.

As for SH and Rafale EM signatures they are in the same ballpark, you are right, not VLO…

Our pilots reports being capable of detecting a Typhoon at a range at least 50% superior than is the case with another Rafale in the same conditions with the RBE2 PESA.

Rafale EM is much closer if not equal to that of F/A-18, it have all the necessary features for this so we agree on this point.

About aerodynamics; the LEX solution is only to be compared to the close-coupled canard, vortex lift being used and lift enhanced in both case, the closest the USA comes to this is with F-22 which uses BOTH LEX and vortex lift as does a Rafale.
http://rafale.freeforums.org/rafale-vs-f-16-aerodynamics-compared-t69.html

Here is an interesting opinion on the subject.