The funny thing is:

When we are told about US design we are spoken too like people who never actualy designed such aircraft:

Just because it is an aniversary, allow me the luxury to post this.

When it entered into service back in 1964, the Mirage IV A was the first European military aircraft capable of sustained flight at Mach 2; it is still the only one in Western Europe.

Production and operational experience
On June 17, 1959, Roland Glavany took off for the first time at 10:20 am. The flight lasted 40 minutes. For its third flight, on June 20, 1959, Mirage IV 01 was authorized to make a flight pass over the Paris Air Show with General de Gaulle among the onlookers. On September 19, 1960, at 05:05 pm, René Bigand took off from Melun-Villaroche in Mirage IV 01 and broke the world speed record over a 1 000-km closed circuit (1 822 km/h). Flight 138, on September 23, corroborated the initial performance and pushed the record on a 500-km closed circuit to an average of 1 972 km/h, flying between Mach 2.08 and Mach 2.14.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/aircraft/military-dassault-aircraft/mirage-iv.html?L=1

Symposium « French Air Force and Mirage IV » – 2009-10-20
On October the 13th, the symposium “French Air Force and Mirage IV”, supported by Dassault Aviation, took place at the French Air Force Academy in Salon-de-Provence.

Set up by the Air Force, its aim was to commemorate the 50th anniversary of the first flight of the Mirage IV, on June, 17th, 1959.

Eleven speakers presented a global vision of the program, under geopolitical, political, industrial and operational aspects, with speeches endorsed by pictures or movies.

On the evening, 200 air cadets were given summaries of the conference. Testimonies from General Roland Glavany, test pilot and General Edgar Pintor, former head of an operational squadron, were very appreciated.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/passion/news/headlines/symposium-french-air-force-and-mirage-iv.html?L=1&cHash=8328870e9f

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9mbt4_1er-vol-mirage-iv-dassault-aviation_tech

It is you that is misunderstanding here. M1.6 was the KPP minimum threshold, not the maximum Mach. Repeating it like a mantra doesn’t make it so.

Sorry i have SEEN the actual Mach requierement YEARS ago and it is NOT M 1.6 it IS Mach 1.5.

LM exceeded this requirement, hence the speed of M1.8+.

Is that so? And since WHEN exactly did ANY F-35 go over M 1.05?

For your information F-35 Maximum Structural Load is now lower it is much unlikely that it will be flying at M 1.8 without seeing excessive structural fatigue if not damages.

The required Mach is already meet at M 1.6.

It cools the skin by using the fuel as a heat sink, to reduce IR signatures, not EM signatures.

NO it doesn’t what it does is transfer the heat of the avionic and systems into the fuel flow.

Now do you have another Sci-Fi movie for us tonight? 😀

Do you know what the capabilities of the cooling system are?

Not enough to cool the skin.

Sorry old chap, this is not a Rafale/Dassault echo chamber.

I suggested you swaped topics long ago, don’t complain to me now, as for being in full reverse psychology it’s becoming real funny.

Between our servicemen, pilots and you i know who’s opinion i’ll listen to, don’t go claiming that people doesn’t know when yourself can’t even bother with simple manufacturer sources.

Please get your fact rights.

I share what I do know-

So please avoid to write what you don’t, dismiss what you are not aware of or get personal with people you don’t know either. 😀

Sharing what we know (and can talk about) is perhaps the only thing we have in common.

There is plenty of declassified informations for you in the internet and you are way from knowing it all, don’t waste time.

Ah so, its all secret squirrel stuff.

No boy it’s a matter of informing yourself properly, or eventualy as some have and still do, serving in one AFB and knowing about it, you might not like the idea but some of us actually do serve.

As for you, you obviously have little informations to your disposal in particular about the technologies in used by Thales and the LPI modes available to their radars not to mention ECMs.

Franckly it is laughable to come up with what you write, i strongly suggest you start by looking at the equipement you are talking about in more depth before posting.

Anyway yet another poster who knows so much, he think europe is still in the 70s and that the equivalent of AN/APG-81 technology havent been developed and flight-tested over here.

Naturaly i am supposed to get upset with the power of smaller emiters compared to that of larger ones while we know their signatures already and our pilots demonstrated the capabilties not only to detect them but also jamm them.

Yep, AN/APG-77 famous LPI technology is detectable, pinpointable and jammable, just give us the opportunity to be in the same area, this is what 5th generation IT Core architecture and Interferometric ECMs does for you these days.

So keep at it, from where i am standing the news are good.

BTW you were mentioning ranges; of quanted or straight aerials?

Thanks.

So, to summarize you dont have any proof so far that the Thale RBE2 AESA has dedicated LPI modes.

So, to summerise you are really taking people for granted.

RBE2 PESA is already LPI so is RDY but obviously you won’t be bothered reading about them either.

As far as I know & I am glad to be corrected, nowhere has Thales mentioned any dedicated LPI modes in the RBE2 AESA. They only talk of the standard AESA derived increases in ranges, search volume etc.

Your problem is that you consistently fail to inform yourself before posting.

“Flaming tricks” – my posterior. You are the one losing his temper throughout and making a complete spectacle out of yourself.

And what else is talking about what you don’t know the way you do qualifies for?

I asked for evidence for your claims of JSF equivalent technology being funded and consequently, available. I am not even American to bother about “what you got at home sooner than later”.

Not only you got one but you also forget to mention that most advanced modes for AN/APG-81 are still way from being fully developed, so asking you to put things into perspective adds to the challenge.

But since you dont have any evidence & it offends you (shudder) an American product may indeed be ahead, out comes all the abuse.

Sorry what you should have said is any evidence you care to read.

Typical.

To say the least.

But its still not evidence.

They are there for those willing to see them, you are not one of them, it doesn’t make the hearth flat to believe it is.

And one more thing – probably will throw you into another apocalyptic fit of rage, but nevertheless, its likely that the RBE2 AESA is actually less powerful than both the AN/APG-79 and the proposed Captor-E, given the aperture size limitations of the Rafale.

😀 Rage? LOL! You amuse me, good night… :p

I asked for proof ie evidence that it has full LPI FCR modes.

Why don’t you ask Thales what modes they develop for it instead of strating a flame war making assumptions?

It’s so EASY to brag about US equipement considering that US firms spend 500% more in PR than any their European counterpart bar BAE, but when one look at the specs of the material once fielded, surprise, surprise, eyebrows rises.

Spare me the flaming tricks on “not in the same class” these european radars will be just as capable as what you got at home sooner than later.

Problem is there are far too many if’s and buts in your statements & a fair bit of “hope” as well (eg AESA – there is no firm production commitment for any full LPI specced FCR being developed for the Rafale or EF yet, what we are seeing are capabilities which “one day” might offer capabilities offered by the likes of the AN/APG-80 for several years now).

WRONG; all what i have quoted are funded 100% by gouvernement contracts to the exeption of the M 88 ECO developement 50/50%.

At the end its all about money.

The money is already in it.

Its not a question of whether Europe can develop the technology, but a question of whether the purchasing nations will fund anywhere near the kind of continuous upgrades the US usually does, and which then find their way to exports at a lower price and get a full logistics package as well.

In this particular case, it is more a question of peoplegetting the right informations.

LM can walk up to any prospective customer when the JSF is available & offer both first class avionics and also the chance to tie into the USAF/USN/USMC upgrade path. Added to this is the statement that the JSF is a full 5G aircraft with internal carriage & it becomes a winning proposition.

So does the GIE and DGA and JSF is FAR from being a winner.

The US is by far the biggest market for defence in the world, and even EADS…

EADS interest in this matter is only in the weapon dpt.

They have no role nor decision power on the technologies or developement programes i quoted.

This very year we have had multiple reports of how the UK has reduced or is reducing its original EF fleet for the RAF by trading it for the Saudi purchase & now there are reports that Germany will follow suit.

We are not the UK nor are SAAB.

What this basically translates to is that there is a limited market for fighter platforms, the US market is locked out for Europe,

That’s a hell of an overstatement to say the least.

Swiss A-F and Greece aren’t looking for F-35, but the UK, Norway and the Netherland are looking at lower numbers due to budget constraints, not as checkered black and white as you imply.

Its a very hard combination (right-left combo) for (the rest of) Europe to face.

This 5th generation label is an overhyped commercial sticker.

There’s a chance if Dassault does a SAAB and offers a “stealthy” derivative of its Rafale with internal carriage and what not,

I’m not going to wast more time trying to explain the real thing to you, it would go off topic, all i can say is that your analysis is based on the wrong informations.