JackonickoMr Malaya: “to suggest that the french are just naturally better at building aircraft is silly.”
C-Seven: Nobody said that!
well you did, actually….
C-Seven: “I tell them for the reccord, no bragging intended:
Dassault has much more experience with advanced fighter than the EF team. Much more. Especially with the Delta/canard/FBW configuration. The Rafale is closer to the Mirage 4000 than a lot of people think so that it’s almost unfair for the EF.”
Hmmm.
Air to air
“The 01/10/2010 the Rafale own officially the “second best” titlle in AA, it’s now up to the EF to take it back during another meeting.”
Make the most of feeling that ATLC demonstrates Rafale’s superiority. When the facts emerge those who claim that ATLC demonstrated the superiority of Rafale over Typhoon will be looking very silly, since the exact opposite is true.
ATLC builds on the overall record of Typhoon superiority over Rafale in air-to-air. Look back to JG73 fighting AdlA Typhoons.
There is an example of the Typhoon getting is ass kicked by Rafale, and I’m amused that the Rafale fans haven’t heard about it or identified it. But that’s what happens when one side is stupid enough to fight to the strengths of the other, and fails to exploit its own strengths.
The LT Colonel talked at an official AdA press conference… In the name of our Armée de l’Air.
He didn’t question the RAF. He just gave the results. Still hard to swallow, i understand perfectly (even if true, there’s something unfair).
It’s only hard to swallow for folk like Mr Malaya because he feels that it doesn’t have the ring of truth about it.
He’s right to be skeptical, as will become apparent.
SEAD
Detecting enemy SAMs better than the F-16CJ is not necessarily all that impressive, nor does it necessarily infer a better SEAD capability. Detecting enemy emitters is just one link in the chain, after all.
Bear in mind that the F-16CJ was designed to give the USAF a low-cost replacement for the F-4G Wild Weasel Phantom in the SEAD role. It’s generally accepted that the USAF accepted a less capable aircraft to perform the SEAD mission, in order to save money.
The F-16CJ was not built as a dedicated Wild Weasel aircraft, and was less effective than its predecessor in tracking, locating, and prioritizing SAM threats, especially in dense-threat environments. Crucially it lacked the F-4G’s 360-degree capability, could process fewer threats at once, and HTS lacked the effective range of the F-4G’s sensors, and it operated with less precision in accurately identifying the location of an enemy emitter.
That’s why the original concept called for teaming F-16s the carrying AN/ASQ-213 HARM Targeting Systems (HTS) Pod with Precision Direction Finding (PDF) system-equipped F-15s.
This meant that typically two F-16CJ aircraft had to cooperate in order to pinpoint the exact position of the enemy emitter, and where F-4Gs would typically operate in pairs, the F-16CJ would predominantly operate as a four-ship because of the limited azimuth of the Harm Targeting System (HTS), and the relatively light loadout of the F-16CJ.
The HTS did offer greater automation, however, allowing it to be used in a single seat cockpit.
Even with the R7 upgrade to the Harm Targeting System (which increased frequency coverage, search speed, number of targets tracked and identification capabilities, and which added precision targeting capabilities) the F-16CJ remained a less capable SEAD aircraft than the F-4G, and there has long been an aspiration to replace the HTS with an improved emitter targeting and passive identification system in order to provide expanded frequency coverage, more precise emitter/target location and less ambiguous emitter identification capability.
It may be that SPECTRA gives Rafale a better emitter detection capability than HTS, though with the relatively small number of RWR antennas and their position it is unlikely to give a dramatically better ability to accurately locate them in azimuth, or to give a full 360° location (as opposed to detection) capability.
And once an emitter is located, you then have to deal with it. F-16 has HARM, which, for all its shortcomings, is a better anti-radar weapon than a weapon which relies on IN/GPS guidance – like AASM.
JackonickoMerci bien!
JackonickoI’m now pretty sure that the Jordanians were from No.1 Squadron, and the PAF F-7PGs were from one of the Samungli-based units.
Jackonicko“…..I hope that people will accept the results…..”
“This time, the Rafale won.”
While I wouldn’t want to spoil anyone’s fun, it should be recognised that what we’ve had are claims from one side, not validated results and certainly not proven facts.
These claims are not accepted as fact by industry, nor by the USAF nor the RAF, though no official statements have yet been made contradicting those claims.
I suspect that an explanation for these claims will eventually emerge, together with a fuller idea of what the various participating aircraft did and did not achieve. That may cause some ’embarrassment’.
“such declarations (at an official press conference) is not made to fool/misinform forumers like everyone here but it is intended to the professional community (other military that could be potentially interested by buying the rafale).
As a consequence lying would be simply quite embarrassing to say the least…”
Scorpion 82,
It’s not full now.
JackonickoThis competition is a farce.
It may be, but it’s a farce that gives Dassault its best chance yet of a first export order.
Do you have the expression: “Don’t look a gift horse in the mouth” in France?
JackonickoThe French claim that Rafale downed 4 Typhoons with no loss, then three with one loss. This wasn’t one French pilot, it was the det commander, and the CO of EC 1/7, and the claim wasn’t in one isolated report, it stemmed from on-the-record statements at an official press conference.
Small wonder that the French blogosphere concluded that La RAF n’est plus ce que’elle était – “The RAF isn’t what it was”
The French also claim that Rafale only found itself in F-22’s gunsight once, in six engagements.
And there has been no official contradiction from the USAF or the RAF so far, and there’s only been a non-attributable response from industry.
(“The stories about the Rafale vs Typhoon are an unjustified and unfair representation of what actually occurred.
In the exercise sorties Typhoons and Rafales worked together on the same team! There were red Typhoon/Rafale combos and blue Typhoon/Rafale combos.
During the CT (continuation training) sorties outside ATLC both Typhoon and Rafale squadrons were conducting work-up sorties for their junior pilots and yes – mistakes were made on both sides where some results like those quoted did occur (but both for and against Rafale) – however to make a big deal about training results would be unfair and entirely unrepresentative.”)
Does this mean that the French claims are true, or that the F-22 and Typhoon communities know exactly what did and didn’t happen, feel that they have nothing to prove and feel that it is not their job to justify their existence or to respond to what they view as utter nonsense?
Is their feeling that a shooting war will demonstrate their abilities loud and clear, will there be a response or are they keeping a low profile in the face of a humiliating defeat?
I’d want to know about RoE, etc. myself.
JackonickoIs anyone going to answer HME, I wonder?
I’m interested in this, too.
I have:
6 x Chengdu F-7PG, Squadron and base unknown.
I think they were probably from 23 Sqn Talons, 31 Wing, Samungli Quetta, but they could equally have been from 17 Sqn Tigers, 31 Wing, Samungli Quetta or 20 Sqn Eagles, 34 Wing, Rafiqi Shorkot.
Can anyone confirm?
And what squadron were the Jordanian F-16s from?
JackonickoI believe that the Last Observer’s by Bill and Gordon was in ’92 – the 40th (1992-93) edition.
There were paperback editions after the laminated hardbacks shown on the site referred to above,
see the New Observers entry at:
http://www.observercollector.co.uk/
Penguin continued with a diminishing list of Observers titles until about 1994.
JackonickoI haven’t insulted anyone, H_K.
Unless corrupting usernames qualifies, in which case, I plead guilty, though I have a great deal of ground to catch up after the many ‘Jackonory/Jackonocchio/etc’ corruptions I’ve been exposed to.
And I did lump Oponk in with a group I described as witless, but his recent contributions have been truly Fonk like……
I was grateful to you for posting the hours and landings figures – I have that issue of Fox 3 on my desk, and hadn’t noticed that it included those figures. (I have all of the Fox 3s on my desk right now, one of them in Arabic!).
However, please note that most of the figures given above are for landings (eg conventional runway landings), and not for arrested shipboard landings (appontages).
We know that between December 2000 and June 2004, Flottille 12F accumulated 4,400 hours on its 9 Rafale F1s, including 2,000 arrested landings (appontages), but not how many conventional landings there were. We can accept your rough calculation extrapolating the figures to retirement, but we’re still looking at appontages, and not at landings overall.
You can safely assume one landing per flying hour on average (some sorties will be longer than an hour, but some sorties will include several landings (think circuits and bumps) especially in a single seat fast jet aircraft which has no dedicated twin-stick variant.
You might therefore assume that, on average, each F1 might have 1,200 – 1,300 landings ‘on the clock’ – and that 600 of those are arrested carrier landings. (And a 50:50 balance between ship- and shore-based sorties would be entirely as one would expect).
Which would mean that while the aircraft have barely scratched their 5,000 hour planned service life (extended to 6,000, and believed to be extendable to 7,000 without major work), using up no more than 20-25% of their flying hours, they may be closer to having used up 50% of their landings, and the proportion of permissable carrier landings is unknown, as we don’t know how many Appontages the Rafale is cleared for.
We do know that the figure of 3,000 landings given in Fox Three refers to Atterrissages, and not Appontages.
JackonickoOponk,
“less than the M2K” … was a typo. I meant more.
Because Mirage 2000C squadrons don’t go and fly ACM and BFM on every sortie.
I said: Why is DACT/BFM more demanding on FI? Because every hard manoeuvre, every application of g, consumes fatigue. It’s possible to consume an entire unit of FI in a single sortie, if you’re pushing hard enough.
You said: If you were right, I doubt you’d see that many jets at airshows !
I am right, Oponk.
The Tornado F3 is a very good example of an aircraft that needed structural upgrades to reach its promised FI since, like the F1 Rafale, it was initially unable to operate in its planned role, and so flew more ACM, and used up more FI. Flying it without tanks also had an impact, since tanks relieved the bending moment on the wings.
Another great example of what we’re talking about is the Hornet. There are many Hornets which can no longer deploy because they have no carrier landings left, though they do still have plenty of flying hours.
JackonickoH-K (or should I call you Honk?),
Oponk is breaching netiquette by accusing me of being a particular named person.
He is just one of several witless Rafale fans who can’t seem to believe that there might be two people who don’t sign up to the Rafale worship and uncritical acceptance of Dassault’s PR line. They assume that we must therefore be the same person.
The result is that I’m (rather flatteringly) presumed to be a double award winning journo.
Since he has sunk to the level of charm, wit and intelligence that characterised Fonk, I’ve decided to use an appropriate salutation. If he doesn’t like it, then he can ignore me, and so can you. In fact, if you can’t cope with sensible, rational, balanced debate, I’d take it as a personal favour if you would add me to your ignore list forthwith.
Peter G,
Though cleared to carry Mica EM from relatively early on, it is my understanding that the F1 Rafale Ms predominantly undertook BFM and DACT sorties for most of their careers. I may well be wrong.
ZedderS,
If the F1s have 70% of their airframe life remaining, you cannot assume that they also have 70% of their FI, or 70% of their carrier landings left. If they have 70% of their FI or traps left, they’re likely to have more than 70% of their flying hours left.
JackonickoNo Fonkpit, I’m not losing control, just resorting to the silly tactics you yourself use.
The refuelling configuration represents a heavy one for launch, and sometimes for recovery. You’d have to be pretty stupid not to see that.
6,000 hours was given for F1 service life, more for the Rafale B/C (eg from F2 onwards).
Do I “imply that Rafale F1, with their limitations, have consumed more FI than other fighters in the inventory?”
Yes, I do. They have flown more DACT, and more ACM than was planned (they had no BVR capability, and no A-G capability) and less than the M2K squadrons do.
The Tornado F3 is actually a very good example, since, like the F1 Rafale, it was initially unable to operate in its planned role, and so flew more ACM, and used up more FI.
How do you define “more representative sortie”, and on which ground do you imply DACT/BFM are more demanding than the profile that has been used to define the current FI/flying hours limit?
The Rafale’s life calculations will not have been founded on the basis of an ACM-heavy sortie profile like that the F1s have been flying. This is apparent, as no aircraft could last for 6,000 or 7,000 hours consisting of nothing but ACM and BFM hops.
Why is DACT/BFM more demanding on FI? Because every hard manoeuvre, every application of g, consumes fatigue. It’s possible to consume an entire unit of FI in a single sortie, if you’re pushing hard enough.
This should be obvious to anyone with half a clue about modern military aviation, and you’re arguing for the sake of it.
Now that’s “as usual”.
JackonickoFunk, or Armpit, or whatever you are,
Are you sure the number of carrier landings can be reached (in real life) before theoretical life hours or fatigue index are exceeded ?
Yes, I’m pretty sure. It has been the case for every other carrier aircraft in history. The USN is having just this issue with its ‘Heritage Hornets’ right now, which explains the swapover of F/A-18A+ aircraft (with few carrier landings) and F/A-18Cs (with lots of traps) between the USN and the USNR.
It’s a function of the extraordinary forces encountered in both arrested landings on a pitching deck, and during catapault launch.
Are you sure the maximum number of life hours is set to 6000 h ?
No, but I am pretty that’s what Dassault said.
Are you sure the tanker sorties were heavy fits compared to common A/G loads at St Dizier ?
Do any of the A/G sorties at St Diz culminate in an arrested carrier landing?
Are you sure air combat sorties are not accounted for in the supposed 6000 h service life ? What about real time fatigue monitoring versus theoretical (and guaranteed) limits ?
That’s why I made the point about FI as well as flying hours, R’mpit.
An aircraft will be built for a life of (say) 6,000 flying hours, assuming that a particular pattern of mission profiles are flown. This will equate to a Fatigue Index of 100 (FI is a percentile).
If an aircraft flies more taxing sorties more often than planned/assumed, then FI will be consumed more rapidly, and 100 FI will be reached before the planned number of flying hours. FI may be extended by structural modifications (the Tornado F3’s first upgrade was a 125 FI programme – adding 25% to the planned fatigue index – eg 125% FI).
The Rafale M F1s have been limited as to what they can do, and as a result have flown a lot of DACT/BFM and tanker sorties, all of which consume FI more rapidly than more representative sortie profiles.
We can therefore conclude that the F1s will have consumed more than 30% of their FI.
How hypocrite you are, Jon ! Neither of the points you exhibited is true, and you know it. In case you forgot it, the Rafale is not built by BAe. History speaks for itself, there’s no need to argue here…
Leaving aside the fact that my name isn’t Jon, and that I’m asking questions and not ‘exhibiting points’, which of these points are ‘untrue’ then, Funcky?
1) That carrier ops don’t impose a greater structural penalty than land ops?
or 2) That the F1>F3 upgrade will, in fact zero-life the aircraft in terms of carrier landings, flying hours and fatigue index?
J’o Nic’o
PS: Your remark that: “In case you forgot it, the Rafale is not built by BAe.” is, of course, irrelevant, infantile and intended to be provocative and trolling. It’s the kind of childish, stupid nonsense I’d expect from Fonk, but not from a grown up. (And after the Buccaneer, Jaguar and Tornado, I’d suggest that BAE know a great deal about structures and FI….. :rolleyes:)
JackonickoToan,
1) Correct
2) Correct
3) Not entirely correct – not Rafale and F-22. Not just M2K.
JackonickoSintra,
Gripen’s ability to use the Swedish link in addition to Link 16, or in addition to the proprietary DL still gives Gripen an advantage, insofar as I can understand it.
Sign In
