No, read what I said again.

A Mica IR won’t trigger the RWR or ESM & the Mirage 2000 does not even need to use its radar, with the only active system being the aircraft/missile datalink.

And how is that going to work? If the M2k doesn’t use it’s radar at can only rely on the missiles seeker itself which would be quite restrictive and what system provides the MCG?

Scorpion :

We obviously have the same sources , more or less .
I know that the Rafale is perfectly capable of “dynamically” destroying targets ( understand “on the fly”) within seconds . Did it happen ?
We don ‘t have precise infos so yes I extrapolated a bit but who cares as long as the capability is there ? 🙂

I care because there is a HUGE difference between engaging six closely spaced pre-briefed targets and engaging 6 SAMs dynamically targeted. It’s known that the Rafale offers a dynamic targeting capability, like other aircraft, though not all of them can rely on their RWR/ESM to do so. SAMs are usually not that closely spaced next to each other and the localisation of SAMs using passive sensors is not such an easy or quick task as you may think, it’s not like the aircraft is spiked and instantly knows the exact location of the threat!
Furthermore this is the way how myths are created! People misrepresent things repeat them over and over again and some others read it and believe it, though it’s not necessarily true. And at some point they stand with their rear at the wall, as they were trumpeting out nonsense someone else made up and presented it as fact.

The two most important factors are in order , the capability to detect and pinpoint the threat (before it can engage you) , then to destroy it with almost impunity with a well designed weapon .

And who guarantees you that the aircraft won’t be engaged before it can deploy its weapons?

The AASM Hammer is the weapon designed for the task and it is the first laser guided weapon to hit vertically its target (World first , think of the Math algorithms behind it) . It is also the first “bomb” to act as a missile .

As already stated by Spudman you are just “buying” the crap the press releases are telling you! Worlds first here and there and everywhere. That’s something I really don’t care, especially as it is often wrong! There have been powered bombs in the past, the Hammer isn’t such a new concept per se, it’s unquestionably a fine weapon, no doubt about that, but it’s no Wunderwaffe.

And what if you need to avoid triple digit Russian SAMs made and are forced to fly low ?? 😮
Scorpion , the best way to infiltrate a 3 to 5 th gen air-defense is still to fly low if the landscape can be of any help . France is right about tactics and the aircraft needed for the task . 🙂

The best way is to penetrate stealthy at higher altitude, because you are more flexible at higher altitudes, have a better SA and your weapons will offer a longer range as well. Airforces without stealthy strike aircraft will rely on low level penetration or stand-off engagements, doesn’t mean its the best way, just because you have no alternatives!

For my taste Kopp’ so called analyses are oversimplified and in many ways exaggerated. He usually assumes the very best for the side he wants to promote and the worst for the opposing side and while he takes a lot of time to point out limitations of an F-35 or F/A-18E/F for example he doesn’t do the same wrt the Russian fighters for example and that screws his analysis and conclusions up to a point where they become unacceptable as a reasonable assessment.
Wrt his data I can’t comment on the SAM part, as I’m not really interested in SAMs, but I can tell you that wrt Flankers for example he has many false information in his analysis, he also comes up with some better researched stuff, but I have seen a lot of crap as well and certainly nothing I couldn’t have done better, if I wanted to. His articles make a good read for the casual observer and some of them aren’t too bad in general, but as soon as he starts with comparisons it becomes ridiculous.

Scorpion :

Ok , I got it now , my bad 😮 We ‘re both right , it is just that I misunderstood what you were saying , sorry again .

Issues are there to be solved ;). No problem.

“isn ‘t a big deal either” ? well , allow me to disagree .
There are multiple factors to “factor” in , if I may say . First , since we are talking about SAMs and enemy aircraft , did “our” fighter manage to detect the 8 threats ?
The radar alone is not enough to do this and then , you need to “know” the threats rather early . Detecting their RF emissions and pinpointing them early is what “our” fighter needs . Remember these 2 very important points , Scorpion .
Then , you might not have the time to change your altitude and/or flight path to put yourself in a favourable position to fire your AtoG weapons . With the AASM Hammer , this is not really a problem .
Then , you ‘ll need a top rate onboard data-fusion (and very fast at it) to fire quickly 6 weapons at 6 different targets from coordinates gathered passively .

During this very short and busy time , don ‘t forget that “our” fighter has to deal with 2 incoming air targets and it does . 🙂
All the fighters you cited are incapable to archive the same because they lack few things , including the sensors , the weapon and the 5th gen data-fusion .
What the Rafale demonstrated during this exercise was a World first and even the USAF praised it .
We have now enough official reports to accept it as a fact .

First and foremost IIRC it were 3 aerial targets and 6 ground targets (making 9). The articles I have seen didn’t specify whether these ground targets were dynamically targeted or pre-briefed targets, not even the type itself was specified. So if you have a source confirming your claims (all 6 targets were SAMs randomly targeted) feel free to share it. It was also stated within a minute that doesn’t mean everything was done simultaneously, but in fact in sequence! The conditions must be right as well, otherwise it wouldn’t work anyway, regardless of Rafale or any other aircraft. I agree that the SEAD/DEAD capability by the Rafale+Ham,er combo can not be found on any of the types I mentioned. The big question is are you representing the facts correctly or are you mixing up things here?

First , you need a top range RWR with interferometry . The F-22 has one . Secondly , the onboard sensor fusion must be capable to interpret the passively gathered data and present a workable solution to the pilot and to the firing control system , with target priorities .
Thirdly , you need the weapon to do the job . As it is now , you don ‘t have something like the Hammer .

You don’t need a Hammer for the job, a SDB or JDAM will do it particularly for a high and fast flying F-22.

Well RWR and radar are primary sensors anyway.

There is a good post over at SP I want to quote here. This post merely deals with the complexity/difficulties which arise if you want to define an entire generation narrowly around a single type.

User: MK
To give you a clue what it is all about, I’ll start with what the 4th generation is.
What are the features usually linked to the 4th generation fighters?
There are several features attributed to that generation such as:
– emphasis on manoeuvrability rather than speed
– turbofan engines
– FBW controls
– glass cockpit
– digital avionics
– multirole capability

Note that this list is generic and not meant to be complete.

Now let’s check which aircraft are counted into that generation (limiting it to US and Russian platforms for illustration purposes)
US side: F-14 (maybe debatable), F-15, F-16, F/A-18
Russian side: MiG-29, MiG-31, Su-27

Now let’s check how these aircraft match the criteria:
F-14: Manoeuvrability: yes, turbofans: yes, lesser emphasis on speed: no, FBW: no, glass cockpit: no, digital avionics: no (perhaps limited, but still mostly analogue systems), multirole: no

F-15: Manoeuvrability: yes, turbofans: yes, lesser emphasis on speed: no, FBW: yes with mechanical back-up, glass cockpit: no, digital avionics: no (perhaps limited, but still a lot of analogue systems), multirole: no

F-16: Manoeuvrability: yes, turbofans: yes, lesser emphasis on speed: yes, FBW yes full analogue, glass cockpit: no, digital avionics: yes, multirole: limited

F/A-18: Manoeuvrability: yes, turbofans: yes, lesser emphasis on speed: yes, FBW yes full digital, glass cockpit: yes, digital avionics: yes, multirole: yes

MiG-29: Manoeuvrability: yes, turbofans: yes, lesser emphasis on speed: no, FBW: no, glass cockpit: no, digital avionics: yes, multirole: no

MiG-31: Manoeuvrability: no, turbofans: yes, lesser emphasis on speed: no, FBW: no, glass cockpit: no, digital avionics: yes, multirole: no

Su-27: Manoeuvrability: yes, turbofans: yes, lesser emphasis on speed: no, FBW: yes with mechanical suüpport, glass cockpit: no, digital avionics: yes, multirole: no

What can we conclude from that? Except for the F/A-18 neither type met all criteria a the time they entered service. Are they classified as 4th generation nonetheless? Yes they are!!!

What does it tell us?
It tells us that the features linked to a generation are either “first introduced in that generation” or that it is a typical feature of that generation which can be found on many, but not necessarily all examples.

If we now take the Russian view into account we could state that typical features for Russian 4th generation fighters also include: IRST/LRF, HMS, datalink, HOBS missiles. If we would include that into the general list virtually all US teens would fail in these criteria, with the exception of DLs which were fitted the the F-14 for example.

Conclusion: That an aircraft doesn’t feature everything linked to a certain generation or that a certain technology/capability doesn’t exactly match that of another aircraft of this generation doesn’t mean that it doesn’t belong to it! In reality the definition of jet fighter generations is just a loosely list of attributes which is basically formed with the first member of that generation and which is completed with the last! Furthermore what is typical for members of a generation in one nation, isn’t necessarily typical in another (see HMS Russian 4th gen for example…).

Let us move to the 5th generation now!
What are the attributes usually linked to the 5th generation?
– extreme agility/super manoeuvrability
– supercruise
– integrated avionics
– AESA radar
– NCW
– sensor fusion
– Stealth with fighter like performance

Note as above this list is not meant to be complete.

Now what aircraft are considered as 5th generation?
F-22, F-35, T-50

F-22: extreme agility/super manoeuvrability: yes, supercruise: yes, integrated avionics: yes, AESA radar: yes, NCW: yes, sensor fusion: yes, Stealth: yes VLO

F-35: extreme agility/super manoeuvrability: no, supercruise: no, integrated avionics: yes, AESA radar: yes, NCW: yes, sensor fusion: yes, Stealth: yes VLO

T-50: extreme agility/super manoeuvrability: yes, supercruise: yes, integraed avionics: yes, AESA radar: yes, NCW: yes, sensor fusion: yes, Stealth: yes LO

Conclusion: As in the 4th generation example not every aircraft meets all criteria and the level can differ, does it mean we must exclude any of them? Only in the circle of the above mentioned people. Applying the same standards as before (4th gen and earlier) the T-50 perfectly fits the 5th generation. You may want to check out LMs “5th generation” features list and you’ll realised that the exact level is nowhere defined at all. It’s a listing of what are typical attributes and/or attributes first introduced with that generation.

This thread is going pear shape .

People on both sides are posting wrong and false claims as well as expressing personal views exposed as fact .
It is a real mess …

You actually described yourself, but I doubt that you realizes that.

A fighter is a “solid” object , the tail is making the same degree than the nose in all conditions .

Cola spoke about the difference of nose pointing and changing direction of flight and he is perfectly right! With a high AoA your aircraft is moving in another direction than its nose is pointing that’s all about it.

Can it do 28 deg/sec at 20k feet ? At slow speed with AB and TVC , probably ,

The point was about sustained turn rate, explained well enough above. “ID” what is written then “fire” your reply.

.
Is it a definitive advantage ? No .
Could it be useful in combat ? Sure .

Why he didn ‘t simply named the Rafale ? Because it hasn ‘t an HMS yet ?

Because he characterised modern fighters in general and isn’t narrowly focussed a specific aircraft here like you. Those characteristics can be found here and there on most modern fighters or are at least slatted for them.

True , it brings faster scan rates at longer range .

You entirely missed the point, the advantage for the scanning IRST is that it can zoom in and increase the range performance vs a starring IR sensor with a fixed FOV and no zoom.

Also true . Then , note the predetermined coordinates , when the Rafale fires its Hammers on the fly , thanks to Spectra . The 2 fighters aren ‘t playing in the same league
It shows again the F-22 ‘s lack of sensors , the need to use “external” sources . It also shows that it is an Interceptor first …

An F-22 will be able to do so as well from increment 3.1 and improves on that with 3.2. Nothing overly special! And it has nothing to do with the lack of sensors, but with their integration in this case.

Wow !!
Bill Sweetman is hitting the nail there !
Honestly , it was like reading one of my post ! lol ..

He unfortunately doesn’t realise that modern NCTR isn’t reliant on JEM and uses shape recognition instead! Well like you.:dev2: