No other aircraft has a comparable system to DAS right now, so you’re right that it’s not in the same generation.

Blah=di=Blah. You visibly don’t know about IR technologie genertation and their developements in the EUs…

Yeah i know, DAS looks fab in commercials just like EOTS but the packaging doesn’t make the VMC performances even so they added a visual capability to it…

As for my infos they are available to everyone too. Go dig it.:D

=wrightwing;1347705]Where did I say undetectable? They are detectable, but only at much closer ranges, negating the kinematic range of the LRAAMs

.

Why “much closer?

Considering the FACT that already LPI radars of the RDY generation are detectable at more than 200 km and (in optimum condition) the 1990’s genration of European IRST capable of detecting a fighter sized target ad <> 130 km you tell me where the advantage will be when the NEXT generation of IRSTs will be in service…

In a nutshell, it doesn’t matter if the missile is capable of flying 300-400km, if the fire control radar can only detect the target at 1/10 that range.

It’s NOT about the AAM itself expecialy the IR BVR AAMs, it’s about the launch aircraft and its kinetic advantage (or lack of it).

Maximum ranges are for movies, in reality there are NEVER been a kill anywhere out of the first two third of the current AAM ranges.

Most of them BTW occured within the first third of their maximum range too, not to mention thre need to ID the target to avoid fractricide, if you cant do it visualy (Optronic) then you are at great risk to kill firendlies or give away your position by having to emit for request of ID from a remote source.

To that respect collaborative fight is also not going to work that much if you cant emit without being spoted which is going to happen every time you do emit EM anyway.

In fact those missiles(KS-172/R37) would be used in the ARM mode against an AWACS/C4I type aircraft, that have a lot of EM emissions, when flying that far. Their range against even a 4th Gen fighter, in SARH/ARH mode, would be considerably less.

I am not bothered with AAM range matters, i am bothered with EM/IR discretion, target detection and identification, then we can compare AAMs performances and their respective NEZs because at the end of the day this is what reality is made of, rough datas aren’t too relevant in most cases.

This is where our pilots are aiming in termos of culture, they dont even think about METEOR and its future Kinetic Energy advantage, their problems lies in the aspects of the fight i mentioned and they are working much at reducing EM emitions…

Those numbers are irrelevant against a VLO aircraft. You can’t fire at a target unless you know it’s there, and the PAK FA isn’t going to detect the F-22 or F-35 at hundreds of km, hence- the primary targets are AWACS/Tankers(i.e. large RCS, slow, ARM profile).

You’re mystaking Human technology for that of the Klingons.:D

L.O doesn’t MEAN undetectable, we know it we are developing BOTH the L.O and the “counter” L.O.

NOAS

Bear in mind that the Machrihanish flight was the first autonomous flight in UK airspace.

HERTI and Raven had already been flying around autonomously for some time in AUSTRALIA.

SHARC was certainly the first to fly autonomously IN Europe, but whether it was the first European UAV to fly autonomously is another matter …

(I do know the answer, BTW!!!)

I dont think so, developement wise, both Herti AND Corax dates fits.

There is little ambiguity there only a confusion on the role of Raven which apparentlly was much more about complexe flight control systems for the benefit of the others…

Something else i guess that at the way BAe Systems uses their PR on claironing for whatever they can, they wouldnt miss this one for a world.

AND i think i know the answer too, = limited level of autonomy for Raven up to the final development of Corax systems which BTW was the same (second) vehicle fuselage fited with a different set of wings.. Am i close?

Anyway FIRST fully autonomous sequence; from break release to break-on-parking-to-parking for AVE-D 2008-07-07…

And FIRST flight for the tail-less instable AVE-C in June 12, 2003… (Before Raven, Rob)

First fully autonomous flight for AVE drone – 2008-07-07
See the press release:
Photo
Photo credit
The Dassault Aviation AVE-D drone completed its first fully autonomous demonstration flight on June 30, 2008 near Toul, France. The flight, watched by representatives of France’s Délégation Générale pour l’Armement (DGA) armaments procurement agency, comprised a completely automated sequence: roll from parking spot, runway alignment, takeoff, in-flight maneuvers, landing, braking and rolling back to the parking apron.
This AVE-D flight marks a significant first for Dassault Aviation, confirming the company’s expertise in Uninhabited Air Vehicles, or drones. The demonstration flight is a key development milestone for a technology essential to the successful pursuit of the European nEUROn Unmanned Combat Air Vehicle Demonstrator program.
The AVE (Aéronefs de Validation Expérimentale) series is a family of scale model experimental unmanned aircraft developed by Dassault Aviation. These aircraft enable Dassault Aviation to carry out flight validation tests of technological advances in the field of Uninhabited Air Vehicles, or UAVs, including stealth and autonomous flight.
Achieving maximum stealth is a decisive factor for the success of observation or attack missions in a hostile combat environment. The first AVE aircraft—called AVE-D, for “discretion”—made its maiden flight in July 2000, becoming the first stealth drone to fly in Europe.
The next stage in the validation program consisted in eliminating the aircraft tail to enhance stealth. This aerodynamic configuration makes aircraft unstable, thus rendering control more difficult. This led to the AVE-C (C for “control”), that completed its first flight in June 2003.
Within the framework of a contract with DGA, the AVE family have made several flights since 2004.
Key dates:
• AVE-D 1st flight: July 18, 2000
• AVE-C 1st tail-less flight: June 12, 2003
• AVE-D autonomous flight demonstration for DGA: June 30, 2008

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/aviation/press/press-kits/2008/first-fully-autonomous-flight-for-ave-drone.html?L=1&cHash=8328870e9f

aurcov;1347603]It’s the third time you posted this image. The IR spherical coverage you mention is offered by SAMIR. It’s a MLD nothing more.

You arer AGAIN bringing NOTHING new to the debate, and DAS only bring Imagery to the IR MLD function…

What i was saying was the whole spectrum of threat is already covered on a 360* X 360* buble a long time ago…

I’m glad that Rafales have this great piece of US engineering that is MIDS (I hope you know that despite it is assembled by Thales, the technology and components are from Rockwell Collins).

BOY you’re mystaking your Disneland local workshop for SAGEM and Thales aren’t you???

You meant developed by Sagem or Thales and produced in the US perhaps…

However, I was talking about an automonous, on-board 360 deg capabily such as DAS.

Already there just in case you haven’t noticed yet, only the imaging capability is missing but NOT for long, NOW since you seems to like taking the Mickey, have a good read on my previous posts and try to default the french developed technologies called “West” or “WORLD FIRSTS” coming our way…

For the time being, performances of this generation IRST is enough for classification as long-range/All-weather by the manufacturer and the DGA is looking in this precise direction for actual and future developements..
.

Well, bravo for Thales. It still wouldn’t provide a capability to detect a fighter in EMCON behind or lateral.

What’s wrong with your understanding of the words 360* X 360*?

I’m afraid you are wrong. USN didn’t buy from Thales.

YES they DID and from SAGEM as well if i’m not mystaking.

At least, not IRSTs. In fact, US has the longest experience in IR.

BULLS by the bucket, the US were actualy aiming for fully ACTIVE sensors with the developement of Apaches and Comanches until the Serbian war brought them back to hearth, we have a LOT more bad weather over here my freind and Tiger is FULLY passive with firing capabilties at high speed Apaches can only dream of.

The first IRST was mounted in a F 101 Voodoo in mid-fifites. All the fighters in the series of F 104 , F 106, F 4, F 14 had IRSTs, wich means a few thousands. When was the first French IRST operational?

Perhaps true but when they changed their politics of R&D for ACTIVE Europe took the lead over by simple necessity.

However, you avoided the real point in my post. I was asking about a 360 deg. IR suite (other than a simple MLD), not only a frontal system. I’m still waiting…

“Simple” MLDs provides for it just in case you didn’t comprehend it just YET and the only difference with DAS IS imagery.

BTW, you keep saying about the presumbly bad weather limitation of US IR sensors, compared with French ones. Care to elaborate?

I already DID several times over if you weren’t so confrontational and actualy cared to READ other’s post you’d know.

Did any customer complained? IRST customers?

The US Army after the crash of TWO Apaches in Bad weather YES.

What are those fighter AESA that French operate, in order to calibrate the Spectra?

Why dont YOU ask Thales for a laugh???:D

No one argue that Mirage has a ~10 % higher max. dash speed, than the F 16. I was talknig about acceleration.

Precisley the point i was making, at this sort of altitude every fanboy like us know the Mirage is markedly superior to the F-16 in this field; among other that is, because even its SUSTAINED turn rates equal or beats that of the Viper at high altitudes depending on the Mach.

Ask the Greek AF they can tell you that little, it also have a higher Operational celling.

Rob L Your own freaking slide says that it performed fully automated flights! :diablo: It takes some brains to read. 😡

In 2005 after its FIRST flight, logicaly, NOT in Dec 2003 as you alleged…

Which specialized press says the UK comes second?

Flight International reporting SHARC Fully autonomous flight in 2004.

Wholly autonomous take-offs and landings and short duration flights during a test campaign completed on 27 August.
DATE:07/09/04
SOURCE:Flight International
Saab UCAV flies autonomously
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…onomously.html

I never said so, this is Raven I’m talking about, are you getting confused again?

Dont mystake ME for the image in the mirror Rob L, Raven first flew in 2003 but the FIRST to be fully autonomous from BAe UAVs was Corax in 2005..

Stop smoking what you’re smoking you alreay write like you’re close to terminal damages. 😀

If you DON’T detect the F-35’s radar

WRONG:😀

Where is the D for DETECTION in the achronyme LPI please?

EVERY EM emission IS detectable; Intercept implies a set of datas suffiscient to go pass the detection stage and LOCATE the source with enough accuracy to become useful.

all that extra range isn’t going to help much if there is no radar lock.

WRONG. They all can be launched without lock-on which is what our Mirage 2000-5Fs are doing regularly in BVR with an expected succes rate of 75%.

The RDY radar doesnt use lock-on modes and this doesn’t give the target ANY idea it have been fired upon.

What you meant perhaps is that there isn’t enough datas on range (Supposely), in particular for the EM AAMS, but a MICA seeker slaved or not to OSF can detect a F-35 in BVR easly, a Magic II probably would too since they do detect non-A-B KC-135 Fs BVR.

And BTW, this also applies ALSO reversed to the aircraft flying LOWER and SLOWER which AAMs NEZ, KINETIC ENERGY, SPEED and RANGE will be much lower.

Something else, with 360* X 360* Link-16 remote targeting and firing capabilties demonstrated, plus i strongly suspect a possible upgrade from SPECTRA from A2G to A2A targeting there are scoops for a Rafale to detect and target F-35 in BWR totaly passively already today, without the RBE 2 AESA which will help detect L.O target way further too.

Of couse we won’t know about the SPECTRA A2A taregeting capability (or the lack of it) but it CAN detect a radar emission at more than 200 km with an angular precision of less than 1* and be used to guid an AASM to it for a kill, so i wouldn’t be surprised if with sensor fusion including Link-16 it wouldn’t be possible for a F3 to detect F-35 radar or radio emissions with enough precision to target it LOAL…

As for the supercruise on the EF/Rafale/Gripen- what is their supercruise range? The F-22 can’t supercruise for its entire mission,

About roughly 2 hours i would estimate since they CAN do it with AAMs and a supersonic tank attached at M 2.2.

and neither can they, which means that if the F-35 can only cruise at M.95, there won’t be a .4 mach advantage at all times. It also means that if it can supercruise, then it comes down to who can do it the furthest, for there to be any tangible advantage.

I can’t SEE why not since they do it as they would in subsonic in Heavy configuration (in the case of Rafale; 2 X Scalps/Apaches, 3 X 2.000l external tanks, 4 X MICAs = M 0.83 due to external store drag, aerodynamic limit being M 0.90).

Power setting would be 89% only to justify the definition of the word CRUISING and you can bet your next X-Mass turkey it is the case in supersruise as well just because i don’t see the interest of not using the best range/endurence in this mode.

If they mentioned this capability it is because it is OPERATIONALY achievable, not an absolute power setting MAXI which wouldn’t respond to the standard definition of the word cruising nor operational and regular flight regimes.

Say a typhoon cruises at M1.3 with AA load or a Rafale at M1.2. If it wants any chance to catch them, the F35 will need to light it’s pc, making it much much more detectable via IRST, and burning much more fuel in the process.

We know Rafale can do 1.3 with 4AAMs since “un baille” what you mention is achieved with the 1.250 l central supersonic tank attached ” en plus”, MN Rafale configuration.

Tribes
I don’t think his statements are “politics” at their core; that much of the criticism of the F-35 comes from Monday morning quarterbacks with little real understanding of the aircraft’s real capabilities, and who are unwilling to accept the limits of their knowledge.

That’s your PoV what i CAN see are justification for spending their dosh on an overhipped programme with technico-commercial arguments used as pseudo-technical ones.

In short they dont fool me with the so called “L.O” thing we all know F-35 is WAY from being as L.O as the F-22.

=pfcem;1347510]What you ARE doing is taking the KPP THRESHOLDS & stating them as maximum designed values when they are MINIMUM acceptable values for acceptance.

Blah-di-Blah so much noise so little evidences…

So in every brochures according to your boyz superior knowledges, the F-35 cruise speeds of 0.95 are correct but the designed Mach limit are not. 😀

Funny you even have to invent a USAF “standard” for the word supercruise no???

Once agian you PROVE you don’t know what you are talking about.

STFU my dear sir, at least i understand some you still dont comprehend like designed aerodynamics and engine pressure limits….

It’s pretty obvious that if you were right it would be supersonic in military power but guess what, even L-M says it ain’t supercruising so now we have a NEW definition of the word conveniently thrown at the rest of the “ignorant” world.

Ho yeah i forgot, NOW the USAF say cruising is defined by Mach (i eared).

No it ain’t, now when you’re finished taking the superior Mickey from everyone else you’ll call on me.

40,000 lbs was NEVER the actual number for the F135, it (prior to official ratings numbers were published) was always “40,000 lb class”.

You counterdict yourself there…

But just like the F119 is “35,000 lb class” but actually is in the region of 39,000 lbs.

Oh, & they DID find ‘another 3,000 lbs’ of thrust with the F135-PW-100…BY INSTALLING IT IN A F-35! Amazing what the increased airflow from a well designed intake will do. AND that intake has been tested up to Mach 2 installed on an F-16.

The Inlet was specifically designed to recover this loss of pressure…

With NO improvement at Mach 2.0 on a clean aircraft usualy capable of MORE than Mach 2.0 with its original inlet, with a much smaller cross section, a supersonic wing profile in place of the dragier superctitical and 40* swept wing instaead of 33*… Good going.

You don’t know what the ‘DESIGNED Max Mach’ for the F-22 OR the F-35 are.

I know for what flight regime its design is optimised for and i also know that these limits are NOT KPP THRESHOLDS as you conveniently pretend.

The F-22 was, however DESINED to “cruise” WITHOUT AFTERBURNER for extended periods at Mach 1.6. Turns out it is capable of Mach 1.72 – for how long is not known. It is quike likely they have found a nice compromise somwhere around Mach 1.6…

😀

Yeah we know the old legend, you still can’t grab it do you?

The Mig 25 is “capable of 3.0” Mach when in fact it will only reach 2.85 in current operation or else you’ll have to change engines after each flight.

So the “US” Uber Alles legion is rebelling, much mouthing and little evidences, KPP THRESHOLDS, “Classified” and all you understand, designed limits for both engines and airframes are for the rest of the Under Alles world.

For the time being; none of you can make do and elaborate other than with these pseudo-technical acronymes you conveniently apply to red-line limits pretending they are proper designed maximas.

Please get yourself this nice literature and dont bother coming back lecturing me and getting all personal before you actualy understand what the very USAF “standard”s you are pushing as “evidences” are all about. :diablo: