You know guys, jackjack is right.

The exercise does not proove the Rafale
better than the Typhie.
It only “suggests” that the Typhoon is not
quite as good as a Mig 21, LOL,LMAO.:dev2:

if this was repeated on every rafale/phoon exercise with equal ROE favoring neither, then it would build a picture that shows the strength/weakness of both in various scenarios
but to take this one example and use that for any claim is silly
are there any examples where the phoon ler was less than the rafale ? i would say there probably are

Has acoustic emissions based detection of 5th gen been explored ? Like IRST it too could help as an alternative means of enemy detection and a lot of ideas can be borrowed from submarine’s passive listening devices. With higher and higher thrust engines being developed, the vulnerablity on acoustic noise front is pretty much going one-way: increasing.

aussie tech shared with possible transferable to planes, public info is on
acoustic daylight, next gen ..passive radar
ads2 ..broadband LPI long distance coms
internal harmonic cancellation ‘noise/vibration’

i would think supercruise messes with the ir signature management, is it that good to heat sink that degree of heating ?
i would imagine it would strike subsonically and infact spend most of its time subsonic
but i’ve been wrong before

No he didn’t.

edit:
And AWACS indeed is a nice tool. But it communicates the situation via datalink. And it is only available against peasants or above “home” turf.

refuelers, various coms, i think they have some things hanging space doing stuff too

so is it ok if i quote you as saying “one rafale cant use the full range of mica ir bvr passively using its on-board sensors”

Good luck with the F-35’s datalinks… Directional and LPI.

even better luck with the link 22, the member countries consortium is developing

Dear Jackjack

To answer frankly to your question, no I cannot (at least I cannot be absolutly sure) as I am not aware of the full spec of this weapon nor Rafale ones (too bad! :D).
I can only deduct from what I know about the whole “weapons system”, which is quite few as I am not Dassault corporate or Rafale pilot…:)

If we consider a “fully passive” action, this seems to mean:
– no active radar from the firing Rafale,
– no laser ranging (as we do not know if the target has a laser detector).
Do we agree on this basis?

Solutions seems rather limited in number here:
– radar detection from a E3, a E2, a boat and location transmitted by L16 to the firing aircraft. You may say that it is not a “full passive” interception as a “delocalised” radar is used and the target is possibly aware of it. Not wrong…;)
– Detection by optical means (OSF) and/or by EW means (SPECTRA), by one or more aircrafts and “triangularisation” (can I say that in English?:confused:), the MICA IR is then fired, guided by the firing Rafale with LAM, until it acquire a “lock-on” on its IR sensor. Then “BOOM” :diablo:
This last possibility seems quite realistic, doesn’t it?;)

Best regards
Vorpal777

yes, i have said that in an earlier post about off-board data and leaving aside the if, buts and probability of off-board data, your post is an example
the osf cant, but triangulation using the radar warning receiver from 2 or 3 rafales could give data to use a steep assent trajectory for optimal range as opposed to a flat trajectory chase on a bearing which has a much reduced range
but that is using off-board data that i have already agreed with as opposed to the on-board passive targeting of a 60k ir range claim