Jackjack, you are an hypocrite.
Go back to SP if you like, mister “I know everything”. They influence you so much with their usual lies, I read them sometimes, and you come here with the same tactics : post a silly claim backed by “I know how it works” and ask for a source to contradict you…
Unproved ?
dont you accept the Thales site on their aesa either, or is it like AC and a national secret
kovy used the term fighter and in a fighter role isar would mainly be used for target ID so i read, in its omni/strike role isar is more valuable, hence why i questioned it
You’re making a big deal of a function which could be implemented but is missing on an existing and nearly operational radar.
Is this the only way you found to avoid acknowledging that France was some years ahead of other european nations on AESA for fighters ? Should we remember you that you’re trying to compare a radar nearly ready to enter operational use to something which is… at best a prototype (did the swashplate fly yet ?)
This runs along the lines of other things including aesa, if rafale doesnt have it, its not needed, if rafale gets it, its fantastic and better than the ones on other planes
Well… For years, Rafale have been bashed because of its “small” and blind radar, because of its weak engines, because this, because that, especially compared to Typhoon.
Now both types have been pitted against each other in something else than pure simulation, there is one lesson one should remember :
A fighter is not an assembly of the most powerful sub-equipments. It’s a coherent whole, and all subtleties may simple escape our understanding.
Contrary to what a lot of people thought, Rafale may work pretty much above their expectations, because the formula “big engine + big radar + big missile” is erroneous.
It’s not a matter of “if rafale doesnt have it, its not needed, if rafale gets it, its fantastic and better than the ones on other planes”. We can reproach you to say “if Rafale doesn’t have it, then, it’s bad”…
Sign In
