TMorhavent see the fuel probe measured, whats the rcs of an orange ?
I would say “less than the RCS of a golf ball” because it’s not made of metal.:confused:
TMorJackjack,
You’re questionning us because you believe that we’re all defending to death the idea that Rafale is a unique fighter with unique capabilities, capable of shooting passively at 60km.
Can you give me the nicknames of poeple here who did such a claim ?
even the french say the radar is short ranged and i’ve seen your charts
Who ?
My charts ? So you trust me when you want ! But what do you want ? Do you want Rafale to fit your opinion ? I asked you not to bring your prejudices here.
You have prejudices against Rafale, which is demonstrated by your selective memory.
You have prejudices against people who oppose you, not necessarily defending Rafale, and you charge them with believing things they never claimed.
except that at the claimed 60k, there isnt a fighter radar that wouldnt see the rafale,
Who did claim so ?
WHAT ABOUT WRITING NOW YOUR FULL REASONING ABOUT ALL THIS STORY ? (and please make an effort to write sentences correctly, full words and punctuation, we have seen example here of someone with superb ability in english though it was not his native language having trouble with moderators).
Because your current speech has no coherence.
heck, i think even the refueling probe alone would be picked up by some planes at a reasonable distance
That’s your opinion.
So, French developped a passive attack capability, spent a lot of efforts at reducing the RCS, and you come here and say “it can’t be efficient ! it doesn’t work !”
Man ! Please go in Saint Cloud, and teach our engineers how to build a decent fighter !
TMorcould it be that rafales acknowledged poor radar performance is leading the reason the french are trying to discount the need for it
perhaps when it gets its aesa, this will fade
especially since TMor told me that only f3 has LOAL capability mica
so up till now, its just been a story anyway
Yes, our radar is so poor that we’re making a fighter able to fight and remain undected at the same time. :rolleyes:
A blind man on a battlefield would better leave the battle… Unless he actually has a good situation awareness, good understanding of the situation, and can kill without being seen. :rolleyes:
TMorJackjack,
You can’t ask others to prove each of their points while you keep posting assumptions that are far from being obvious.
definitely a philosophic, its whether it can and how be passively on-board launched for max range of missile, not pk
there are a lot of ,,it can, but very little ..it can because ..and here is the link
Where did you read that APG-77 can’t be detected by Spectra or other modern ESM ?
You keep telling “it can’t”, but no link…
Why do you reject the matter of “pk” ?
You said :
that leaves the RWR that can only provide bearing
Then Blue Apple demonstrated you that you were wrong. Instead of admitting your mistake, you answered :
so we agree it isnt unique to the rafale
:confused:
What did his answer had to do with Rafale ? Your answer hadn’t even a relation with your initial claim that “RWR can only provide bearing”…
to the statements that the rafale can passivly fire max range mica from on-board sensors
i am asking how
Well, I think we have given you enough hints. You decided not to believe them seriously. I respect your opinion, but i think you’re going far.
TMori thought i answer ok. the written word is poor communication compared to face to face
i have no prejudice, french ancestors
Ok.
the point is i cant see a passive 60k shot being done and i asked how
Provided there is a mean for an external designation, it is possible, and should be no problem. That’s all. If the Rafale is alone, i see to possibility, yet.
is underline better ?
Strange manner. It’s not harder to quote instead of underlining. But do whatever you want, we just need to quickly see what’s quoted and what you write.
i actually think they are wrong and if 64 would be a 2 bar 64×2
So, Sagem, who build it, is wrong. I’d better say we don’t understand the whole thing.
but 2 bar 64×64 was the data that was released by [i forget who]
You’re refering to this message :
http://www.air-defense.net/forum/index.php/topic,7726.msg178255.html#msg178255
Faltenin gave us this data, according to him from the Ecole Militaire Belge (Belgium military school).
The problem is that it doesn’t match anything else. Most of the time, you will learn that it was initially planned that it would use two bars, and i have provided the evidence that it was back in 1984. TWENTY YEARS LATER, the firm that build the missile is talking about a high resolution FPA.
However, the reason why we are trying to know what it’s made of is basically because you don’t believe the claimed detection ranges, because in fact, we don’t know about the Aim-9X.
as you know the other makers have gone with a staring or scanning 128×128 and larger
Yes. Then ?
how would they be unaware in a head on engagement ?
In case of a head on engagement, i do not expect Rafale to remain undected. 😎 But there exist a lot of possibilities that targets will be detected by Rafale without having Rafale in their radar cone, don’t you think ?
so obviously the f-22 must have said they did, it does seem strange
Capitaine Romain does not tell his targets he is secretly attacking them when nobody expect him to do so, especially because it’s pointless in regard to the exercise and because he does so in his free time out of the training area.
TMorWell, now, i’m having a doubt about my last answer to Nicolas10.
That’s funny how people sometimes refuse to believe facts on the ground of their lack of knowledge of classified data. Especially when we talk about French equipments.
Jackjack, leave your prejudice before you come here, please.
but does it make sense ?
I’ve lost the track.
Did you have something in mind before you asked the initial question ? What’s your point ?
Old two bar 64×64 ? I’ve already read it somewhere… What’s your source, please ?
airdefense
I don’t know if you’re used to strategypage, but here, the quotation system is really fine. Use it, please.:rolleyes:
However, I know the discussions you’re refering to. And the resolution isn’t proved.
We’re talking about 2 BAR IR-CCD, as envisaged in 1984 at the begining of the project. This was a major improvement over the seeker of the Magic 2. Twenty years later, Sagem talk about high resolution FPA. Maybe you know something about those techs that could enlighten my opinion ?
The fact is that Mica IR was designed with BVR in mind, so, expect it to have a good detection range, INS and datalink.
it compares the 2 frequency images as an anti spoof
I know. In case I wouldn’t have understood it by myself, it’s written in the document.
ok, no radar can see the raffale at 60k, dam that pixie dust is good
You’re still in a head on scenario, while we’re talking about the possibility for Rafale to attack unaware targets.
its BS, they would have had coms telling them they’re dead
It may not be BS, since as Capitaine Romain explained, those engagement were conducted out of the training area, and F-22 may have just scored kills unofficially, without informing the French that they were playing such a game. It seems that you didn’t take interest about what we wrote some pages ago.
all i can say is its lucky france isnt going to fight the west
What’s your native language ?
By the way, this last sentence, in an attempt to put France out of the west as an exception, is somewhat strange.
TMorthe answer is the range of a flat trajectory missile still being able to self acquire the target when its in sensor range with enough energy left to maneuver
:rolleyes: Ok, wait, I’m going to have a look into my classified manual of Mica IR. 😀
well the old ir sensor is beating a couple of generations above the rest of the world if its true and here i was thinking old 2 bar 64×64 was pretty basic
Old two bar 64×64 ? I’ve already read it somewhere… What’s your source, please ?
I have a Sagem PDF which says :
-focal plane array ;
-bispectral imager ;
-high resolution ;
-super sensitivity.
Of course, no detail.
http://www.sagem-ds.com/pdf/en/D084.pdf
i think i will let this pass for now, as it would be a 10 pager with a lot of references to pixie dust
Take your time.:D
guns dogfight no need for radar
A&C reported about BVR engagements. The French pilots seem not to be aware of these… Funny, don’t you think ?
ps, the rafale wouldnt know if the f-22 lit it up on radar
They’d better not take the risk against modern ESM. Not yet.
TMor“”In LOBL, Colonel Moussez said Mica IR could be shot at several tens of miles. “”
can you recheck that maybe LOAL ?, or it will be the only ir sensor that has a 30k true target acquisition range, when everyone else is talking much less
It’s LOBL, because in the interview with Air Fan, he is speaking about the F2 standard. LOAL on Mica IR is only available with F3.
However, he also tells that it must be a target massively emitting in the IR band (AB on, etc).
heck if it makes you happy i wont even challenge the 80k even though your navy say the mica ir range is about 20k
Probably (and approximatly) true with the F2 standard, as seen above, because Mica IR was limited to LOBL. But the only difference between Mica IR and EM is the seeker, and thus, the shape of the head. Do you think it would divide the range by 3 or 4 ?
This is simply several tactics which allow not to use the position betraying radar.
shame you have to turn the radar off, hopefully the aesa will have some features to fix this
btw what range do you think a given radar will pick a rafale up at
LoL
Jackjack, the interest of turning the radar off is to keep silent. Passive and silent tactics will still exist even with the AESA, as long as there is an interest in preventing from being detected.
There is no shame in turning the radar off : even the F-22 did so against Rafale !
Your last question would be about the RCS of Rafale… Hard to tell !
TMorWell, I don’t know who you asked the question to, but I simply tried to answer “how”.
I don’t remember having claimed that only by its own sensors, Rafale could launch a Mica IR passively at its max range.:o
and that tech is done by how many planes again ?
Again, i’m not claiming that Rafale is the only one. It’s just that your old F-18 has no BVR IR weapon, as far as i know.
However, there might be other capabilities if you don’t want to shoot Mica IR at 60km.
In LOBL, Colonel Moussez said Mica IR could be shot at several tens of miles. And then, again, according to Capitaine Romain, we know that Rafale can shoot a missile on an emitting target, even with the RBE-2 not emitting. We simply don’t know how and at what range.
This is simply several tactics which allow not to use the position betraying radar.
TMoryeah i suppose to some fanboys it would called trolling, when a statement is made that rafale can passively fire a mica ir at 60k
and i ask how and with the subtext answer of ‘because its french’
then i again ask how
The max range of Mica is 80km (as quoted in former DGA website, or here : http://www.ixarm.com/Technical-card,11177 ).
However, i’m not the one who will tell you that Mica IR will be launch at a target 80km away, because this extreme range is probably only true for the EM, at high altitude, high speed, head to head engagement of a non maneuvering target.
SO…. If 60km is the range, shooting a Mica IR passively, in my opinion, requires an external designation. Then, the missile will fly autonomously unless target change its trajectory (and thus, Mica will receive new data through the LAM). The missile burns during 3 secondes aflter launch, which means that after a long flight, it will reach the target without smoke, and possibly no hint of a threat.
UNLESS the target uses a sophisticated dual band missile warner ? Or an active MAW.
What would be the external designator ? Why not a Typhoon… 😀
TMorjackjack’s trolling.
I wouldn’t call Jackjack a troll. His questions are safe AND interesting, though frustrating. 😀
8-1 while outnumbered 4:2 and simulating SARH missiles sounds utterly suspicious.
No…. No 8-1. It’s still 4-0 and later, 3-1.
Suspicious ? That’s exactly the Sintra’s point.
Since we know that both Rafale were carrying two AA10C each, this means that all the AA10C hit their target (or, contrary to what we believe, this finished in the merge).
Unless Typhoon were totally unaware of the attack :confused:, I find it suspicious. Were the Typhoon busy with attacking other targets ? In any case, they were four, and a Typhoon in Strike configuration also brings his usual ordinance of 4 Amraam and 2 Asraam (near BVR ?).
One must also admit that they were quite well equipped to defend themselves, and during the second encounter, a Rafale have been shot down.
I believe that Rafale might have benefited of their situation awareness to place themselves in a very favorable tactical situation, and then, they shot.
If the Typhoon didn’t see them approaching…
We still don’t know what is a AA-10C… Is it one of the long range Alamo, sometimes quoted with a range of 130 km ? It’s just a question, because i’m not sure a Rafale will lock a Typhoon as far.
TMorbut it seems you accept without asking yourself how
Of course, because i know too little (who knows enough ?).
I think the only fact that a pilot said Rafale has such a capability and train to use it is already of relevance.
However, OPIT tried to give you hints for you reflexion :
(fused OSF+SPECTRA, triangulation from bearing infos over time, MICA IR inertial w/o datalink)
Spectra can range threats, but how well in A2A ? Does it rely on triangulation ? We don’t know…
I believe it’s impossible to guess the rest. We can only hope (dream ?) that details will be unveiled. 😀
TMorno, i would say the osf tv would have a longer range than 40k
i think the 40k refers to the laser distance
The laser range may be around 40km too, but for the TV, yes, around 40km against fighter sized targets, probably more for a Transall for example, etc. The bigger the target is, the easier it is to identify !
do you really want to talk about the osf ir ? i suggest you read up on it first
😀 What about giving your opinion first, before suggesting him to read about a subject he already knows ?
but there is a simple solution to this, can you give me a link to where the mica ir was tested with tv/ir or/and rwr for a passive shot
http://blog.francetv.fr/capitaine-romain/index.php/2010/02/10/167251-les-questions-de-corentin
2. Lorsque j’effectue un transit vers ma zone d’entraînement ou lorsque j’en rentre, à bord de mon Rafale, je met souvent ce temps à profit pour m’exercer au tir fictif de missiles sur d’autres avions militaires, eux aussi en transit. Parmis les possibilités que m’offre le système d’arme Rafale, il y a celle qui consiste à tirer un missile vers un avion qui m’éclaire de son radar alors que le mien reste silencieux… Il n’y a pas eu de confrontation Beyond Visual Range entre un Rafale et un F22. Il est en revanche certain que les pilotes de Raptor comme les pilotes de Rafale, se soient entraînés à réaliser de tels tirs lors des phases de transit pendant ATLC.
Capitaine Romain says that Rafale can shoot at an emitting target while RBE-2 is not emitting.
Since Mica can be use regardless of its head… The question is “at what range ?”
or can you tell me without generalising with spectra and use the individual sensors how you think this can be done at or near the full range of mica
I think you missed his point when he write :
The question is whether that makes sense or not in relation with the probability of kill.
TMorRBE-2, with its supposed limited range and narrow field of view (less than 120 degrees ?), should not be good at all in single-target engagement, as with the AA-10C. In terms of radar, Typhoon should have had a hudge edge, because its radar is supposed to have a range 60 percent superior, especially at gimbals (70 degrees).
Add to this the numerical inferiority of Rafale, it would be nice to learn what weapons the Typhoon were bringing, for example.
I guess RAF pilots have learnt a lot ! 🙂
TMor has just posted, if i was on the wrong track he would of corrected me, as he has done before on the rwr/retransmit jamming
Passive BVR engagement is a real mystery to me.
The latest information i have comes from Capitaine Romain who claims he can launch missiles at targets using their radars, passively (this suggests Spectra is doing well).
But at what range ? How accuratly ? How efficiently ? :confused:
I’m afraid I lack too much data to discuss it.
TMorOriginally Posted by Lcl Grandclaudon
I did not say we “rubbed them” [the raptors], I said that there was only one shot claimed (i.e. a simulated kill) for the six that were set up. [follow the story about A&C mag claiming not one but 2 kills for the Raptor]
I really wonder who asked the question. 😀
Who did claim that they had “rubbed” the Raptors ? (except Richard Feeser whom credibility is now clear 😀 )
What did the journalist ask to the F-22 pilots so as to get the answer “this is not how i remember the fight” ?
Sign In
