Blah Blah… Ultra nationalistic/half racist rantings won’t change anything to reality… Thanks for bringing in Foodstuff lol. Really want an anglofrench comparison on THAT topic???

Those with the drivel have little concept of reality, when they talk about SPECTRA preventing the lock of an IIR missile WVR.

Go for it with the food comparison. Snails, frogs, pigeons, they are broadly regarded as vermin and pests here and the portions wouldn’t fill a cat.

Let me see…

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248788[/ATTACH]

I won’t comment on your assumption about 60° climb angle (it is only your assumption).
Aside from that, there is nothing wrong with your calculation. At constant speed of 398 m/s the plane would have actual climb rate of 345 m/s at 60° climb angle.

Here comes the interesting part:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248789[/ATTACH]

Again, there is nothing wrong with your calculation.

So, for claimed climb rate of 315 m/s (actual climb rate), EF2000 needs to travel 364 m/s at 60° climb angle. And the most important part is where you claim that the plane at 364 m/s has 315 SEP.

Here comes your next quote:

Now comes the question, what is the difference between actual climb rate of 315 m/s and 315 m/s SEP in the case of EF2000 you have presented here?

And that’s not all, next thing you do is looking at the chart to see the SEP for the same speed (364 m/s) for the Mig-29, and you find out that the SEP is 170 m/s. And in doing so, you concluded that the EF2000 has almost 2 times higher SEP for the same speed.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248790[/ATTACH]

Aside from trigonometry this all is so retarded that I don’t know where to begin with…

Since in your case actual climb rate and SEP have the same value (315 m/s), how can you compare actual climb rate of one plane with the SEP from the other plane (because SEP is not actual climb rate)?

Second, how is it possible for two planes that travel at the same constant speed and at the same climb angle to have different rate of climb or SEP or whatever?

I’ll now try to explain your stupidity!

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248792[/ATTACH]

When we look at the Mig-29 “climb chart”, we can see for example that at speed (306m/s) and see level, Mig-29 has energy potential (climb potential / 345 m/s) of additional 39m/s (positve SEP), which can be used for acceleration on a vertical climb. Record breaking F-15 demonstrates that perfectly (only the numbers are different). So, there is absolutely no doubt that the plane can accelerate in the vertical climb (as demonstrated) and can reach higher speed (m/s) compared to horizontal speed from which the climb has started.
Now, if we look for example at “climb rate” at Mach 1, we can see that the Mig-29 has climb potential of 260 m/s.
Is this the value for actual climb rate?
The plane is traveling at speed of 340 m/s (Mach 1), so we can conclude that at the bigining of the climb in short instant of time the plane will definitely have higher actual climb rate than 260 m/s, but since the plane has potential for 260 m/s at that height and speed, it will start to decelerate in the climb.

So, not me nor Andraxxus have ever claimed that looking at the chart every value is an actual climb rate!

Now, let’s talk about you!

First things first, you are comparing apples and oranges.

You don’t have “climb chart” for EF2000, and you are assuming that the plane is climbing at 60° climb angle.
Than you are using trigonometry for calculating the TAS from actuall/advertised climb rate.
You do have “climb chart” for Mig-29 and you are using the same TAS you have for EF2000 to find out the SEP for the MIG-29 at that speed.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]248791[/ATTACH]

Do you see how retarded this is?!

First, two planes that travel at the same constant speed and at the same climb angle will have the same rate of climb.
Second, at 364 m/s the Eurofighter would suffer the same fate as Mig-29 because there is a high drag increase in transonic region at see level, and that is the main reason Mig-29 is having climb potential of 170 m/s.
So no, there is no chance in the World for EF2000 to have climb potential/SEP of 315 m/s at 364 m/s sea level, and no, EF2000 doesn’t have almost TWO TIMES higher SEP at that speed!

And do I even have to say anything about you having incredibly contradicting statements which we can see from your quotes?!

Yes and the MiG-29 does not have 345m/s SEP at 398m/s in level flight at low altitude. That’s been my point all along.

Because at 364m/s the EF satisfies the Vsin(gamma) = hdot = 315m/s as well as having a SEP of 315m/s. At 306m/s or M0.9, the MiG-29 cannot possibly satisfy the Vsin(gamma) = hdot = 345m/s equation.

You can’t compare SEP and climb rate because they are different, except at very specific points. The MiG-29’s maximum rate of climb will be achieved at a low speed and hence will likely be lower.

The MiG-29 can’t sustain climb at the same angle at that speed (364m/s or M1.07), that’s what the SEP chart of the MiG-29 tells you.

Nope, because as the MiG-29 gains speed from 306m/s, its SEP decays because drag has increased. SEP = V*[(T-D)/W]. D is drag, D increases as V increases via D = 0.5*Density*Area*Cd*V^2. So above 306m/s the MiG-29 can only climb at whatever rate the SEP chart says it has left assuming that Vsin(gamma) = hdot, which it may not do, in which case speed continues increasing and SEP falls further still.

At 340m/s the MiG-29 has 260m/s SEP, so at a climb angle of 50deg, it can manage a sustained 260m/s climb.

Yes, Andraxxus did, you review the start of this conversation. He claimed an actual climb rate of 345m/s for the MiG-29.

Very true, 60deg is an approximation. It might very well be M0.95 at a 77deg angle.

Never implied that, I said the MiG-29 only had 170m/s SEP at that speed, I made no mention of its maximum climb angle. This infers the maximum sustained climb angle at that speed is lower.

Except the EF is specifically designed for reduced wave drag. And as I said, 60deg was an approximation and in the F-15 video it climbed at 55deg.

I haven’t made any contradicting statements, simply showing why Andraxxus is wrong.

I should also mention at this stage the origin of the 315m/s EF figure. It’s based on a statement of a climb rate >25% better than an F-16, which is rated at >254m/s (50,000ft/min), giving >318m/s. Elsewhere however, I found this for the F-16.

The ASRAAM shot was a tail chase (180deg).

Because the scenario was pointless and contrived.

Fact, a Rafale couldn’t outrun a MiG-29.

Yes, but that isn’t the case here. Both planes are doing say 600mph in one direction, so it is the same initial speed delta as a tail chase shot, except the missile starts off in the wrong direction and has to turn. Think about it before replying. The missile sets off, attains a -ve closing speed first, now doing 600mph away from the target (1200mph in forward direction: 600mph missile gained + 600mph of launch aircraft), starts to turn, has to get back to 600mph in forward direction (initial launch speed), then has to gain a closing speed relative to the chase aircraft, which is also going 600mph forwards. In a head-to-head pass, where the missile has to loop round from 600mph in one direction and attain 600mph in the opposing direction, that’s even harder still kinematically. In a simple tail chase, the missile sets off and immediately gains a closing speed relative to the target.

Just playing along with your heavily contrived scenario. An ASRAAM on the attacking jet in the same situation, would reach the Rafale before the MICA could swing around and hit it.

It was, because no MICA-class missile is capable of a BVR tail chase or OTS shot at sea level. Even an AIM-120D would struggle to make 10km in tail chase at sea level.

What was claimed for the ASRAAM was ‘in excess of 5km at low level’ in an OTS shot.

Yes, low level range in tail chase is significantly reduced. If the target aircraft lights the burners and hits M1.2, it’s even harder still.

Both Eurofighter and Dassault expected to sell more planes but then the F-35 became available for orders and people chose that. Britain accepted the reality, Rafale fanbois have yet to do so.

The way I see it, in the last 25 years, we (Britain + EU) have drifted endlessly further and further left, until we now have young plonkers shouting ‘no nations, no borders’ and eventually someone stood up and shouted ‘STOP, enough of this bullsh!t!’

But of course now the definition of ‘far right’ has changed from being a moustached guy gassing 6 million Jews, to anyone who doesn’t think unlimited immigration is sound for whatever reason.

Here’s terrible racist Britain over the last 10 years compared to Germany and France:

^Includes overseas territories.

Fairly obvious that can’t continue. But of course, France blames the UK for the Calais migrant problem, rather than Italy who let them pass through to France, or the Schengen border system in general.

Where the hell did I wrote F-2 is a F-16 clone ? I wrote “from F-16” . get it ?
So Yes , it is a very capable fighter designed specifically for Japan, but it’s still made on the basis of the F-16.

But significantly different enough to demonstrate a level of aerospace engineering capability. Something not seen in Rafale customers, whose greatest claim to intelligence is the fact that western nations designed things that require a substance made from a raw material that happens to be located under them.

No nation who had a choice between the F-35 and Rafale at point of choosing chose the Rafale. Get it? So the title question of this thread has already been answered by the only people who matter.

Nor was the shot in the 180° of the shooter.

– The aircraft doing the targeting was several KM away = the missile would be longer to arrive, and thus would be easier to dodge & get away from it’s NEZ.
– Had the target been, say, a Mig 29 chasing the Rafale with it’s IRST to fire a R73 as soon as it’s in range, the Rafale couldn’t paint it with SPECTRA nor even designate it with HMD because it wouldn’t even be aware of it’s presence. Hence the need for remote targeting by another asset, which is what the test aimed at demonstrating.
– The Mig 29 would be painted by a Radar from a Rafale in another direction & much further, so it wouldn’t expect a missile coming from that other Rafale it is chasing, meaning it would be at a disadvantage to dodge it. Especially if it comes from the forward hemisphere where range is considerably increased.
– This was a test setup to validate shots up to 180° off-boresight and remote targeting, both of which were successful. Who cares if it doesn’t suit your narrative of how air warfare should be conducted?

By the way do you know at what altitude the test was conducted?
Do you know if the ASRAAM test was conducted against an incoming or an evading target?

Nic

Yes it was.

https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=39653

ASRAAM Kills in Rear Hemisphere

“(…)In a world first for an Air Force and an infra-red guided missile, Air Combat Group (ACG) of the Royal Australian Air Force has successfully carried out the first in-service ‘Lock After Launch’ firing of an ASRAAM (Advanced short-range air-to-air missile) at a target located behind the wing-line of the ‘shooter’ aircraft.

The firing was conducted from an F/A-18 fighter aircraft, at low level and typical fighter speed, at a target located behind the fighter at a range in excess of 5km. The result was a direct hit on the target.

The engagement simulated a “chase down” situation by an enemy fighter and successfully demonstrated the potential for an all-round self protection capability with the ASRAAM. This capability is inherent on all platforms that provide pre-launch ‘over the shoulder’ designation information such as F/A-18, Eurofighter Typhoon and F-35 JSF.

Source: Defence Talk

So the enemy amazingly just appeared between two Rafales with no prior warning. So much for sensor fusion eh?

If the Rafale wasn’t so slow, it could have out-ran the MiG-29.

Range would not be increased in the forward hemisphere for an OTS shot. The delta V between the launch platforms is still roughly zero, assuming they’re both at the same speed. It’s an identical start point to a tail chase, except the missile starts by going it the wrong direction (-ve closing speed) before turning, making it harder. In a tail chase the missile would be going in the right direction (+ve closing speed) from the off and would get there faster. So an aircraft with ASRAAM in this situation would have salvo fired on both Rafales (the one it could see on IRST and the one it picked up on RWR) and killed them both before the MICA could swing round and reach it.

The ASRAAM test was conducted at low altitude, as article states. The MICA test was clearly conducted at high altitude, since the tail chase range of a Python 4 or R-73 at sea level would be pathetic (1-2km) and certainly not BVR.

wow you hate France more than:

KGB hates China
Nicolas hates Typhoon
Jo hates the Pak-fa’s inlets
Msphere hates the F-35
Deino hates being wrong

I’m just tired of all the drivel generated by the Francophiles on this forum. They made a half decent fighter but they’re making out that it’s some kind of super-fighter. It really is Sputnik/Voice Russia type crap, with an injection of garlic-tipped steroids.