another possible interpretation is that “if I do everything right, I’ll kill the target (raptor included) before being @ 20nm from him…”

or: “If I get everything right, I’ll shoot my AMRAAMs from sufficiently long distancve to turn away and get the h** out of there before being @ 20nm distance”

basically, no wvr

in short, everybody can read it as he likes… nice diplomatic answer that means nothing and everything at the same time 😉

@ aurcov

And then again: yes with a right lens…

what mostly does the good image is the optical part (lens), not the sensor that is behind

French Air Force used to train their pilots, for the first part on the Cap-10 (which is still used by the french navy btw) for several decades and now it’s using the Epsilon

cap-10 (navy markings)

Epsilon:

therotically true but for example fighter like Rafale can see and target F-35 at about 50 km by it’s FSO in good weather ( EF-2000 ‘s Private dont have LFR so useless in targeting ) , the rafale have missiles and weapon pylon will have quite big RCS compared to clean ( may be 0.5-1 m2 ) so it be detected by F-35 from 130-160 km , seeing the target F-35 will gain altitude , accelerate to mach 1.6 ( max speed ) the extra speed and altitude for missiles will improve their NEZ a lot , the Rafale can supercruise ( mach 1.1-1.2 ? )=> high closing speed , make the NEZ even larger .Even if they launch missiles at the same range ( 50 km ) missiles from F-35 still have advantages in potential and kinematic enegry not to mention F-35 can simply fired missiles earlier and they stay away from the targeting range of FSO ( the range of the laser ) , or the F-35 can fired missiles and then dive down below the cloud => stop IRST and EO system from finding it , at the moment radar on rafale simply too weak to see stealth fighter at a useful range

another possibility, the F-35 trying to accelerate to supersonic speed gets detected by rafales IRST thanks to high contrast between aircrafts heat and the cold sky behind it (air friction + afterburner at the rear end), and there’s a IR Mica going after the F-35 which is hot from in front, hot at the rear (burner), and pretty much unable to outmaneuver the incoming missile… chances are the pilot won’t think too long before breaking to try to get out or stay out of reach of the MICA… even if the MICA doesn’t hit, by forcing the F-35 to break, it will spoil its eventual lock (that is, if SPECTRA allows the lock to be kept in the first place, don’t forget that radar works two ways, eventually showing you what’s ahead, and telling, for sure, everybody correctly equipped in front that you’re there) when the F*35 will eventually be safe from the first MICA, the Rafale will already be running after it, with a nice target in the shape of the afterburning nozzle right in front of it

just as plausible (maybe even more) issue to your imaginary scenario… 😉

1/ the skidding manouver @ 4:52 is useful in a head on because most pilots would keep aiming straight at the enemy, which means that aiming straight back at them allows you to hit them. By skidding his aircraft, he moves a bit to the side instead of going straight at the zero, which isn’t visible for the japanese pilot (very small lateral movement), so, if the zero aims right at him, by the time the bullets cover the distance, he’s already somewhat to the side and bullets just pass by

2/ the zero was a very nimble aircraft, but its major strength was low speed handling. It could almost stop in the air to turn, allowing tight turns even with not so many G’s, while at such speeds the heavier fighters would be lumbering at the limit of the stall and unable to turn. The problem with it is that the zero, while very nimble at low speed becomes more and more difficult to move as the speed increases. The construction of the controls is made that way, so at high speeds, the pilot simply can’t pull many G’s anymore as moving the stick requires more and more strength from him. On the other side, the dauntless is a very heavy piece of metal, built to be able to get out of a dive which means pull G’s when the speed increases rapidly (after the drop and when its airbrakes are closed again). The pilot has a good pitch authority for as long as his speed is high. That is why he has to go fast and keeps making frequent dives, allowing gravity to help him maintain speed (his engine wouldn’t be powerful enough otherwise and his speed would drop).

3/ zeros wanted to attack from the rear, but they couldn’t as he kept turning towards them… rather simple in fact, that was what the whole fight was about: as long as he managed to go face to face with them, they couldn’t place a good shot on him.

4/ what you’d call close range in air combat, especially with jets, is still quite far away (several hundreds of meters). Rockets are much slower than bullets (or shells), and they don’t have predictable flight paths. So by the time they’d cover the distance, the target would be gone already which means you’d need to aim veeery far ahead of it (much more than with a gun). As a result, shooting at a moving target (fighter) with them is pretty much wasting ammunition… even a gun in a pod was lacking precision for aerial gunnery (it was made for strafing and when pilots used it in air combat, the mount which wasn’t rigid enough was vibrating and oscillating so hey had the feeling they were spraying shells all over the place)

That is a very simplistic way of looking at things.

In India the two aircraft the Indians believed met their requirements were the Rafale and EF. The Indians selected what they believed to be the cheaper of the two.

The same thing happened in Switzerland. The Swiss believed three aircraft met their requirements, and chose the cheapest, the Gripen.

Meanwhile Korea, Singapore, Japan, Morocco, and the UAE, selected F-15s, F-16s or F-35s over European competition. Naturally around here all of -those- deals are seen as political. (Or there are -rumors- that one plane or another really “won” even though it wasn’t selected.)

ouch!

1/ india:

long and exhaustive evaluation process: the result is not about what they believed but about what they measured, big difference

2/ switzerland

evaluation process that required off the shelf finished aircraft, switched by politicians to a future project of evolution of an aircraft that was measured below reference point in several areas (and finished dead last in pretty much any domain in which the swiss tested it)

for the rest, the “rumors” are usually quite well documented be it becaus ethe choice was made on political pressure like in korea or because a european country $crewed up big time (morocco) for example…

hopsalot, your nick reflects your way of thinking (believing?)

LM has been saying that for years now… and still, the new problems keep arising, goals are lowered to be able to pretend that the aircraft reach them (it’s rather that goals reach the poor performance of the aircraft, in fact), but you guys still maintain your claims regardless anything that may happen

er, what is in 5th gen that makes distinction between decoys and real targets that can’t be put into (or isn’t already inside) the fighters like the Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen and any other recent multirole fighter that will be flying in 10 years from now when the F-35 eventually becomes anything more than a project?