lukosThat statement (read loads of interpretations of it) still baffles me. It reaches mach 1.6 with afterburner but takes 150 miles on dry thrust to bleed off speed down to mach 1.2? Reaches mach 1.2 (perhaps with afterburner ) then can maintain that speed on dry thrust for 150 miles after which that speed becomes a problem to maintain?
I never heard anything about the 150 miles, just the Mach 1.2 dry. Maybe the 150 miles was factored into the mission profile for combat radius.
lukosWhat if you are using all that at the same time and fuse the data ?
What if there is no cloud ? Please don’t tell me the F-35 will only fly during cloudy days.The F-35 has its own limitations : It is reported to be only moderately steath in the RF spectrum compare to F-22 and future UCAV, not stealth at all in the IR spectrum, can’t supercruise, can’t compete with 4+ gen aircraft in ACM, will probably be a pain in the *ss to maintain for small Air Forces.
Conclusion ? Nothing is perfect :p
We’ve seen Rafale’s attempts at passive targeting of non-stealth aircraft, very short range and often not passive. This is what you fail to grasp, whilst stealth isn’t a perfect technology, it’s a hell of a lot better to reduce detection range to 40-50km, rather than 400-500km, thus allowing you to fly between gaps in radar coverage, which can be detected by ELINT. Passive SAMs can’t be detected by ELINT and there’s no reliable way of detecting them pre-launch.
You mean the very same IR/EO systems that will doom any low level penetration attempt ?
..LOLBe a little coherant at least.. you can’t tell (you or lukos) optical systems are an absolute deterrent at low level where they have much more limitations than against higher alt. threats) yet tell they are absolutely useless agianst F-35.. you are being dishonezt here.
EO/IR is short range and probably no better than modern radar against stealth aircraft, so there will still be gaps in coverage as stated above. Weather is a factor but clouds generally don’t form at 200ft. EO/IR has yet to demonstrate ranges equivalent to ground radar against non-stealth aircraft, even in optimal conditions, it’s that simple.
lukosHe got a degree in engineering.. he must be so true.
But… fench air force intelligence officers are not specifically engineers..and a vast part of pilots are not either.So, congrats to lukos but I’m affraid this sole degree does not help you planing a combat mission.. nor it does not prevent you to be biased. But don’t worry you’rz not the first one 😉
Nobody is being biased, the risks of low level strike apply to all aircraft. It’s still practiced on a ‘just in case’ basis, just like like gun A2A encounters are still practiced, but the intention is to avoid using it, except as a last resort.
There is no need to argu, if the french air force is still using low altitude penetration it means they still consider it effective.
This will be more survivable against modern ground based radars that are now able to detect so called LO aircrafts at very long ranges, not even talking about other anti stealth detection means.
You know VLO aircraft can be detected at long ranges? Interesting, tell me how? Pierre Sprey? Detection and targeting are also two separate things, both of which become extremely easy at low altitude. All air forces practice things they intend to avoid using.
lukosDuration of development is by no means an indication of the quality of the final product. The delays with Captor-E were caused by the fact that CAESAR was mostly a private venture of Euroradar with limited budget and no clear commitment from partner nations until ~2013, when UK have agreed to financially cover the flight tests on IPA5.
CAESAR was only one development vehicle for the technology, others like Bright Adder were also on the go. Selex UK were also developing other AESAs.
Note that I’m not resorting to equally simplistic logic by claiming that RBE2 must be better just because there was more money flowing in.. But the sad fact is that RBE2 simply is better because it is available while Captor-E isn’t. And the same way I cannot see RAF having an Captor-E Mk2 in series before 2025, I also cannot see AMI or EdA having their Mk1+ before that date.. Budgets are tight, priorities are somewhere else and except you, noone really gives damn about the advertised capabilities.. they’re happy to have Captor-Ds, some even Captor-Cs…
Ha, so it’s 2025 now, even though no source gives a date that late? Between this and using 10 year old paragraphs on wikipedia to prove a point your bias is obvious. I note you didn’t even provide a link to wikipedia when you copied that paragraph, wonder why?:highly_amused: So where is your source for 2025?
The sources you’re using are OK but you totally misinterpret them as they mostly say something else than you claim..
Not really, the UK armed forces blog suggests a two-phase update in 2017 and 2019, with it ready for order in 2015/2016. What’s to misinterpret?
http://ukarmedforcescommentary.blogspot.co.uk/search/label/Bright%20Adder
There are no new capabilities advertised for the Mk1+. Your article says it clearly: full A-A, little bit of A-G, more accurate SAR mapping.. No big deal, whatever the radar will be able to do, the Captor-D can do today, with reduced range, less flexibility and lower MTBF. There is no new back-end required for that, with the minimum necessary upgrade steps to make a transition from M-scan to E-scan – something that RBE2 did not need as it was a PESA by design.
1+ will arrive in 2017 as the blog suggests, Mk2 will arrive in 2019, no back end difference between the two is mentioned and Mk2 will have electronic attack, long range NCTR and high speed comms, therefore they must both have an updated back end to allow for this expansion on the same architecture.
I must encourage you again to provide a single quote of mine where I have stated anything like that. I am not discussing Rafale, at all, I am simply rejecting and debunking your flawed claims regd. Typhoon.
My claims are sourced with up to date material, your only source is an old paragraph in wikipedia. You therefore continue to fail at rational debate.
lukosit is more you and the likes of you who make claims as “asbsolutes”…
what most of the people who do not agree with you say is that there’s more than one single and unique way to do things… something you refuse to hear as it doesn’t dit your blind faith in anything “not rafale”
That’s pretty much your stance. Anything not Rafale is inferior.
lukosfor some reasons, i dont what it is, most modern SAM abandoned ramjet and go with normal rocket motor, there used to be many ramjet SAM such as SA-5, RIM-8 but that doesn’t seem to be the case anymore
Did you mean SA-6?
I think it’s because people have largely given up on trying to terminate aircraft before they get close enough to deliver a stand-off weapon. No SAM will ever out-range a cruise missile, at least not one of practical size, therefore the shift has moved towards intercepting said cruise missile and/or ballistic missile, and I’m guessing the complexity of ramjet missiles and limited benefits when ground launching them from rest pretty much seal their fate.
The answer to the original question is ‘no’, although their is a Meteor-based ARM mooted. The only European SAM projects I know of are CAMM (L/M), CAMM-ER, Aster 30 Block 1NT (All SRBMs) and Block 2 BMD (All MRBMs) and MEADS (PAC-3 MSE based).
lukosA great way of masquerading a failure as a virtue. So, the whole line of your reasoning is that Captor must be more advanced than RBE2 because it was delayed and RBE2 wasn’t? :highly_amused: :applause:
Not really. More complete products take longer to develop. The only real superior factor about the Rafale was the fact that the French government spent more on development. So all we can conclude is that the French government from 2000-2010 was superior to the UK Labour Party and I don’t think anyone will argue with that. The same dumbasses also ordered a carrier with no catapult.
Now that I finally learned the logic behind your arguments, I just cannot stop laughing.. 🙂
I use information and sources from 2013-2015, you use sources from the middle of last decade.
Erm, no. All it says is that Mk1+ will hardly be able to do more than today’s Captor-D (full A-A, limited A-G, SAR with better resolution) and that the Captor-E is furthermore upgradable for other capabilities not employed by GER/ITA/SPA. There is not a single mention about Mk1+ having a new back-end design, nor does it make any sense for it to have.
The Captor-D wasn’t upgradable to those capabilities, therefore it must have a new backend.
?? I don’t understand how this statement supports anything you have claimed. BTW, you have conveniently forgotten to underline Typhoon, as well. Eurofighter and Typhoon are the same thing, you know..
Nobody has disputed that the F-35 will offer things the Typhoon can’t, the UK would hardly be buying it otherwise. It is only you and other Rafale protagonists who persistently argue that the Rafale’s SPECTRA system is the be all and end all of everything.
lukos^Indeed. To hear some people, you’d think the F-35 is the only fighter jet ever to suffer any issues during development.
lukosHow long and wide is the internal bay on the P-8?
lukosStill not answered my question. Do YOU or others here have any experience in air strikes, I mean REAL one like being staff planning missions, or being aircrew… ? Or maybe being aero engineer ?…
Why, do you?
You mean the mission against an ISIS outpost in Syria? It was more a me-too PR stunt than anything else, IMHO. Pretty much every jet in USAF arsenal would have succeeded equally well.
http://nationalinterest.org/feature/why-america-wasting-the-f-22-raptor-bombing-isis-11380
Amazing how you completely reverse your logic when talking about the Rafale over Libya, even though, of the two, Syria has the most recent shoot-down of a NATO fighter to its name.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-18554246
Turkish F-4 warplane ‘shot down’ near Syrian border
22 June 2012
lukosWhy not choose the JF-17? It has DSI. None of the previous contenders for the Swiss AF had DSI.
Given the size of Switzerland, performance above Mach 1.6 isn’t really a relevant factor. It would be kind of like running MagLev trains in the UK.
lukosbecause you’re wrong? ^^
Latest statistics against a half-way capable enemy say I’m right.
lukosas I said earlier, if one takes theoretical data for SAMs obviously any aircraft (except those which one decides not to consider vulnerable) are dead meat…
clutter? naaah
non flat terrain (not every country you fight against has Netherlands geography)? naaaaahin fact, one can bet one thing for certain, all serious mission planners just dream that their enemies make their defenses in application of Mig31, lukos and similar guys wet dreams… would be too easy to get in and let them discover that reality doesn’t always (rare does in fact) match theory
You see non-flat terrain as an impediment to SAMs and MANPADS, but it just isn’t because:
a) SAMs and MANPADS can be placed on the mountains, hills or buildings; and
b) Valleys naturally channel fighters down a given route, see Thermopylae for details. So basically your ‘element of surprise’ has actually been made an ‘element of the obvious’ where there is terrain.
lukosWhat is typical is we asked three times to create your own thread but you continue to pollute our topic.
Please go away to discuss with mig. We would like to have serious debate with reasonable people here.
Why not debate it without making silly points like low-level attack being a valid alternative to stealth, when really it’s closer to being a valid alternative to suicide.
lukos…and yet all the extra thrust accomplished was consuming more fuel,
Gripen E fly faster and further, and cut 1/3 wing load
Can it? Flight tests so far only confirm Mach 1.6. Respective ranges are dubious due to exact mission profile.
You’re breaking through wide open doors, some French members aside, everyone on this forum share your and Swiss AF view,
i dont expect significant performance difference between Gripen E & Hornet C in strike,
but i expect significant difference in A2A in favor of Gripen E
In theory an SH would present the best radar and combat-proven AAM capability. That said Raven ES-05, IRST, Cobra HMD with Meteor and IRIS-T make for an interesting combination too.
Sign In
