Lukos – Please describe in detail all the steps from the raw EO data to that image. Also, explain the visible onion shape from what should be a rocket plume in near vacuum. Make sure your explanation excludes the possibility of lens flare and other artifacts.

Lets give you a chance first shall we. I’m waiting.

Also, if you could perhaps add something about what it has to do with this discussion, that’d be great thanks.

This should be good. LO attempts rocket science 101, taking pay-per-view bookings now.

Ridiculous point. Why not include SR-71/A-12 into timeline then? Or heck, Boeing silent bird into X-32 timeline.

T-50-6 is still being worked on… No delivery this year.

The X-32 and X-35 were competing at bid stage, only the F-35 development cycle itself counts, unless the final PAK-FA is going to be completely different to the prototypes currently flying.

Saddly, although, in your opinion “nobody in the West is interested”….the Gripen has more actual airframes flying Operationally the the F35 has total production at this point… Brazil ( certainly WEST, southern hemisphere, but still west) has just signed a deal with SAAB for the Gripen, Brazil is trying a deal with Argentina, wise, even feasible or a pipe dream, interest is there in Argentina. Canada has NOT ruled out the Gripen and like the others are waiting to find out the result of the delayed decision on the “reboot” and an open competition. Again, that does not sound like “Nobody is interested in these continental European Canards”…especially if further upgrades etc. see performance and options make it an even faster , better handling and capable option.

You do understand that in political/economic terms, ‘western’ doesn’t mean west of GMT? Hence neither of the two countries mentioned is ‘western’ in this sense.

The world is well aware that the Gripen is a single engined airframe as is the Gripen NG…..as previously stated…if the F35 is to be considered, as a single engine airframe, then obviously the single engine is NO LONGER of paramount concern, and should thereby open the competition to other single engined types as well, especially ones that are cheaper, faster, more capable in Air Superiority.

After a little looking….

Your statement regarding the Rafale having a “FAR HIGHER LOSS RATE” is absolutely incorrect….the Rafale has had FOUR accidents:

– 2007 the pilot blacked out caused the crash- pilot error
– 2009 in air collision, – pilot error
– 2010 Fuel Starvation caused crash on takeoff – Pilot Error
– 2012 Crash @ launch from Carrier De Gaule – unknown

The Rafale has also logged mission flight times in Libya, Afgahistan and during the French action in Mali

The EF Typhoon II : has had FOUR accidents

– 2002 Engine flameout caused crash – Development and test incident pre-service
– 2010 Crashed during takeoff, no cause stated
– 2014 Crashed during Landing, no cause stated
– 2014 Mid Air Collision / managed emergency landing – No loss of aircraft

The Typhoon II has logged NO mission hours during actual combat, the closest it came was post air campaign “patrol” in Libya

Not sure how you came to your statement, the data simply does not support that concept.

One accident involved 2 jets:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dassault_Rafale#Accidents

Accidents[edit]
On 6 December 2007, a French Air Force twin-seat Rafale crashed during a training flight. The pilot, who suffered a black out, was killed in the accident.[190]
On 24 September 2009, after unarmed test flights, two French Navy Rafales returning to the Charles de Gaulle, collided in mid-air about 30 kilometres (19 mi) from the town of Perpignan in southwest France. One test pilot, identified as François Duflot, was killed in the accident, while the other was rescued.[191]
On 28 November 2010, a Rafale from the carrier Charles de Gaulle crashed in the Arabian Sea. This aircraft was supporting Allied operations in Afghanistan. The pilot ejected safely and was recovered by a rescue helicopter from the carrier. Later reports said the engine stopped after being starved of fuel due to confusion by the pilot in switching fuel tanks.[192]
On 2 July 2012, during a joint exercise, a Rafale from the carrier Charles de Gaulle plunged into the Mediterranean Sea. The pilot ejected safely and was recovered by an American search and rescue helicopter from the carrier USS Dwight D. Eisenhower (CVN-69).[193]

Kind of strange when you consider that they can, allegedly (ho-ho-ho), passively detect and shoot down an aircraft 20nm behind them, but they can’t passively or actively detect one a hundred metres away about to collide with them.

Typhoon – accidents yes, losses no. It has only had two losses in service in >250,000 flying hours, both at the same airbase due to the pilot grounding out the tail. Development and test incidents pre-introduction to service are exactly why we conduct testing. The other accident involved a Learjet being escorted during a training exercise crashing into the Typhoon. The Learjet is dead and so is its pilot, the Typhoon is alive and so is its pilot.

This gives the Typhoon a loss rate of <0.8/100,000 flying hours, which is a class leading safety record. The RAF itself has operated with an accident and loss rate of 0.0/100,000 flying hours, having completed >100,000 flying hours with zero losses or accidents.

but, but, it’s got the F-35 algorithm ! TM

The use of an algorithm to extend range and reduce false detection is plainly mentioned in Air International. So unless you’d like to tell them they’re full of ****, it’s clear that you’re wrong.

But but Gripen, it’s got 6th gen, it’s the 2nd coming.:highly_amused:

It really is truly tragic that nobody in the West is interested in these continental European canards but there’s no need to blame everything on the F-35.

I think I broke this one. Next.

Do you even know how each pixel detects, the processing behind it?

Use your damn brains here for once, remember the video where it tracks the rocket 800nm away, exactly how big would each pixel be at 800nm range if the 95deg FOV is spread evenly across the pixels and something has to be 1 pixel wide to be detected. About 1.46nmx1.46nm for 1024×1024 yes! Is the rocket plum likely to be 1.4nm across?

2 x 800 x tan(42.5deg) = 1466nm

1466/1024 = 1.43nm

Now, if it was only illuminating 1 pixel, why is the image curved? Oh the fail of it.

Now please, give your ar5es a chance, or do you want me to do a calculation for a star 800 light years away?