Jesus, how old are you kid!?
Your imature posting style suggest Just that, a kid.
Just drop these cheap points/shots and those retarded smileys of Yours! Its embarresing and painfull to read.

There are lots of members here while not partizipating in these threads in fear of being dragged down the the current level of debate here or does not have time or knowledge enough, but that does not mean we enjoy to check up on them on a regular basic.
And the thing i notice is, whichever thread you post in, its full of garbage.
Members like MSphere, Scorpion82, etc are quite knowledgeble on many different topics, you should show these guys here a bit more respect.

Edit:
And for the record, i’ve been around this forum for many years now. I’ve seen many members come and go.
Keep this up and you wont be around here much longer.

I have reported you for the bullcrap on the latest pages here.

Now get real or get lost!

Oh sure MSphere will argue for 80 pages and then deny having said something.

Believe it or not, all the points mentioned 1-4 have been said by members of this forum, either here or on other sites, at some point or other. They’re just choosing to remain quiet.

Most relevant sources say it is high subsonic. Comparison with BAe Hawk gives some valuable clues.

What sources? The Hawk comparison demonstrates size only.

Why did you feel the need to add that “FoV was more than that” ? You didn’t take the context of the discussion into account…

Because azimuth FoV was omitted from the original statement.

And does that say it isn’t supersonic?

:confused::confused: so this is the same as the ” 20 nm passive shot” story then :p??????
How do you expect anyone to take your words without any evidence ? :p, may be you didn’t lie about the resolution of DDM-NG, but then there is also equal possibility that you make it up

If we just have to take your words for it without source or evidence then next time we will have to believe anyone about their pilot story whether they made it up or not? :confused:

So far we know that:

1) DEDIRA gives Rafale RCS of F-22.

2) DDM-NG is better than EODAS.

3) SPECTRA makes Rafale immune to all missiles.

4) SPECTRA allows passive rear shots at over 20nm range.

Yet less than 100 exports.:highly_amused:

Oh, I do know it has an ‘IRST’ function (ie. air-to-air modes) however nowhere I have seen stated just what kind of modes they are, what is its scan rate, how big is the FoV etc. If it is similar to targeting pods, then it’s probably mostly good for visual ID of targets acquired by other means (radar). An effective air-to-air sensor requires much wider FoVs than is common with targeting pods.

Assumptions, assumptions, assumptions and conjecture.

If i posted it i had a reason to do so… Btw Sofradir ie building better sensors nowadays…

Right and so do I.

Because generalists journos do not know a lot about airframes. They also stated it was trans continental plane. Did they mean between Gibraltar and Ceuta?

Well we don’t know the details of the final variant. Then you have IFR.

Lukos I know I am off topic, but to persist….

There is nothing from the makers of Taranis that supports the notion it is supersonic. We don’t rely on the Toronto news or the Wollongong post for details on aviation, we look to aviation and defence journals or information from the manufacturer. There are no facts to support the notion of Taranis being supersonic, beautiful though the idea may be.

On evidence to date says it is + absence of contrary evidence.

Impossible… The aperture profile cannot fit the 4096×4096 sided FPA which is 60.7×60.7 mm size compared to 30.7×30.7 mm of the 4.2K sensor.
You’re talking nonsense and are unable to make even basic calculations right..

Look at the stem shape.

Do you have any proof that the Rafale has a 1.3MP sensor other than halloweene’s post which states no specific correlation? Nope.

LOL… That’s a very lame excuse.. I bet you have made an attempt to find it but upon having failed you have decided to resort to typical gibberish instead of a simple “Sorry, I was mistaken”..

Nope, I just hate searching through old posts, especially cack ones like yours.