Jump to content

Rafale HUD dogfights


Spyros

Recommended Posts

That is one part of it, the other thing is air traffic safety.

 

Cool, I would think that would take away a rather large part of what the plane was designed to do... and that is not be seen before you are chewing on missile... Is this placed purely for the ability to these maneuvers or is it to simulate some event that would change the RCS? I guess maybe its more so that the foreign powers to get to spend alot of time seeing the F-22's real RCS? Anyways... interesting...

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 138
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks

You do know those capabilities are shared my many other missiles?

For example I know for a fact AIM-9X can me used for A2A and A2G

I not reluctant to show you my sources

Taken from F-16 manual (1F-16CM-34-1-1, page 1-50)

CAUTION

The AIM-9X surface attack mode may be entered inadvertently. The mode is entered by depressing and releasing (D&R) the CAGE/UNCAGE switch twice within one second when the missile seeker is uncaged. In the surface attack mode, a recurring (every 5 seconds) surface attack or “waterfall” tone is generated by the missile. The missile appears to be unresponsive to normal HMCS or sensor slaving. To exit the surface attack mode, de-select the missile by cycling the MASTER ARM to OFF, stepping to another missile, changing the master mode, or by

changing the selected missile type.

 

Se I like and thrust aircraft manual as sources, other not so much. Thanks tho, I will do some Google searches to see what I find.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rafale carries the MICA IR. It's probably the most advanced AAM in the world right now. And this is coming from a British person about a French missile. Datalinked INS guidance, with DIRCM-resistant IR terminal, TVC, 50+g manoeuvrability, dual use (air-to-air and air-to-surface),

 

Sounds like a sidewinder. Or an IRIS-T. Or ASRAAM ... ok, so it's mounted on a bigger rocket. :)

 

IR missiles have statistically proven to have Pks twice that of radar AAMs through Vietnam, Yom Kippur, Falklands, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm, Yugoslavia and Iraq NFZ.
Yep, that's exactly why radar guided missile production was stopped by all smart countries like France, Britain, Russia, China, and only the dumb Americans are still doing it.

 

Hey, what happens with this MICA IR thing if you're fighting in crappy, cloudy european weather? :)

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sadly I been proven right about the thread, I am big part of the problems. What was the originl point of the thread? HUD video of the Rafale?

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2:30 isn't a gun kill. It's not there long enough, the trigger isn't pressed, and the kill isn't claimed. The pipper isn't settled, the Raptor pilot is actively jinking, so there's no tracking kill there. I would venture a guess that the Rafale pilot comes off so as not to break the bubble - in other words, it's a safety limit for the pilots first - and he could have fired in real combat, but he'd have been close enough to FOD out his own plane.

In your little world.

 

Not really, more like we've all had to listen to 'T-38 kills F-22's!' 'F-18 kills F-22's!' ... etc.

Of course we have. More like we've had to listen to, "oh they tested a single Raptor against 6 F-15Cs. It shot them all down BVR.":megalol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be the same world where the pilot didn't claim that gun kill, and didn't even attempt to take it. What world do you live in?

 

In your little world.

 

There were definitely very real 4v8's with Raptors against F-15's, stealth on and stealth off. The F-15's won the stealth off fights, but they took a lot of losses.

 

Of course we have. More like we've had to listen to, "oh they tested a single Raptor against 6 F-15Cs. It shot them all down BVR.":megalol:

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks

You do know those capabilities are shared my many other missiles?

For example I know for a fact AIM-9X can me used for A2A and A2G

I not reluctant to show you my sources

Taken from F-16 manual (1F-16CM-34-1-1, page 1-50)

 

 

Se I like and thrust aircraft manual as sources, other not so much. Thanks tho, I will do some Google searches to see what I find.

The AIM-9X Block II is a good missile and has some of the capabilities of a MICA IR but range is limited to 35km and there is no stated capability against AAMs. It's also significantly slower.


Edited by UCAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Namenlos Ein. The photos from the "Thales" Rafale system look very interesting.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting, according to Namenlos Ein link, the Rafale production line is closing unless the find a buyer. Assuming this is accurate, no wonder all of the sudden this videos are surfacing. Product advertising is awesome. Made all those internet guys rich. From Google to Epic Meal Time, lol.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like a sidewinder. Or an IRIS-T. Or ASRAAM ... ok, so it's mounted on a bigger rocket. :)

The extra energy is an important factor. You should also note that ASRAAM has no datalink or air-to-surface ability AFAIK. AIM-9X Block II has no stated ability against AAMs/SAMs. IRIS-T has most of the same capabilities as MICA except its range is far more limited. Another interesting feature is that the air-launched and VL MICA are fully-interchangeable.

 

Yep, that's exactly why radar guided missile production was stopped by all smart countries like France, Britain, Russia, China, and only the dumb Americans are still doing it.

 

Hey, what happens with this MICA IR thing if you're fighting in crappy, cloudy european weather? :)

Use INS guidance via datalink until it can auto-lock. Of course there is a MICA EM too. It may be that the larger, less manoeuvrable radar missiles under development are intended for larger planes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That would be the same world where the pilot didn't claim that gun kill, and didn't even attempt to take it. What world do you live in?

The world where it looked like the F-22 had its ass kicked. Funny how there are no F-22 BFM HUD videos.

 

There were definitely very real 4v8's with Raptors against F-15's, stealth on and stealth off. The F-15's won the stealth off fights, but they took a lot of losses.

4 vs 8 is plausible but certain people 'document' 4 vs 32, 6 vs 24 and 1 vs 6.:D:doh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This all happened over a year ago? No wonder I have seen it so many times.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world where it looked like the F-22 had its ass kicked. Funny how there are no F-22 BFM HUD videos.

There nor trying to sell the F-22, no need.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The world where it looked like the F-22 had its ass kicked. Funny how there are no F-22 BFM HUD videos.

 

So, you're living in a world of fantasy, clinging to one video. And yes, funny how there are no F-22 HuD videos period, except for that one flight demo video, IIRC. Could it be that, I don't know, they're classified? Classified. So funny.

 

4 vs 8 is plausible but certain people 'document' 4 vs 32, 6 vs 24 and 1 vs 6.:D:doh:

 

No, certain people don't 'document' those numbers, they just repeat them without understanding that what's mentioned is an exchange ratio, and they tend not to know what that is.

 

Exchange ratios for F-22's are pretty scary, as well they ought to be.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should just add this thread to the F-22 suck thread that we already had. :D

 

lol, I know same conversation has happened there countless of times. Same points over and over. But if we do move it, another thread will be created and the same thing will happen again.

 

(Guy one) Aircraft "x" is better than "Y"

(Guy two) Why?

(Guy one) Internet told me!

(Guy three) No!! your wrong!!

etc.

To whom it may concern,

I am an idiot, unfortunately for the world, I have a internet connection and a fondness for beer....apologies for that.

Thank you for you patience.

 

 

Many people don't want the truth, they want constant reassurance that whatever misconception/fallacies they believe in are true..

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rafale carries the MICA IR. It's probably the most advanced AAM in the world right now. And this is coming from a British person about a French missile. Datalinked INS guidance, with DIRCM-resistant IR terminal, TVC, 50+g manoeuvrability, dual use (air-to-air and air-to-surface), 80km range and anti-AAM/SAM capability. Teh Rafale can comfortably carry 10 of them in an air-to-air role due to their lightweight. They don't have the theoretical range of an AIM-120 but then you're not particularly likely to be successful outside 80km or even 50km with a radar missile.

 

IR missiles have statistically proven to have Pks twice that of radar AAMs through Vietnam, Yom Kippur, Falklands, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm, Yugoslavia and Iraq NFZ.

 

Are you saying that an IR missile at 50km will have twice the PK as a radar missile? Or you just strictly speaking up close..?

 

You need to let go of the PK of past missiles, i'm not saying their PK is 100%, but we're 14 years from Kosovo conflict, and 20+ years from the Gulf war conflict now. That's alot of time for stuff to evolve and improve in the military world. The American aircraft also are allowed to fire outside the actual range of their missiles; so we don't even know the exact circumstances of the AIM-120's that were fired in the Kosovo Conflict.

 

Look, i agree the MICA IR is above and beyond the AIM-9X but it isn't a wonder weapon, just like the F-22 or the AIM-120.

 

I can also see from your comments in this thread you're a bit bitter about at the F-22 (god knows what reason, i guess because it's simply made in the USA) because you're so keen on making it sound like a piece of junk.

 

Do remember here, that while you're so focused on the F-22, that you're our ally, and so is France.. why such the competition to make the F-22 look bad? It's not like it's taking sales away from European aircraft.. I could see you attacking the F-35.. but the F-22.. jeez, do you really want to go against these.. or do you want them to be on your side?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you saying that an IR missile at 50km will have twice the PK as a radar missile? Or you just strictly speaking up close..?

Statistically most radar missile kills have been close up historically. Out of 588 air-to-air kills achieved by BVR capable airforces, 24 have been BVR (and that's BVR as in eyeball BVR). In Desert Storm the AIM-7Ms fired from the F-15 had 34% Pk and the Sidewinders had 67%. 4 of 10 AIM-120 kills were within eye-ball range. There's probably 2 main causes:

 

1. Radar missiles like AIM-120 aren't very manoeuvrable.

 

2. Radar doesn't provide good terminal guidance.

 

You need to let go of the PK of past missiles, i'm not saying their PK is 100%, but we're 14 years from Kosovo conflict, and 20+ years from the Gulf war conflict now. That's alot of time for stuff to evolve and improve in the military world. The American aircraft also are allowed to fire outside the actual range of their missiles; so we don't even know the exact circumstances of the AIM-120's that were fired in the Kosovo Conflict.

There's also a lot of time ECM to evolve too. I don't weigh heavily on Vietnam statistics because I understand that missile technology was very premature back then. I think AIM-7E Pk was about 8%, or one kill for every 12 missiles. They were like drop tanks except with no fuel.

 

The Kosovo AIM-120 engagement details are actually about if you look. The furthest was 21.6 miles (35km) from a Dutch F-16. The longest combat air kill in history.

 

Look, i agree the MICA IR is above and beyond the AIM-9X but it isn't a wonder weapon, just like the F-22 or the AIM-120.

There's no such thing as a 'wonder missile' in the world of reality but if you wanted to kill someone at 50km range the MICA IR would likely have a better chance than another missile and a passive seeker has definite merits BVR.

 

I can also see from your comments in this thread you're a bit bitter about at the F-22 (god knows what reason, i guess because it's simply made in the USA) because you're so keen on making it sound like a piece of junk.

Not at all. That's the ego taken on by most F-22 fans.

 

Do remember here, that while you're so focused on the F-22, that you're our ally, and so is France.. why such the competition to make the F-22 look bad? It's not like it's taking sales away from European aircraft.. I could see you attacking the F-35.. but the F-22.. jeez, do you really want to go against these.. or do you want them to be on your side?

Well the F-35 is just pathetic. God only knows what a dogfight between a Rafale and an F-35 would look like. Probably like a pit bull vs a corgi I imagine and there are real fundamental problems in stealth ideology. Air-to-air it relies on kills from distances never achieved in combat. Furthermore even a healthy, kill-bound missile can be detected and shot down and missile launch rocket plumes can be used to detect stealth aircraft electro-optically. Also, just as AESA is largely immune to detection and jamming, it's also immune to active signal cancellation for the same reasons, hence destroying an entire element of the stealth trifecta. So question - does the stated RCS of stealth aircraft include active signal cancellation. If so, it needs re-calculating because 10 years from now, no radars (of competent enemies) will be susceptible to active signal cancellation.


Edited by UCAS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Rafale carries the MICA IR. It's probably the most advanced AAM in the world right now. And this is coming from a British person about a French missile. Datalinked INS guidance, with DIRCM-resistant IR terminal, TVC, 50+g manoeuvrability, dual use (air-to-air and air-to-surface), 80km range and anti-AAM/SAM capability. Teh Rafale can comfortably carry 10 of them in an air-to-air role due to their lightweight. They don't have the theoretical range of an AIM-120 but then you're not particularly likely to be successful outside 80km or even 50km with a radar missile.

 

IR missiles have statistically proven to have Pks twice that of radar AAMs through Vietnam, Yom Kippur, Falklands, Bekaa Valley, Desert Storm, Yugoslavia and Iraq NFZ.

 

You'll find all the information you need simply by typing pertinent searches. I don't want to provide you with the links because then you'll say I'm leading you but if you type things like "missile kill probability", "air college" and "pdf" into google, you will find your answers.

 

The MICA is a missile that is way too complex and expensive to be a short range weapon but too small and too short ranged to be a BVR missile either. The French developed on their own, perhaps explaining why they didn't go the specialized missile route (much like the fighter itself) but they will rely on the meteor for BVR work.

 

80km max range? Seems to me kinetic range for such a small missile, i.e. not very useful against realistic scenarios.

 

As much as I admire their works, I would rather take a AIM-9X and AMRAAM combos, probably still cheaper than a full load of MICA's and without sacrificing lethality.

 

For example I know for a fact AIM-9X can me used for A2A and A2G

I not reluctant to show you my sources

Taken from F-16 manual (1F-16CM-34-1-1, page 1-50)

 

 

Se I like and thrust aircraft manual as sources, other not so much. Thanks tho, I will do some Google searches to see what I find.

 

You don't have to give your sources up. :D Its all over the net even saw some AG tests on youtube a few times.


Edited by Pilotasso

[sigpic]http://forums.eagle.ru/signaturepics/sigpic4448_29.gif[/sigpic]

My PC specs below:

Case: Corsair 400C

PSU: SEASONIC SS-760XP2 760W Platinum

CPU: AMD RYZEN 3900X (12C/24T)

RAM: 32 GB 4266Mhz (two 2x8 kits) of trident Z RGB @3600Mhz CL 14 CR=1T

MOBO: ASUS CROSSHAIR HERO VI AM4

GFX: GTX 1080Ti MSI Gaming X

Cooler: NXZT Kraken X62 280mm AIO

Storage: Samsung 960 EVO 1TB M.2+6GB WD 6Gb red

HOTAS: Thrustmaster Warthog + CH pro pedals

Monitor: Gigabyte AORUS AD27QD Freesync HDR400 1440P

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Statistically most radar missile kills have been close up historically. Out of 588 air-to-air kills achieved by BVR capable airforces, 24 have been BVR (and that's BVR as in eyeball BVR). In Desert Storm the AIM-7Ms fired from the F-15 had 34% Pk and the Sidewinders had 67%. 4 of 10 AIM-120 kills were within eye-ball range. There's probably 2 main causes:

 

Let me see if I can source the stuff you're parroting - RAND study? :D

 

Eyeballs BVR is the only BVR. There's no other definition of BVR. It means what it says.

 

1. Radar missiles like AIM-120 aren't very manoeuvrable.

 

2. Radar doesn't provide good terminal guidance.

 

3. You're making things up.

 

There's also a lot of time ECM to evolve too. I don't weigh heavily on Vietnam statistics because I understand that missile technology was very premature back then. I think AIM-7E Pk was about 8%, or one kill for every 12 missiles. They were like drop tanks except with no fuel.

 

Yep, technology WAS a problem ... pay no attention to the fact that ROEs caused serious problems also (ie. forcing pilots to use missiles out of parameters)

 

The Kosovo AIM-120 engagement details are actually about if you look. The furthest was 21.6 miles (35km) from a Dutch F-16. The longest combat air kill in history.

 

Iran claims 60+ with AIM-54. As for that engagement, the range isn't important. What is important is that it was a 120A, IIRC, and intercepted a MiG-29 in pretty difficult conditions, ie. nearly beaming or beaming target with mountain background.

 

Air-to-air it relies on kills from distances never achieved in combat. Furthermore even a healthy, kill-bound missile can be detected and shot down and missile launch rocket plumes can be used to detect stealth aircraft electro-optically.

 

That's great. Guess what has the greatest capability of EO detection of ... well, anything. That would be an F-35. I won't hold my breath for AAM-AAM shots though.

 

Also, just as AESA is largely immune to detection and jamming, it's also immune to active signal cancellation for the same reasons, hence destroying an entire element of the stealth trifecta.

 

There's no such thing as active signal cancellation outside of laboratory.

 

So question - does the stated RCS of stealth aircraft include active signal cancellation. If so, it needs re-calculating because 10 years from now, no radars (of competent enemies) will be susceptible to active signal cancellation.

 

So you don't even have a clue of what it is you're talking about, and you're making statements based on nothing.

 

Stealth is shaping to deflect the signal elsewhere. It reduces the return signal such that it is below the noise floor of the detector beyond a given (complex, and dependent on the radar) parameter.

 

If you're a radar, and you see an F-15 at range X, you will a Raptor at range X/10, to keep things rule-of-thumb simple. You don't get to shoot at that plane first. He gets the first shot. It doesn't even really matter if your RWR has some idea of where it is he's coming from.

 

That is the entire point of stealth.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Reminder: SAM = Speed Bump :D

I used to play flight sims like you, but then I took a slammer to the knee - Yoda

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...