F-16.net

My dear Habu2, Meathook, Falconfixer etc.,
A job in the armed forces is not really a job, it is a devotion.
A lot of posters in this thread have shown (some) 'warrior' devotion.
Your US armed forces are lacking personel, so see the tit-for-tat razzmatazz positively!
Send them an e-mail: We need Ya!!!!, join the Army, the landscape in Afghanistan is stunning, serious. Iraq has a great culture. Sign now.

But do not tell them, at the battlefield you feel a strange lonelyness, nightmares etc. and when you come under fire for the first time. Don't be surprised when your pants are filling up with some poop and/or piss because of severe stress.
Within a couple of days/ weeks/ months you are dozens of years older.
After the war, it aint over...
Out

F-16.net Sponsor

This message from our sponsor will disappear if you log on as a member.

Veteran Joined: May 23, 2005 Posts: 444 Status: Offline

huh??

Veteran Joined: May 23, 2005 Posts: 444 Status: Offline

sferrin wrote

Quote:

On the other hand there's no reason to believe they'd reveal more about the Rafale than the Typhoon or the Typhoon more than the F-22. The people who could give exact numbers can't so we do with what we got. Else we need to remove all military forums from the net. BTW unless you happen to be an engineer on the F-22 (doing something more than landing gear) you don't know that anybody here is wrong so where do you get off telling us what is what? You're telling us that since we aren't "in the know" we should STFU so don't you think you should follow your own advice? And "misintended"? That's not even a word.

Did you even read my post? Read the last few lines again. I said that I would not make an argument for/against the 22 since I have nothing to do with the program. So, yea, I think I'm following my own advice pretty well. I never said to STFU. I was just trying to suggest not getting your panties all twisted when someone argues a counter point. It's stupid to get so pissed off when you really have no idea what you are talking about, and if you do, please keep it to yourself. As for "misintended", maybe misguided would have been a better word but hey no one's perfect.

Elite Joined: Jul 22, 2005 Posts: 962 Status: Offline

Getting pissed off? As far as I know all I've ever said on this speed thing on the F-22 is "maybe". All I ever did was point out that some of the quotes were questionable and give reasons for why I thought something might be true. What's to get pissed off about, it either can or it can't? However the attitude that if you're not "in the know" you can't speculate or give a rational defense of your opinions is bullsh!t. I'd argue that there are individuals out there who know a HELL of a lot more about aircraft in general than your average wrench-turner. Sure, the wrench turner might be able to tell you how to change the tire on an F-16 or how many wires are in the wing but ten minutes later they'll be telling you how the U-2 can go Mach 3 and that P&W makes loud engines like it's some kind of defect Rolling Eyes

Veteran Joined: May 23, 2005 Posts: 444 Status: Offline

....forget it, it's not worth typing anymore

sampaix wrote:

I'd like to see some form of counter argument on the IR vs EM technology field because after all it is obvious that this is going to be the issue sooner than later.

Your post was so dumb, that normally doesnt't deserve an answer.

Still, I have some questions:
-are you aware that supercruise is something different from cruise?
-how the f*ck the French are so sure that the Rafale RWR can detect an AESA radar? I'm curios, because except US no country poses such thing. So how they tested the Spectra performances against AESAs?
-for your information, the air-to-air IR system is called IRST (Infra Red Search and Track. FLIR is Forward-Looking Infra Red and is an air-to-ground targeting device. It is true that Rafale's OSF can perform both functions, but this confusion speaks volumes about how much you know about aircrafts (French or not)

However, your post was funny... LMAO

@cru

"so dumb, that normally doesn't deserve an answer. "

Is far from being a proper technical argument.

"-are you aware that supercruise is something different from cruise?"

Did you READ my post?

"-how the f*ck the French are so sure that the Rafale RWR can detect an AESA radar? I'm curios, because except US no country poses such thing. So how they tested the Spectra performances against AESAs?"

It proves you don't know zilth about the subject. You dont NEED to field an AESA in an operational fighter, you can test them from the ground, France have fielded AESA radars for years, Naval and else, flown an RBE2 AESA array for years and the manufacturer who does it is also in charge of the ECMs .

How doe we know they can? Because WE tested them vs AESA radars.

"(Infra Red Search and Track. FLIR is Forward-Looking Infra Red and is an air-to-ground targeting device. It is true that Rafale's OSF can perform both functions, but this confusion speaks volumes about how much you know about aircrafts (French or not)"

AGAIN ignorance is NO excuse for writing whatever.

OSF was NOT primarily designed for A2A it IS a dedicated A2A Optronic system and the FLIR anbd A2G capablities are only part of it.

However, your post was funny... if it makes you happy...

I suggest thought that you inform yourself before writing whatever, because obviously you're the only one confused here.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/19 ... onics.html

The FSO will provide all-weather air-to-air and air-to-ground surveillance and targeting and, says Thomson-CSF Optronique, is the first such system in the West to work on the 3-5 micron band as well as the usual 8-12 micron wavelength, the former providing "considerably improved detection in humid conditions".

You're late in your information refresh, this article is from 1999.

You got the picture?

http://www.thalesgroup.com/aerospace/mi ... 05_58.html

Quote:

It proves you don't know zilth about the subject. You dont NEED to field an AESA in an operational fighter, you can test them from the ground, France have fielded AESA radars for years, Naval and else, flown an RBE2 AESA array for years and the manufacturer who does it is also in charge of the ECMs .

How doe we know they can? Because WE tested them vs AESA radars.

France did not field AESA radar "naval and else", only naval. The naval radars France was involved in (EMPAR, ARABEL) work in a different band than the US airborne AESAs. The "AESA RBE" doesn't exist yet. "Flown an RBE array for years"? LMAO

So what? Do you really think that this allowed Thales to figure out how US AESAs work? Until you don't have a functional airborne AESA, you won't be able to couter one. And even then I highly doubt that Spectra will be able to locate an US-made AESA. Not even the ALR 94 (in case that you now what's about) can't...

Quote:

AGAIN ignorance is NO excuse for writing whatever.

OSF was NOT primarily designed for A2A it IS a dedicated A2A Optronic system and the FLIR anbd A2G capablities are only part of it.

Well, smartass, you said:

Quote:

MICA IR can be coupled with OSF, used as FLIR and AAM tracking was reported to be up to 80 km in VWC.

You shoud have said "MICA IR can be coupled with OSF, used as IRST..." because FLIR is for air to ground. OSF can, indeed, perform both functions, IRST (a-to-a) and FLIR (a-to-g).

But hey, don't let facts to disturb your opinions...

Elite Joined: May 17, 2005 Posts: 984 Status: Offline

Anybody wanna lock this one out? I for one don't think the namecalling fits the guidelines of the forum.

@cru

Another one who think he knows better.

"France did not field AESA radar "naval and else", only naval. The naval radars France was involved in (EMPAR, ARABEL) work in a different band than the US airborne AESAs."

Appart for one thing. We're talking about an ECM test-center with modified systems and AESA readars have been designed used and tested or YEARS in FRANCE. Get your FACT right.

Some of the Marine systems can be used with different frequencies, band X been only one of them. Perhaps you don't know it but we also got a specialist Electronic Warfare Squadron based at Mont-de-Marsan.

""AESA RBE" doesn't exist yet. " I'ts been flying at CEV Istre since 2002.

"a functional airborne AESA, you won't be able to couter one" You mean Operational? And in effect i'm certain you know better than the guy who design them. You got no point here, the actual demonstrator reqierements (second one with European techology) are for production ready after flight-testing end of 2007.

"FLIR is for air to ground." Laughing

Sorry my friend but Pirate and OSF in particular are using FLIR mostly in the A2A role. Infact, the 3-5mn bandwiths were developed specificaly for A2A capabiltiy, its air-to-ground performances aren't that great compared to the 8-12mn bands.

As for how AdA employs OSF i think you still have a LOT to learn, as for myself, i got the last from the 1/7 specialists and i'm laughing.

"But hey, don't let facts to disturb your opinions"

Not my opinion, reality, the "this is your opinion" thing is rather weak as an argument, we know about it for YEARS you don't.

Thales have developed a dedicated A2G POD with NAVFLIR called DAMOCLES qualified for Rafale Carrier Ops long ago.

Looks like you still leave in the cave age of aviation when it comes to your understanding of non-US gear.

For your info, PIRATE can cue ASRAAMs and OSF can engage toally passively in BVR thanks to MICA IR. Got it?

"The FSO provides air-to-air and air-to-surface surveillance. The air-to-air component and the air-to-surface is still under development. "The first flights we have made have given us good confidence in the system," says Thomson Optronique."

"The FSO is slaved to the aircraft sensor system and can work either as a standalone sensor or in conjunction with any other sensor such as the radar, Spectra self-defence system, or missile seeker. It scans at the same angular speed and looks at the same area of sky or ground, according to the search/track mode set by the pilot. Interception, for example, requires a wide sweep, to look for targets, while combat sweeps involve smaller angles (the figures are classified)."

The infrared scanner works in the 3-5mn and 8-12mn bands, providing a 3-5mn capability for the first time in the west, says Thomson Optronique commercial director Jean-Claude Vergnères. This wavelength provides "considerably better detection capability in humid conditions", he adds.

The TV provides tracking, identification and three-dimensional acquisition for weapons lock-on (using the laser ranging function). It has a narrow field-of-view of less than 1¼, for precision and high resolution (and therefore target identification) at long range.

http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/19 ... track.html

Obviously got tons more infos on it since this is old news for us (1999) and can oly recommandthat you go out a little..

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/gb/technologie/

"Magic Catia" (71 Mo)

In French but higly informative.... Try this video.

"Higher Technology"

And then this one.

Elite Joined: Aug 19, 2004 Posts: 1089

I suggest that all hail to sampaix. You don't want to mess with this guy. Smile

You want to know some? My flight instructor (a figher pilot which i am not of course) told me some long ago. The day you stop learning you're dead.

I like that.

So please instead of this, elaborate, share your knowledge, make us aware, you don't have to declassify anything, i wouldn't if i were you but stop this mickey taking tactic of yours where all you do is dismiss and criticise others and their arguments with virtually ZILTH. Exclamation

Elite Joined: May 14, 2004 Posts: 2945 Location: Utah

locum...you suffering from post traumatic stress or something, seek help if you are...it is out there.

Take about being "out there" what was that all about?

Elite Joined: May 17, 2005 Posts: 984 Status: Offline

Doesn't matter what technology you have if your country is afraid to ever use it in anger....

F-16.net

Forum: F-22A Raptor

The F-22: not what we were hoping for?