Operational Performance Comparison: Viper, Beagle and Stubby

[optimist]

I am a troll? how?
because I have a different opinion and assumption from you? and you accused me of staying in rafale thread with the hyped up nonsense is laughable. Go ahead ask any long term respected member here: sprstdlyscottsmn, Hornetfinn, Johnwill, ..etc if i am a Rafale fanboy. I was more critical of it than anyone else here. This thread is the first time I take Rafale position for a change.

Different opinion is fine, different facts is something else. I'm quite happy for it to be a sniper link. I'm at a loss why you are excluding the ATFLIR, that you also mentioned earlier. Pages ago I asked for a link, to show what you are stating as a fact. Is in fact a fact. Since then it has been a song and dance.

I've been posting actual links showing the the Talios and Sniper doesn't claim A2A, other than identification. See the last one just above. http://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/u ... talios.pdf
How much clearer do you want it? A long list for A2G, then..
Reconnaissance
• Medium range day/night small targets reconnaissance.
Air-to-Air
• Day/night visual airborne target identification.

I've also posted links to the Sniper. Showing you that the F-15 carries the sniper FLIR and also a IRST pod. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this as disproving your fantasy and continue your dance. The reason they don't claim A2A and only claim A2G targeting. Is because it is hard to get a 2D to a 3D and then a 4D targeting solution on on an air target.

This is leaving aside the laser, with your range of 12km to act. What cued the flir and what that really means in a battle space. Including the fact that they only claim 3D to ground.

You say the talios and sniper does, but the atflir doesn't. I would be really good if you could put up a link to this fact, as they are all A2G flir targeting pods, with claimed A2A identification.

[eloise]

I've been posting actual links showing the the Talios and Sniper doesn't claim A2A, other than identification. See the last one just above. http://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/u ... talios.pdf
How much clearer do you want it? A long list for A2G, then..
Reconnaissance
• Medium range day/night small targets reconnaissance.
Air-to-Air
• Day/night visual airborne target identification.

This is leaving aside the laser, with your range of 12km to act. What cued the flir and what that really means in a battle space. Including the fact that they only claim 3D to ground.

You say the talios and sniper does, but the atflir doesn't. I would be really good if you could put up a link to this fact, as they are all A2G flir targeting pods, with claimed A2A identification.

I have explained many times the difference between an IRST and a FLIR
It feels like you just ignore my answer and the photo from the brochure

sniper-xr.PNG (387.78 KiB) Viewed 27480 times

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... niper.html

I've also posted links to the Sniper. Showing you that the F-15 carries the sniper FLIR and also a IRST pod. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this as disproving your fantasy and continue your dance. The reason they don't claim A2A and only claim A2G targeting. Is because it is hard to get a 2D to a 3D and then a 4D targeting solution on on an air target.

Can you quote where exactly did i refuse to acknowledge it????? I was the one who brought up F-15 with Tiger Eye and Sniper-XR in the first place.
I have said more than once:
IRST like the name stated Infrared Search and Track , it can SEARCH and TRACK for air target
FLIR like the name stated Forward Looking Infrared , it doesn't automatically search for air target and need to be cued. But that doesn't mean FLIR can't provide targeting solution after it was cued.
F-15 carry both Sniper-XR and legion pod or tiger eye because:
1- IRST automatic search and track, like a radar unlike FLIR
2- Legion pod and Tiger eye are LWIR, and LWIR system can detect targets with lower temperature.

[eloise]

Your table above only mention simple Cirrus clouds regarding high altitude Cirrus clouds. But how about Cirrostratus and Cirrocumulus which you can also find at very high altitudes such as 40,000 ft?
Even by looking at your image above it seems to me that Cirrostratus and Cirrocumulus have quite different IR properties. For example a Cirrostratus which as the name says, is a cloud that combines Cirrus with Status and if you look at the chart that you posted/shared you can see that a Status is much "thicker to IR" than a Cirrus. So it's obvious to me that a Cirrostratus is most likely quite or even much "thicker to IR" than a simple Cirrus. The same also applies to Cirrocumulus clouds

Unfortunately, i can't find the coefficient for Cirrostratus and Cirrocumulus yet, only definition of what they are:
It seems all 3 clouds are the formation of ice crystals

Cirrus

Cirrostratus

Cirrocumulus

Moreover, what your image and table aren't showing is that Cirrus considerably increase the temperature of the air beneath the cloud by an average of 10 degree Celsius (due to green house effect) which means that you'll have a hotter background (around Cirrus clouds) which will affect IR sensors, namely LWIR sensors.

10 degrees from -60 degrees Celsius, still very cold

[optimist]

I've been posting actual links showing the the Talios and Sniper doesn't claim A2A, other than identification. See the last one just above. http://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/u ... talios.pdf
How much clearer do you want it? A long list for A2G, then..
Reconnaissance
• Medium range day/night small targets reconnaissance.
Air-to-Air
• Day/night visual airborne target identification.

This is leaving aside the laser, with your range of 12km to act. What cued the flir and what that really means in a battle space. Including the fact that they only claim 3D to ground.

You say the talios and sniper does, but the atflir doesn't. I would be really good if you could put up a link to this fact, as they are all A2G flir targeting pods, with claimed A2A identification.

I have explained many times the difference between an IRST and a FLIR
It feels like you just ignore my answer and the photo from the brochure

sniper-xr.PNG

https://www.lockheedmartin.com/en-us/pr ... niper.html

I've also posted links to the Sniper. Showing you that the F-15 carries the sniper FLIR and also a IRST pod. You stubbornly refuse to acknowledge this as disproving your fantasy and continue your dance. The reason they don't claim A2A and only claim A2G targeting. Is because it is hard to get a 2D to a 3D and then a 4D targeting solution on on an air target.

Can you quote where exactly did i refuse to acknowledge it????? I was the one who brought up F-15 with Tiger Eye and Sniper-XR in the first place.
I have said more than once:
IRST like the name stated Infrared Search and Track , it can SEARCH and TRACK for air target
FLIR like the name stated Forward Looking Infrared , it doesn't automatically search for air target and need to be cued. But that doesn't mean FLIR can't provide targeting solution after it was cued.
F-15 carry both Sniper-XR and legion pod or tiger eye because:
1- IRST automatic search and track, like a radar unlike FLIR
2- Legion pod and Tiger eye are LWIR, and LWIR system can detect targets with lower temperature.

let's get the Talios off the table first. Then we'll do the sniper.

Do you agree the claim is for only identification in air to air? As linked in this quote above.
A long list for A2G, then..
Reconnaissance
• Medium range day/night small targets reconnaissance.
Air-to-Air
• Day/night visual airborne target identification.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

gee, it's a good thing in my compro I am taking ATFLIR and IRST21 as separate, and OLS, FSO, and PIRATE as IRST only

[optimist]

Some years ago, I saw this debated several times with the FSO. I haven't seen it debated with a FLIR before. It's coming from even a weaker base because of the cuing. From probably a directional RF sensor, leaving aside what the RF was that was detected, but they are usually called radar warning. The end of this omnipotent, passive engagement goes something like this. A LOAL IR missile is launched to chase, 'That Way'

[ricnunes]

please stop this behavior which borderlines the behavior of a troll.

I think that border was crossed a while ago, He is trolling. He has a a lot of posts, I only noticed him recently. He must have stayed on the rafale thread with the hyped up nonsense. When a fanboy like me knows it's straight out trolling BS, things are crook. I don't dig that deep into every nut and bolt.

Absolutely!

He (or She?) even goes to the point of twisting other people's sources. For example saying that Cumulonimbus clouds are rare (only occur when there's a storm) when its a fact that Cumulonimbus are among the most common clouds in the temperate and tropical regions. Yes, Cumulonimbus are associated with storms but they also happen when there's no storm as well.

Or other even more "amusing" claim/troll: the Towed Decoys!
First eloise claimed that Gripen had Towed Decoys as an advantage of the F-35. Then I pointed out the the AN/ALE-70 and the reply was that the Gripen still had the advantage because it carried more Towed Decoys (12) as opposed to the F-35 (4). LOL as if the number was an indication of the towed decoy quality or I could even reply that due to Stealth the F-35 probably won't need to use its 4 Towed Decoys while 12 Towed Decoys for the Gripen won't likely be enough, this for the same (risky) mission. Besides this even got to the point of claiming that the Gripen Towed Decoys are better than the AN/ALE-70 despite having absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this!

Or even saying that LWIR sensors don't show the imagery with bigger contrast while the images that eloise posted clearly shows that the LWIR image has a much bigger contrast than the MWIR image...

Of course replying the above to eloise would be pointless because I would get another troll-kind response.

So this being said, I'm finally done with these replying to eloise except for one point that I'll reply below.

[ricnunes]

Look at the photo of a real Rafale and then imagine an AAM (like the Mica) on the position where you see that front centerline mounted AAM on the diagram that you shared before.
Resuming, I could buy a single AAM on that centerline pylon (although I have my very strong doubts) but I surely won't buy 2 AAMs (one in from of the other) on that same pylon!

1.PNG

2.PNG

3.PNG

Let's see:
A- Those ARE NOT real missiles, they are MOCK missiles! (and as I said, the second/in-front missile looks goofy point upwards)
B- That is a Rafale A (the first letter of the Latin Alphabet), considered to be the demonstrator of the current Rafale. However this aircraft the Rafale A was somehow bigger than the current Rafale (for example the A was a longer and had a bigger wingspan than the current Rafale).

Dimension specs of the Rafale A:
https://www.museeairespace.fr/aller-plu ... -a-f-zwre/

Dimension specs of the current Rafale:
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ance-data/

I am a troll? how?
because I have a different opinion and assumption from you? and you accused me of staying in rafale thread with the hyped up nonsense is laughable. Go ahead ask any long term respected member here: sprstdlyscottsmn, Hornetfinn, Johnwill, ..etc if i am a Rafale fanboy. I was more critical of it than anyone else here. This thread is the first time I take Rafale position for a change.

It doesn't matter (or at least I don't care) if you're a Rafale fan or not.
Your replies constantly ignore what others have told you and the sources that others have also posted. And the posts/sources that you don't choose to ignore you then twist/distort them to fit your narrative. If this behavior isn't the behavior of a troll then it is at least a Devil's Advocate kind of behavior/narrative which at this point and regarding these issues is IMO trolling.

Anyway, with the all the above I'm finally done with you as I feel that's it's useless to continue discussing such matters with you. As I said earlier I had the feeling/suspicions that I would regret giving you "a second chance" and this was just confirmed. So do what you please, reply this or not. I really don't care anymore.

[optimist]

eloise has seemed to have decided to drop the subject and wait a few pages for the dust to settle. I'm sure he'll be back posting the same stuff.
I gave the brochure of the Talios. Where it clearly states it has A2A identification and doesn't claim anything else. The response "But that doesn't mean FLIR can't provide targeting solution after it was cued." I'm sure that's exactly what it means. It can't provide a targeting solution. He is using what a FLIR targeting pod does on the ground and then assigning this to air to air targets. Using the logic of 'Well if it can do it on the ground, it can do it in the air.' Some of the bouchers don't help, when they group 'air, ground and sea'

[wrightwing]

The bigger issue, is that assumptions have been made, that not even the manufacturer has claimed with regard to the Rafale.

[eloise]

eloise has seemed to have decided to drop the subject and wait a few pages for the dust to settle. I'm sure he'll be back posting the same stuff

Not really, I lost interest because there are more personal attacks than there is information in this discussion.

[eloise]

Absolutely!
He (or She?) even goes to the point of twisting other people's sources. For example saying that Cumulonimbus clouds are rare (only occur when there's a storm) when its a fact that Cumulonimbus are among the most common clouds in the temperate and tropical regions. Yes, Cumulonimbus are associated with storms but they also happen when there's no storm as well.

I live in the tropical region myself,
I can tell you cumulonimbus don't happen that often, pretty much only with storm or heavy rain. Cumulus are popular but not cumulonimbus. Of course, if you can find any statistic study showing otherwise, I am happy to be corrected

Or other even more "amusing" claim/troll: the Towed Decoys!
First eloise claimed that Gripen had Towed Decoys as an advantage of the F-35. Then I pointed out the the AN/ALE-70 and the reply was that the Gripen still had the advantage because it carried more Towed Decoys (12) as opposed to the F-35 (4). LOL as if the number was an indication of the towed decoy quality or I could even reply that due to Stealth the F-35 probably won't need to use its 4 Towed Decoys while 12 Towed Decoys for the Gripen won't likely be enough, this for the same (risky) mission. Besides this even got to the point of claiming that the Gripen Towed Decoys are better than the AN/ALE-70 despite having absolutely NO EVIDENCE of this!

I don't like people twisting my words to make a strawman argument
I have never said "Gripen HAD TOWED DECOY AS AN ADVANTAGE OVER F-35"
I was replying to your claim of: "Newer technology always obliterate older one"
and I said these exact words:

I am not trolling, i point out the flaw in the logic of newer technology always obliterate older one.
Newer technology doesn't necessary mean later date of manufacture: ok agree.
Let have a look at Gripen E vs F-35 :
APG-81 radar uses fixed AESA array with GaAs modules
ES-05 radar uses movable AESA array with GaN modules
Should we concluded that ES-05 will obliterate APG-81 ???

Gripen is equipped with Brite Cloud, a small expandable DRFM jammer that can be carried in large number, i don't think F-35 has an equivalent to that

Skyward vs EOTS, skyward is both newer and can uses frequency more optimized to cold target.

I can go on and on, there are many pieces of technology on Gripen E, which is newer than the one on F-35. Because of the simple fact that it was built later so more advanced technology are available at the point than when F-35 was created. But we know that doesn't mean you can draw the tangent line of Gripen will obliterate F-35 because "newer technology always beat older one" . The kind of overly simplify assumption like that bring more bad judgment than good

1- What i did is point out the flaw in your simplified logic
2- Brite Cloud is NOT a TOWED DECOY, because it is NOT TOWED behind the aircraft, it is an expandable jammer, same as RT/1489/ALE aka GEN-X. Look up GEN-X. The equivalent of ALE-70 on Gripen is BO2D
3- I did not at any point said Gripen BO2D towed decoy is better than ALE-70. I said: "ALE-70 is comparable to BO2D on Gripen". These are the exact words.

Or even saying that LWIR sensors don't show the imagery with bigger contrast while the images that eloise posted clearly shows that the LWIR image has a much bigger contrast than the MWIR image...

Do you truly believe LWIR photo has more contrast than MWIR in that photo? that is ridiculous. Even without the photo, you should be able to deduce with sensor has higher contrast from what hornetfinns told you. LIWR need very cold background while MIWR works better with clutters, and from that you deduce that LWIR sensor has higher contrast?.

[optimist]

eloise has seemed to have decided to drop the subject and wait a few pages for the dust to settle. I'm sure he'll be back posting the same stuff

Not really, I lost interest because there are more personal attacks than there is information in this discussion.

Well lets start again and I'll try not to say you are trolling.

1. You seem to be assigning A2G capability to A2A....does the Talios brochure clearly say what is what?.
2. do you agree the manufacturers would know what it does.

http://omnirole-rafale.com/wp-content/u ... talios.pdf

MISSIONS
Multifunction: from targeting to NTISR
Air-to-Ground
• Compatible with laser guided weapons, INS/GPS
guided missiles and imagery-guided weapons
• Attacks in autonomous or cooperative mode, using
integrated laser spot tracker and laser marker
• Long range damage assessment capability
• Target recognition capability
• Positive identification in complex environment
• 3D localization
• Integrated navigation FLIR
• Real-time data-link transmission
Reconnaissance
• Medium range day/night small targets reconnaissance
Air-to-Air
• Day/night visual airborne target identification

[optimist]

There are contrast adjustment knobs and differences between night and day, sun angle, polarization and the list goes on. So picking one image with another may not reflect the science reality. Also what band the target is mostly emitting. It seems terrestrial targets emit mostly in the LWIR and other advantages. While MWIR can have better contrast and images. It comes down to what the target and conditions are.

https://www.opto-e.com/resources/infrared-theory

[ricnunes]

Absolutely!
He (or She?) even goes to the point of twisting other people's sources. For example saying that Cumulonimbus clouds are rare (only occur when there's a storm) when its a fact that Cumulonimbus are among the most common clouds in the temperate and tropical regions. Yes, Cumulonimbus are associated with storms but they also happen when there's no storm as well.

I live in the tropical region myself,
I can tell you cumulonimbus don't happen that often, pretty much only with storm or heavy rain. Cumulus are popular but not cumulonimbus. Of course, if you can find any statistic study showing otherwise, I am happy to be corrected

And I can tell you that I live in a temperate region myself and here cumulonimbus are quite frequent during the Autumn, Winter and Spring (although they happen somehow less now due to climate changes - but this also affects all cloud types) and in most cases there isn't a storm present.

An example of what I see frequently which was taken in a place relatively near to where I live:


Below is another example of a sky very often observed in the region where I live (again, specially during Autumn, Winter and Spring):


In the image above you can see a mix of cumulonimbus and cumulus clouds.
A friend of mine which was recently studying meteorology told me that he learned that some clouds that people think are cumulus are in fact cumulonimbus - this is due lack of perception of how high the clouds projects, this to someone who is on the ground and relatively afar from the cloud itself (as you can see in the last image above).