Skii Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Either he likes it or he has a lot of shares in Dassault Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Maybe he's got good reasons to like it? Before being banned from BM, I want to say that I love you all, and that I'll miss you very much!!! Were's my favourite smiley? Ah, ok, there: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alrite Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Lol, check out the key publishing forums for more info on that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skii Posted December 22, 2009 Author Share Posted December 22, 2009 I like it too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XV107 Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Pete Collins no doubt thought that he was offering an insight into the Rafale and that it was a damn good aircraft which he'd happily go to war in if called upon to do so. Little did he realise that he was, in fact, offering subliminal messages that the Rafale is better than all of its rivals... The article in effect says 'Rafale is a damn good aircraft', which is, in truth, a bit of a 'No excrement, Sherlock' statement - the problem, of course, is that the comparator between Rafale/Typhoon/Gripen NG which the various 'fanboys' over on the Key forum (never in the field of internet commentary was so much rubbish spouted by so few...) and elsewhere wanted isn't actually there. So they just pretended it was and had an argument anyway. I assume that the Rafale HUD footage Antoine's put up isn't part of the sortie which ended up with a Rafale being 'bagged' by a Tornado F3.... (old age, cunning and Link 16 being a match for youthful exuberance and manoeuvrability....) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mentalguru Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 I have heard it was Tom Cruise flying that Rafale- it could only have been him! Aahhh sussed it- GERMAN Typhoon! :shithappens: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LopEaredGaloot Posted December 22, 2009 Share Posted December 22, 2009 Folks, I know the whole Top Gun 'look at my HUD tape!' thing is really cool and all that but you now have a jet which is at least as good as the F-15C with APG-63V1 in the BVR game and a fairly decent BVR missile to go with. You're about to get an outstanding followon ramAAM and if you can ever get AESA onboard, you will have something really worthwhile in an arena where the thinking pilot can defeat ALL his opponents rather than just the one off his nose. It is thus a mistake to come into a WVR fight with long lance still onboard and given the small numeric size of today's fights, highly unlikely that there will be 'spare' targets requiring a gunsnake to finish. It's that transition from missiles to cannon that kills you and currently, coming into a WVR fight is like playing Russian Roulette with 3 chambers loaded. AIMVAL showed that big F-15s could only win by energizing the fight up to around 550 knots entry and then daring the lightweight Tigers to try and turn with them after the first shot. Unfortunately (and this was with 'Concept C' emulation of a fixed boresight Lima, not the R-73), steaming in at full IRT, they didn't take into consideration what they were doing to their heat signature and ended up taking face shots from very long ranges. And whenever they got below 350 knots, the instructor flown Tigers either outrolled them and spit them out front or dogpiled until the Eagles had no angles out. The only way to win fights was thus determined to be a boost-coast burner sprint and throttleback from offsets well outside the nominal detection cone limits of the F-5's APQ-159. Or (an alternative which the Eagles liked but the Tomcats didn't accept as being tactically viable) a vertical roll in from high perch so that they couldn't be seen. All of which tactics being essentially reliant on ambush to keep the F-5Es from pointing and clicking at all and to get even this much, they had to have a pilot sit in the TACTS booth to keep the pseudo GCI operators 'honest'. This was back in like 1976-77, before imaging seekers on 6" motorpipes. When the enemy was allowed to emulate Concept D2 (which is basically what Archer came to be) they wiped the floor with the 14/15 on sheer numbers of shots taken. WVR is for idiots. It will remain that way until such time as tactical aircraft DIRCM are available and effective in a manner that doesn't pose a canopy hazard (like the MiG-29 IRST/LR combo). Just watch any Airshow Video of these jets cutting a pretty circle in the sky- And compare it to this- Mz. Daisy vs. The Flash are really the only terms that seem applicable. While I guarantee you it hurts like hell, all the G-con in the world doesn't make up for having a brain to avoid having to shed it because the guy who's gonna kill you using split section double attack or loose deuce tactics is the free fighter wingman, not the engaged lead. Not to mention what flat plating to the world does to invite the outside shooter to hawk the fight. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJaF8t7GQ2A...feature=related 'Strike 3' is only playing against SA-2/3/6 level 60s technology. If he was ditzing about vs. a teen or twenty series SAM as the second video shows, he wouldn't be able to generate enough G to defeat the first shot, let alone the fifth. In this, -every- nation that doesn't have an ARM-onboard ability to fast suppress is just asking for trouble because Fighters typically only meet Fighters when the OCA sweep catches the DCA defenders trying to clear the baselane. And that means you are out front of your jamming support and weasels in the middle of the enemy's protective SAM belt. Look In, Shoot In, doesn't have this problem. Keep your poles long and your exposure short. That's what boosted/glide A2G munitions, missile datalinks and intraflight MIDS are all for. Someone close shoots. Someone far lights off to midcourse. Everybody knows who everybody is. And so, if need be, everybody can reset to do it again. Rafale can't do this becuase the MICA is a glorified SRM. Eurofighter can because Meteor especially is going to change the way we think about BVR. Rafale has no ARM. Typhoon does. Rafale does have a potentially excellent AASM lobshot. But the RAF has the USAF and stealthy strike with the SDB (aka 'let the other guy bomb up his tub). So long as the Russians keep insisting on Flanker type, 5m2 frontal signature airframes, you shouldn't worry too much about WVR. As goes the intercept, so goes the fight... LEG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antoine Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 Looks like I've hit the mark... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard M Posted December 23, 2009 Share Posted December 23, 2009 I presume the Rafale M's capabilities far exceed those of the current joint force harriers being deployed on our aircraft carriers at the moment? Considering the longer the Navy waits for a replacement, the more vulnerable the Queen Elisabeth class is to being cancelled. Is it better to wait for a 5th gen aircraft which is behind schedule and way over budget rather than buy a proven carrier capable aircraft which could theoretically be in service now and re-inforce the need for the new carriers? My view is it's better to have something that's 90% of the way there that can do the job NOW, rather than waiting years for a potential 100% that might never actually get inservice. Bring on the Rafale! Your mileage may vary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julien Posted December 24, 2009 Share Posted December 24, 2009 (edited) I presume the Rafale M's capabilities far exceed those of the current joint force harriers being deployed on our aircraft carriers at the moment? Considering the longer the Navy waits for a replacement, the more vulnerable the Queen Elisabeth class is to being cancelled. Is it better to wait for a 5th gen aircraft which is behind schedule and way over budget rather than buy a proven carrier capable aircraft which could theoretically be in service now and re-inforce the need for the new carriers?My view is it's better to have something that's 90% of the way there that can do the job NOW, rather than waiting years for a potential 100% that might never actually get inservice. Bring on the Rafale! Your mileage may vary. Some good points and I agree. Go rafale with the new carriers now for a tie in with the french and bin F-35 completly. Julien Edited December 24, 2009 by Julien Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now