Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Proves Itself
SYSOP    8/7/2011 7:59:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54   NEXT
halloweene       12/14/2011 8:46:23 AM
Sry herald, but M88 is quoted 7.5 tons please revise, check sources and post AFTER
 
Tho i'd be sad , i'd lose my daily fun! F11 pw 229 is the present one on US F16.
 
All in all you are persistent in faith instead of  knowledge, how comfortable...
 
@shooter, plz check any data i gave (except UAE pilots testimony, uncheckable) and tell me which is wrong
 
@halilcar again its very nice from you to notice that rafale with 5000 kgs payload has the same T/W ratio as F16 with 3.700 kgs load (reread yourself, that is exactly what you wrote, except on the FALSE data about M88 thrust ROFL)
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack    @Reactive   12/14/2011 8:54:40 AM
You can lol for as long as you wish , it will not change a thing .
While I know my business and post charts and official reports , you go lol . Pathetic ...
 
The true fact that there is very little in the US inventory who can match the Rafale and I couldn 't care less if you don 't like it .
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    That is the Pratt and Whitney F-100 KUMQUAT.   12/14/2011 9:12:44 AM
Rated at 125-130 kilonewtons.
 
 
 
Hollow, you are incompetent.
 
 
To the OTHER incompetent:
 
 
 
Just so you know, THREE fuel tanks to establish a Rafales ACTUAL loaded HLH 1000 km mission radius, does NOT mean delivered ordnance load either
 
 
H.

Sry herald, but M88 is quoted 7.5 tons please revise, check sources and post AFTER

 

Tho i'd be sad , i'd lose my daily fun! F11 pw 229 is the present one on US F16.

 

All in all you are persistent in faith instead of  knowledge, how comfortable...

 

@shooter, plz check any data i gave (except UAE pilots testimony, uncheckable) and tell me which is wrong

 

@halilcar again its very nice from you to notice that rafale with 5000 kgs payload has the same T/W ratio as F16 with 3.700 kgs load (reread yourself, that is exactly what you wrote, except on the FALSE data about M88 thrust ROFL)

 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack    @Herald   12/14/2011 9:37:36 AM
The UAE only want Dassault under financial pressure , nothing else .
The Typhoon (as said in the article) is only a "stalking" horse .
 
Wrt the F-16 , it needs CFTs to have a decent range because of its short legs . The Rafale doesn 't need CFTs even if they are available :
 
http://i41.tinypic.com/orl9x1.jpg" /> 
 
""Just so you know, THREE fuel tanks to establish a Rafales ACTUAL loaded HLH 1000 km mission radius, does NOT mean delivered ordnance load either. ""
 
Right ! What does it do with the 2 Scalp-EG so , KUMQUAT ? lol !
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/14/2011 10:25:27 AM

stay away when people insult it. The irony is that because you haven't the slightest clue about any of the things you try and talk about what you're left with is just a history spanning the best part of a decade where you have been the resident windowlicker.
 
To take a thought experiment, and apply it to your recent stupidity re: LPI jamming, how little knowledge of basic elementary physics must you have to assert that SPECTRA is capable of active cancellation? Now, to everyone here, those with brains, that was the most ridiculous notion you had (to date) come up with - it would have been easy to explain why to a 10 year old but on post after post until weight of numbers forced you to conceed, looking back does that claim now seem utterly idiotic? That should at least in your own head raise the prospect that you are not really equipped to make any arguments in favour of your personal obsession, so when you assert, for example, that SPECTRA is capable of jamming the returns of a 90's US AESA array, let alone a contemporary LPI-mode scan, you should be aware that it is precisely because you lack any technical understanding of anything pertinent whatsoever that what might sound plausible to you sounds utterly ridiculous to everyone else.
 
But you have no sense of shame, you are obsessive and frankly the worst ambassador for anything I've seen period; as a result of your idiocy there are many thousands of negative rafale posts that rank highly on google, more than on any other forum and it's all thanks to you!
 
I've asked you many times to think about this, but the surest sign of any idiot is one that refuses to see his own limitations, as far as you are concerned you are equipped to argue and flame professionals who have worked WITH the companies whose products you defend, who know incalculably more than you do,  you do this because you fail to note what is obvious to everyone else who posts on or visits this forum:
 
That you are
 
and always will be
 
an idiot.
 
 
I  
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Nothing   12/14/2011 10:34:42 AM
It can't break a reactor containment vessel.
 
That is a LIE.
\
 
 
During combat operations , it
clearly appeared that fighters
were required to hit distant
targets, and tankers were in
very high demand. Air forces
soon realised that they had
become dependent on extremely
vulnerable assets, and
that long-range strike fighters
were necessary to overcome
this worrying trend.
Thankfully, the Dassault Rafale
was conceived from the start
to carry an extremely large
fuel load, as the internal tanks
of a single-seater contain 5,750
litres (1,519 US gallons).
Additionally, the fighter is
equipped with no fewer than
five wet points, and two types
of external tanks are available:
1,250 litre (330 US gallon)
supersonic tanks may be
carried on any of the five wet
pylons, and 2,000 litre (528
US gallon) drop tanks can be
mounted on the centreline and
inner wing stations. A pressure
refuelling system is fitted as
standard for both internal and
external fuel tanks, and internal
tanks can be refilled in four
minutes only. Finally, the Rafale
is equipped with an in-flight
refuelling probe located to the
right of the nose, ahead of the
windscreen.


http://i41.tinypic.com/orl9x1.jpg" /> 

 

 
""Just so you know, THREE fuel tanks to establish a Rafales ACTUAL loaded HLH 1000 km mission radius, does NOT mean delivered ordnance load either. ""

 

Right ! What does it do with the 2 Scalp-EG so , KUMQUAT ? lol !

It flies low all the way as fast as it can, and the pilot prays there is no Grill Pan, Scruff Half, Tomb Stone or the appropriately named Grave Stone radars locked on to direct SA-11, SA-12, SA-15, or SA-20 missiles at it.      

THAT is what it does. That is why we use HARM, KUMQUAT.

 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/14/2011 10:55:24 AM
Reactive , Herald keeps calling me "kumquat" . He started , not me .
 
It is not because most of the posters here know very little or close to nothing in electronics that I have to keep my mouth shut when I see BS posted .
Then , where did I speak about active cancellation ? I only quoted a NATO operative , so go to talk to him , not to me .
How to fool a LPI radar ? Well , there is so much doc and studies on the net that one would need an external HD to save it all !
I did post some here in the past but people don 't want to see the light . Even when it is a US study , I get the stick . I only copy/paste work from scientist but nevermind , I get the stick . Talking about shooting at the messenger ...
 
Your post is only bitter garbage because you hate facts when they don 't fit your agenda . Sure , it is far easier to attack the poster than to refute what he/she says . How convenient ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/14/2011 11:04:56 AM
Herald :
""It flies low all the way as fast as it can, and the pilot prays there is no Grill Pan, Scruff Half, Tomb Stone or the appropriately named Grave Stone radars locked on to direct SA-11, SA-12, SA-15, or SA-20 missiles at it.""
 
Proper planning based on proper Intels ease the task at hand to start with . Then , some of the cited radrs (if not all) can be dealt with with Spectra . A pair of Rafale (one with Scalps , the other with AASMs) can punch their way through as we did in Libya when we went deep to strike 2 airfields .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/14/2011 11:08:05 AM
Btw Herald , no less than 80 SAM sites have been destroyed by French aircraft in Libya . Just to say ...
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Shoot the merssager.   12/14/2011 11:26:29 AM
Who destroyed those SAM sites?
 
 
21 March: SA-2..., SA-3... and SA-5... air defence systems in Libya have been destroyed by Italian aircrafts during a raid near Tripoli. Only SA-6..., hand-held SA-7s... and SA-8... mobile SAMs remain a possible threat to aircraft.[14]... A spokesman for the National Transitional Council... said Gaddafi's forces were using human shields in defence of their military assets, bringing civilians to Misrata... to surround their vehicles and troops to deter airstrikes.[15]... RAF Tornados aborted a planned airstrike due to information that a number of civilians were reported close to the intended target.[16]... Among the buildings hit late on 20 March and early 21 March were parts of the Bab al-Azizia... compound often used by Colonel Gaddafi.[17]... Further strikes on Tripoli and, according to Libyan government spokesmen, Sabha... and Sirte..., took place on late 21 March.[17]...
 
 
Oh solo mia..
 
 
 
In an opening salvo, U.S. and U.K. forces on Saturday unleashed around 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles against Libyan targets. U.S. Vice. Adm. William Gortney told reporters that the missiles, which struck Libya around 3 p.m. EDT, were aimed at more than 20 Libyan air-defense sites.
 
Who did what again?
 
H.
 
 

Btw Herald , no less than 80 SAM sites have been destroyed by French aircraft in Libya . Just to say ...

 

Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics