Rafale Proves Itself

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

BWisBack 12/14/2011 6:07:42 PM

Btw , I did not get this study from a poster here on SP . I have the whole document and it was given to me by a French poster on air-defense.net .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

BWisBack @halloweene 12/14/2011 6:46:31 PM

Since the latest standard ( Rafale F3-O4T) , Dassault and Thalès stopped giving away clues about Spectra .

They have never been big talkers anyway but in the past , they released a couple of interesting things for us (and for others) to chew on .

They only said that Spectra is using more advanced components than the Aesa RBE2 . Two new modes have been added and the way the threat library core works is different . The total bandwidth has been increased (from the top of my ming to 20 GHz) and the antenna arrays have also been upgraded . They said nothing about the output power neither how much juice is needed now . In 2006 , they already re-wired a good part of the electricl system to accomodate the new Spectra and new radar suite .

From what we heard from Libya and the way they went it , requesting for the Growlers to stay away , I guess that they were very confident with the ECM suite . The USA lost 3 aircraft to SA-3 already (1 F-16 and 1 F-117 in Kosovo , 1 F-16 in Irak . A B-52 was also badly damaged by a SA-3) . If we believe the NATO operatives in charge at that moment in time , the Rafale had no trouble to "disapear" and soft-kill the Russian system before to kill it with AASM . It is interesting to note that while the AASM can be fired at up to 60km , the Rafale(s) were inside the SAM bubble since they had to jam the bloody thing .

Obviously a mobile site (Goa kind) , unknown to the planners . I guess that a M2000-D would have been shot at , leaving the fighter to deal with the missile 's up link in emergency (ECM) .

Not with the Rafale

Cheers .

Quote Reply

heraldabc 12/14/2011 6:47:53 PM

Who cares where you stole it from? You tried to pass it off as your own work without citation. I bet your friend CITED it and sourced it. I have USED it myself, to illustrate a point here and there; which is why I recognized it. One more thing, it contains a LOT of speculation, some of which that Turkish exchange officer got wrong and most of which you garbled in your copy paste..

Btw , I did not get this study from a poster here on SP . I have the whole document and it was given to me by a French poster on air-defense.net .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

heraldabc 12/14/2011 6:58:31 PM

Not with the Rafale

Cheers .

BS. The GROWLERS were extremely busy along with the Italian Tornado ECRs The Sites the French hit were SUPPRESSED or their radars already killed.

Av. Week....

As for the B-52, it was hit by and survived a NAVY HARM you incompetent. Scared the hell out of the tail gunner.

Quote Reply

BWisBack 12/14/2011 7:03:45 PM

Herald , this study is rather rock solid in its basics . It 's not very recent but is shows CLEARLY what can be done and the futur paths .

No need to bash it , it is a good work . So , you say that some part I used has been written by a Turkish scientist and obviously he was mostly wrong ? Is that it ? Then , how do you bloody know which part of the document is his work ???

Nowhere it is written ! But of course , this must be the part I used , isn 't it Herald ?

lol !

Can 't you see how you behave ? If I could quote God Himself , you would say " No , Satan is RIGHT" , just to pis* off the French bast*rd , isn 't it Herald ?

I pity you , really ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

heraldabc No; it isn't. 12/14/2011 7:08:34 PM

He's NOT a Turkish scientist. He's a PILOT.

A PILOT. He wrote at least two basic concepts wrong.

Nowhere it is written ! But of course , this must be the part I used , isn 't it Herald ?

lol !

Can 't you see how you behave ? If I could quote God Himself , you would say " No , Satan is RIGHT" , just to pis* off the French bast*rd , isn 't it Herald ?

I pity you , really ...

Cheers .

Quote Reply

BWisBack 12/14/2011 7:29:28 PM

Herald :

""The Sites the French hit were SUPPRESSED or their radars already killed.""

lol ! Bullsh*t !

When I said that we destroyed 80 air-defense systems , you responded (and you keep responding) that others did the job . Are you crazy or what ? Everybody did his bit Herald , everybody . For God sake , look at the OOB for Libya !

You look more and more stupid as we go

France destroyed 1700 objectives , 55% of the total NATO strikes . The Tomahawks only dealt with the costal air-defenses , 2 airfields and some Command centers . Deep inside Libya , it is the European fighters who did the job .

Since you know so little about Libya (since it wasn 't your war) , you should start here :

h*tp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_military_intervention_in_Libya

Then dig into it , etc ... do a bit of work to make it short .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

BWisBack 12/14/2011 7:43:49 PM

Btw Herald , you said :

""Who cares where you stole it from? ""

Go to hell mate , I 'm not a thief and this paper is ""Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.""

Cheers .

Quote Reply

BWisBack Libya 12/14/2011 9:05:52 PM

Halloweene , do you know this site (blog) :

h*tp://historicoblog3.blogspot.com/2011_03_01_archive.html

Excellent .

For those who don 't speak french , it is full of nice videos from the participating NATO Nations .

Also , a nice slideshow from the French MinDef can be seen here :

h*tp://www.defense.gouv.fr/web-documentaire/bilan-harmattan/

All in all , the Libyan campaign was quickly ran , with great efficiency and with very little or no losses (one F-15 down for mechanical failure) . It also showed European shortcomings : aerial refueling , only a dozen+ of European Tankers were involved , too few European UAVs , lack of J-Stars .

The other major problem what the speed loop of the decision making , far too slow . For example , as soon as the French Navy went in with the Tigers and the UK with Her Apaches , we had to takes shorcuts with the NATO chain of command to act on the spot . At that precise moment in time , the entire Intels were from the French and British Navies offshore .

In fact , after the first month the USA almost disapeared from the tactical battlefield and only provided few Intels and the logistic part .

That made the European think about futur conflict and what was really needed . While NATO performed very well , we Europeans have to spend more money here and there to fill the blanks , if I may say .

The fact is nobody in Europe did commit , really . A good war is costly and a very good war costs an harm and sometimes a leg too . France only used about 70 aircraft , 11 of them being Tankers .

The total OOB was huge but when divided in between the participating Nations , it is rather small in fact .

Well , Libya wasn 't a big dog anyway but we could have done it faster , but it cost .

One more time , the USA did provide most of the initial strikes and most of the logistics . They also did various other things but they were not involded like they did in other conflicts . In fact , France lead the Ops with the UK while the other European Nations followed and did their bit , kudos to some , Sweden and Italy comes to mind .

Some aircraft did put up a nice show : Tornados (as usual) , M2000-Ds (as usual) and Rafales (as usual) . Other types did well : F-16s , Growlers , B2s while some were mostly there for the show : Typhoon .

Gripen did its part after some fuel problem , quickly resolved .

Choppers did EXTREMELY well in CAS and have to be accounted for . The Tiger proved to be a real beast (as well as the Gazelles) . The UK Apaches , well , excellent as usual .

I think that the entire Ops went well because we all are so used to train with each other that things went very or at least rather smoothly . NATO keeps improving herself year after year and joint excercises are not wasted money .

So when I see some people here saying that France did close to nothing with crap airplanes , etc , it is disturbing . Herald would like us to be shot down in flames just for the sake of it or being unable to do anything meaningful without the "almighty" USA . He is clearly out of his mind , to say the least . He is also not aware that the USA are not going to be as powerful as before and they will need Europe more and more . Also , bashing one of his strongest ally is not welcome .

To free Libya from Gadaf did cost near to 400 millions Euros to France and almost 280 millions Euros to the UK . We PAID the US for the fuel too .

So Mr Herald , you should say "Bravo" instead to bash , don 't you think ?

Cheers .

Quote Reply

heraldabc NATO chain of command is 12/14/2011 9:35:11 PM

the US built chain.

Just so we keep THAT clear. Intel in Libya was also horribly botched. We can blame the FRENCH for that one. It was their people on the ground who screwed everything up with their stooges's botched rebellion in Benghazi; supplied WRONG intel to the rest of NATO, and made for a longer air campaign than necessary.

Quote Reply

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