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
Aussiegunneragain       9/21/2011 1:02:34 AM


technology doesn't plateau either.


LO/VLO has evolved in absolute terms since 1912 when a Taube fighter was covered in celite to make it "invisible" (it was the clear material used to make the first lightweight car windows)


in modern terms, VLO is on its 4th manned development iteration since 1957, and its well on the way to a 6th iteration of unmanned.  every iteration has used different concepts from the prev platform base.


ewarfare has evolved dramatically since the end of WW2 and systems integration over disparate applications has basically done a quantum leap on every new development.


sensing the battlespace will result in new solution sets, new constructs and more importantly, each significant development is going to result in new ways for the warfighter to do their job.  its not just about the technology advances and platform advances need to be able to capable and contribute across more than the traditional roles of see, point, dictate contempt etc....





I don't know the specifics of future radar technologies but I know that there are plenty of examples of technologies making previous ones obsolete, and changing the nature of war in the process. The best recent example would be the extinction of the battleship in the face of aircraft carriers and submarines. Looks to me like battleship technology hit a plateau, at least relative to the competition.
 
I think it is highly likely that the widespread adoption of VLO technology could send current air warfare doctrines in the same direction as the battleship went.  Think about it, to defend themselves from US F-22's the Chinese don't even need to shoot down those F-22's. All they need to do is to get a J-20 within MRAAM or LRAAM range of the F-22's tankers and the game is up. How many F-22's would the US need to defend a 50nm plus radius around its refuellers from a stealth fighter? Quite a few more than it has and can afford I think.
 
The same goes for US forward air bases and carriers, the Chinese just need to concentrate on developing VLO cruise missile technologies, supported by decoys, and defending those becomes much harder and more expensive. That is even before the Chinese build their capacity to knock out the US's regional GPS, comms and recon satellites, which enable so much of their current warfighting doctrine.
 
In the face of all that I reckon these current doctrines emphasising networking and systems might have 15 or 20 years life in them against a near peer - tops - with remote VLO offensive technologies to hit enemy bases beyond the range of your own becoming the necessity in the mid 21st centuries. Still, the brass will still insist on marching into the future only prepared to fight past wars. Some things never change.
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/21/2011 3:07:08 AM

I don't think VLO specific platforms are a continuing development, its the integration of the ewarfare and sensor suites between platforms that is the push.

in a given context, under the heavy systems/sensor picture, the advantage will still lie with the VLO asset (all things being equal)

all of these capability developments have a "life" but the evolution of a systems based capability will continue to outlast the platform based approach because its less of a silver bullet.  if you go back to the start of ewarfare circa ww2 then you can see that todays capabilities are but a continuation of previous concepts, expanded and finessed.

the focus is on capability delivery, not on platform delivery. LO/VLO is just one current tool in the toolbox, it doesn't define it, but it sure as heck enhances it.  the other issue is that previously platform centric constructs can see those platforms enhanced and extended.  eg they are an extension of and a critical element in the systems sensor "touchpad".  if they're not wired in, then they're vulnerable.
 
Quote    Reply

Brad Piff       9/21/2011 3:37:50 AM
http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6196/6124657651_77206409a5_o.jpg" height="683" width="1024" />
 
Quote    Reply

WarNerd       9/27/2011 5:22:45 AM
LO/VLO has evolved in absolute terms since 1912 when a Taube fighter was covered in celite to make it "invisible" (it was the clear material used to make the first lightweight car windows)
It must have looked a lot like a Glass Catfish.... Probably good for a double take from any pilot the first time he saw it.
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       10/10/2011 8:30:48 PM
gf wrote :

"I don't think VLO specific platforms are a continuing development, its the integration of the ewarfare and sensor suites between platforms that is the push. in a given context, under the heavy systems/sensor picture, the advantage will still lie with the VLO asset (all things being equal) all of these capability developments have a "life" but the evolution of a systems based capability will continue to outlast the platform based approach because its less of a silver bullet.  if you go back to the start of ewarfare circa ww2 then you can see that todays capabilities are but a continuation of previous concepts, expanded and finessed. the focus is on capability delivery, not on platform delivery. LO/VLO is just one current tool in the toolbox, it doesn't define it, but it sure as heck enhances it.  the other issue is that previously platform centric constructs can see those platforms enhanced and extended.  eg they are an extension of and a critical element in the systems sensor "touchpad".  if they're not wired in, then they're vulnerable."

(sorry for quoting the all post)
!! (Chess notation : very good move)
gf , I can only agree with you . So , this is what you meant in a different thread when you responded to me .
We 're on the same track and I 've never imagined an aircraft acting alone based on its own capabilities ., that would be foolish and suicidal .
When I speak about the Rafale , of course I include it into a bigger picture , how could I do otherwise ?? I say that it fits with panache , so please get it and stop your little game of "I know better" . Thank you .
The Rafale fits very well within a coordinated operation , it has been build for and constantly been upgraded for . In fact , it is one of his strong point : its ability to fit in any possible Ops , so its "omnirole" capability . 
I can give some very factual examples . As part of a "chain" , each "link" can only use its own capabilities at any time (one thing to remember) . Most of the time , each "link" has its own task or is part of a specific mission within the chain . 
So far , so good . Now , better each "link" is , better the chain is . If one "link" can do multiple and different things at once ,  the chain quality is improving .
The most important thing nowadays is to know as much as possible on the enemy to make our "chain" as safe and as effective as we possibly can . 
In this regard , the Rafale has some nice cards up its sleeve .
gf , every time the Rafale had to fit inside an Op , being a joint exercise or in war , the aircraft did an outstanding job in CAPs , Recon , ELINT , various strikes , SEAD and always shared his own findings with the chain in real time .
These findings are more often than not better than another aircraft tasked with the same mission , thanks to first rate passive sensors and overal discretion . 
 
So yes , we talking about how the Rafale can fit within an airforce interested in buying it .
It fits very well and India knows it .  What I would like people to understand is the fact that Rafale won most if not all the foreign technical evals it participated in . This is not because it can fire a Mica IR or an AASM but because it is an out-standing (in the real sense) aircraft .
Nowadays , aircraft , pilots and public agreement is so expensive that survivability is what makes a campaign successful or not , as well as results . Do we agree ? The Rafale is very goot at it , better than any fighter bare the F-22 . As Dassault likes to say , it is a "Survivor" .
It is also hy it scores high in tech evals .
 
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       11/20/2011 8:32:39 AM
/agree eliendhal altho these were DEAD not Sead missions ;)
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Tech of detect lags.   11/21/2011 1:23:09 PM
As long as its radar that remains the best eyes in the fight, the Rafale remains dead meat.
 
Flat statement of fact.
 
Hamilcar.
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       11/21/2011 4:29:38 PM
WB to Troll
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       11/21/2011 4:32:04 PM

WB to Troll
Since you IDed yourself as the troll, what can I help you with?
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       11/30/2011 5:43:38 PM
Official Armasuisse results
 
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/RafaleSuperiorToeurofighterTyphoon-armassuisse_eval.png" /> 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics