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
Reactive       9/10/2011 4:19:19 PM




 



Bottom line, the exact same factors that have until favored Germany will wipe out a large percentage of that accumulated wealth, a one-size-fits all approach that will only end up well for the bankers and bureaucrats who've long since covered their losses and passed the debt on to European taxpayers.



 



R



Or the Greeks, Irish, Italians and Spanish make some economic reforms and learn to run an efficient real economy, just like the rest of us have, and the Eurozone does a hell of a lot better in the long run.
I have to dash so I'm responding to this comment first:
 
If you think your (australian) economy is efficient and safe you need to look at some precedents - especially for economies whose exchange rates have risen in line with your own - whose markets are so singularly reliant on the commodities markets and a single customer.
 
Honestly speaking the Australian economy is going to be hit like a sledgehammer when shit hits the fan in Asia, and the illusions of the present situation will be replaced by the harsh reality of a lack of diversification and an over reliance on projections that place far too much trust in the PRC's voodoo economics. 
 
Bottom line, you may have more in common than Greece/Ireland than you suppose.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       9/10/2011 8:51:18 PM
Aussiegunneragain responding to Reactive :
"I also don't accept your argument that the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale A2A"
 
Neither do I . In A2A , the Rafale has the first look and fire first against the Typhoon with the Pesa RBE2 who is said to have a shorter range than the Captor-M , even when the Rafale has to "mimic" Russian semi-active missiles with a longer range than the Mica EM , which suppose to use a powerful long range Russian radar .
The young age (?) of the Typhoon pilots has nothing to do with the Typhoon 's systems ability to detect , pinpoint , track and jam the french aircraft playing the aggressor and even firing at it . They didn 't .
It 's not the young pilot who goes "Beeep" when his aircraft is painted by a LPI radar , it 's the RWR . It 's not the young pilot who sees the Rafale BVR , it 's the radar . Etc ...
Personaly , I think that the frontal RCS of Rafale is underrated and that the frontal RCS of Typhoon is overrated . There is a case here , debatable but there is a case .
Then , in most BVR scenarios where the two fighters were involved , the Rafale could avoid  being detected too early or avoid backfires . To me , it says a lot . First , the RWRs can pinpoint the MSA Captor at very long range , allowing the Rafale to evade the Captor 's cone and to close in undetected . Then , it doesn 't seem that DASS can "understand" the RBE2 .
Note that I did say "understand" and not "hear" , it is important .
Anyway , it is all "fictional" . As I said somewhere else , the missile has to hit and the Typhoon  has an outstanding short range jamming capabiity . Very hard to kill ...
 
A lot of people around think that the top in air warfare is to have some kind of "stealth" to evade detection , it is wrong . The top in air warfare is to know where the other is . Stealth only helps to delay the detection , it doesn 't help the active kill chain unless it can be part of the detection process , being a simple "thrower" is not good enough . When left on its own , stealth without passive detection is as blind as a bat . With active detection (radar) , is it not stealthy anymore .
ECMs are becoming so good that nobody wants to light up his radar anymore ...  (and certainly not the F-22 against the Rafale )
 
Passive 3D location with electronic and optical means is the way forward and not passive stealth .
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/10/2011 9:34:35 PM

ECMs are becoming so good that nobody wants to light up his radar anymore ...  (and certainly not the F-22 against the Rafale )
 
Passive 3D location with electronic and optical means is the way forward and not passive stealth .

 



actually, if you'd bothered to read previous history on like minded posts, or bothered to have a look at the background history of some of the (former) regular posters - then  you'd discover quick smart that those who actually are in industry and who do this (systems evaluations) for a job (as opposed to being diehard widget  fundamentalists have been reinforcing for years that its about the systems construct of how militaries fight, and its about logistics

platform centric discussions say more about what the enthusiasts don't know than what they do know.

thatrs why 95% of the commentary in this thread is an absolute wank - it isn't about the platform - its about what the platform brings to the rest of the system construct.

the US stopped fighting a platform war in 1982, and changed the rules on system warfare in 1991




 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    GF   9/11/2011 11:13:38 PM


actually, if you'd bothered to read previous history on like minded posts, or bothered to have a look at the background history of some of the (former) regular posters - then  you'd discover quick smart that those who actually are in industry and who do this (systems evaluations) for a job (as opposed to being diehard widget  fundamentalists have been reinforcing for years that its about the systems construct of how militaries fight, and its about logistics

platform centric discussions say more about what the enthusiasts don't know than what they do know.

thatrs why 95% of the commentary in this thread is an absolute wank - it isn't about the platform - its about what the platform brings to the rest of the system construct.the US stopped fighting a platform war in 1982, and changed the rules on system warfare in 1991
 
The US didn't spend all that money on the F-22 because they don't care about the individual characteristics of the platform, otherwise they could have just kept building F-15's. Individual characteristics of platforms are important and that is why they are worth discussing.
 
That said, how an aircraft fits in with the systems of a potential buyer is also important. On that count for India the Rafale seems to stack up better than any of the Western Hemisphere competitors than me. It would fit relatively easily with the training, logistics and maintenance infrastructure that the Indians have built around the Mirage 2000, and the promised technology transfer would give them strategic independence, which is a vital consideration for them.
 
In a rational competition any of the Western competitors would have to do a LOT better on the cost/capability equation to come out ahead. Is the Typhoon that much better air to air than the Rafale? Dunno, having not been one of the South Korean or Singaporean assessors who would have tested both, or perhaps a French or British exchange pilot, I'm not in a position to say for sure. However, from public information I see no reason to believe that it is that much worse than the Typhoon, as Reactive has suggested that it is.
 
Quote    Reply

Aussiegunneragain    Reactive   9/11/2011 11:28:37 PM


If you think your (australian) economy is efficient and safe you need to look at some precedents - especially for economies whose exchange rates have risen in line with your own - whose markets are so singularly reliant on the commodities markets and a single customer.
 
Honestly speaking the Australian economy is going to be hit like a sledgehammer when shit hits the fan in Asia, and the illusions of the present situation will be replaced by the harsh reality of a lack of diversification and an over reliance on projections that place far too much trust in the PRC's voodoo economics. 
 
Bottom line, you may have more in common than Greece/Ireland than you suppose.
 
 
If you are comparing Greece and Ireland you don't really understand enough to be talking about economic efficiency. Ireland is a liberalised and efficient modern economy that has been hit badly by external events and a good old fashioned property bubble. Even efficient economies can't be made bullet proof in an international shitstorm, it can happen to the best of us (after all, it happened to the UK didn't it, even though you aren't part of the Eurozone). The Irish will probably need some reform of their banking sector and to continue austerity measures, but they are in good shape policy wise to get out of this when things improve.
 
In contrast Greece is a over regulated, over spending basket case with an enormous public sector and ridiculously generous entitlements, with about twice the debt as a percentage of GDP of the Irish. If you want a professional assessment of the efficiency of Ireland and Australia versus Greece, check this out the OECD's ease of doing business rankings - I can't post them sorry because this computer is right click disabled.
 
As for our economy, would we hurt if China went down? Yup, they take 20% of our exports. However, we have very low government debt compared to the rest  of the world (about 22% or 6% when we net out soveriegn wealth funds), so we are in a good position to deal with a correction. And, contrary to your assertion, Mining only makes up about 3% of our economy, so we have other industries such as business services, education, agriculture and tourism which would pick up the slack if demand for our minerals dropped off and our dollar lost value. So while we can't bullet proof ourselves against international events, we are in a better position than most to deal with them.
 
Note as well that we had paid off all of our government debt by the early 2000s, before the mining boom,and that came off the back of a lot of reform in the 80's and 90's. That is why we are a pretty good example of what can be done, if the likes of the Greeks ever wanted to listen.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/12/2011 3:05:36 AM

 
That said, how an aircraft fits in with the systems of a potential buyer is also important. On that count for India the Rafale seems to stack up better than any of the Western Hemisphere competitors than me. It would fit relatively easily with the training, logistics and maintenance infrastructure that the Indians have built around the Mirage 2000, and the promised technology transfer would give them strategic independence, which is a vital consideration for them.


In the US CONOPS for the F-22 it was always about how the F-22 was going to enter the fight with a greater degree of autonomy, but the US doesn't commit at a systems level, and the F-22 is going to take advantage of all the E-crows elements to penetrate and fight.

take away e-crows in the US hi-lo construct and the F-22 opens the gates for the JSF for follow up strike, but its a sweeper in its own right - but the journey to the fight includes all the other e-crows assets.

the emphasis from the US, and the whole RMA construct as originally formulated by the russians, but never implemented due to technology gap issues and the timing of history, was about systems fighting, even the uber troika platforms (B2, F-22, JSF) are heavily tied into the systems grid, and no other country has the same constellation saturation, (Global in particular)  as the US, so systems fighting is less of an issue for them as they are already geared to fight a multiple theatre, multiple environment scenario.  Even the russians are now basically reduced to a regional constellation capability, closely followed within 10 years by the chinese (at which point they will pass them assuming that the russians can't improve their attrition and build rate)

I'm not going to buy into the Rafale/Typhoon/Shornet debate as it just goes downhill quickly.  In context. all are able to fight the good fight based upon the owners requirements.  

The platform vs platform arguments leave me cold as they ignore the reality of how these assets are going to fight and that ultimately, the fight is now about sympathetic nodes (such as F-22, JSF, Growler, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen) and how those nodes assist others in the battlespace (across the 3 services)  Eg for US, Aust, Canada and the rest of the Link 22 club its about how all the assets in theatre can hand off and target on behalf or inform other shooters when and who to shoot.

For the last 5 -12 years we've been shifting down a path of how these platforms contribute to situational appreciation and the situational awareness of all the warfighters contributing to the fight.  The F-22 as such has had its concept of operations evolve considerably from its initial design and CONOPS intent.






 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       9/12/2011 3:13:22 AM
bloody forum software truncated my quotes and response
 
Quote    Reply

MK       9/12/2011 10:51:48 AM


Aussiegunneragain responding to Reactive :
"I also don't accept your argument that the Typhoon is superior to the Rafale A2A"
 
Neither do I . In A2A , the Rafale has the first look and fire first against the Typhoon with the Pesa RBE2 who is said to have a shorter range than the Captor-M , even when the Rafale has to "mimic" Russian semi-active missiles with a longer range than the Mica EM , which suppose to use a powerful long range Russian radar .
The young age (?) of the Typhoon pilots has nothing to do with the Typhoon 's systems ability to detect , pinpoint , track and jam the french aircraft playing the aggressor and even firing at it . They didn 't .
It 's not the young pilot who goes "Beeep" when his aircraft is painted by a LPI radar , it 's the RWR . It 's not the young pilot who sees the Rafale BVR , it 's the radar . Etc ...
Personaly , I think that the frontal RCS of Rafale is underrated and that the frontal RCS of Typhoon is overrated . There is a case here , debatable but there is a case .
Then , in most BVR scenarios where the two fighters were involved , the Rafale could avoid  being detected too early or avoid backfires . To me , it says a lot . First , the RWRs can pinpoint the MSA Captor at very long range , allowing the Rafale to evade the Captor 's cone and to close in undetected . Then , it doesn 't seem that DASS can "understand" the RBE2 .
Note that I did say "understand" and not "hear" , it is important .
Anyway , it is all "fictional" . As I said somewhere else , the missile has to hit and the Typhoon  has an outstanding short range jamming capabiity . Very hard to kill ...
 
A lot of people around think that the top in air warfare is to have some kind of "stealth" to evade detection , it is wrong . The top in air warfare is to know where the other is . Stealth only helps to delay the detection , it doesn 't help the active kill chain unless it can be part of the detection process , being a simple "thrower" is not good enough . When left on its own , stealth without passive detection is as blind as a bat . With active detection (radar) , is it not stealthy anymore .
ECMs are becoming so good that nobody wants to light up his radar anymore ...  (and certainly not the F-22 against the Rafale )
 
Passive 3D location with electronic and optical means is the way forward and not passive stealth .
 
 
 
 
I think that you are interpreting way to much in here. It's naive to believe that you can draw definitive conclusions  from just two DACT encounters. We know that there were more at Al Dhafra alone, the French interestingly didn't comment on the other encounters however, albeit hinting at them. Eurofighter in its press response to the French disclosure stated that similar results happened the other way round, acknowledging that mistakes were made by both sides. Whether Eurofighter's response is accurate is beyond me, but they stated them details which were coherent with the later claims by Grandclaudon, though there was some incoherence as well. Fact is we don't even know much about the circumstances, ROEs or restrictions imposed by the services themselves.
It's also known that Rafales has been beaten BVR by platforms which are generally regarded as being inferior, including Greek F-16s and German F-4Fs. By that measure these aircraft must be "superior". You understand what I'm aiming at!?
 
Quote    Reply

Eliendhal       9/12/2011 12:53:39 PM
MK :
"You understand what I'm aiming at!?"
 
Of course I do .
The human factor still is the most important deciding factor , one mistake and you 're dead , one good move and you win . What I am trying to say is that with equal pilots , the Typhoon is not superior to the Rafale BVR and it is ~in my view~the other way around . I have to say that when both fighters will have Meteor and Aesa , Rafale 's edge might even increase due to better frontal RCS and better long range ECMs .
 
gf0012 :
"thatrs why 95% of the commentary in this thread is an absolute wank - it isn't about the platform - its about what the platform brings to the rest of the system construct."
 
So , you decide that 95% of what we say is "wank" ? My God , who are you ?! 
Then what you say is stupid , what the platform brings to the rest is what the platform is made of . So , the platform ITSELF is what make the node system efficient or not .
So , I agree with Aussiegunneragain .
 
gf0013 , you also wrote :
"The platform vs platform arguments leave me cold as they ignore the reality of how these assets are going to fight and that ultimately, the fight is now about sympathetic nodes (such as F-22, JSF, Growler, Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen) and how those nodes assist others in the battlespace (across the 3 services)"
 
That 's much better . I deplore that the platform vs platform is leaving you cold because it is the most important factor in the equation (with the pilots of course) . A bunch of Spitfires helped by the best AWAC in the world will do jack , if you know what I mean .
You also said :
"For the last 5 -12 years we've been shifting down a path of how these platforms contribute to situational appreciation and the situational awareness of all the warfighters contributing to the fight."
 
Exactly ! You see , you say that platforms contribute to the general situational awareness ! Make up your mind ...
 
 
Quote    Reply

Kovy       9/12/2011 3:44:35 PM


That's interesting because the F-4 kills were also against red Rafale (but F2 standard this time) simulating Migs with R-27 missiles. Talk about an unfair boasting by the German pilots...
 
Go figure out why the Rafale pilots were keen to leak the ATLC story one year later
(ie spanking typhoon 7 times while they where still simulating Fox1 shooters). They had learnt their lesson and they showed it.. I do think it is fair enough.
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics