Saudi Arabia buys Eurofighter for £6billion

[Razor]

well adrien let me clarify, actually. the rafale can definitely hold its own against our current generation fighters (the f16, and certainly f18). but i dont think it will be too much of a challenge for an f22 or a EF. although its extremely unlikely the 3 would ever fight each other and it is troubling to see us comparing apples to carrots to pineapples. the one disadvantage the rafale has is the pretty bad selection of french missiles.

As far as i am aware, the Rafale can be equipped with the Amraam and the Asraam, French missiles though aren't bad but definately aren't to the level of Russian missiles or Western missiles. The Gripen is really the aircraft that should be compared to the Rafale, both a cheap lightweight simple aircraft, but the Rafale has the maritime capabilities - which is one of the reasons France pulled out of the Eurofighter project as no other country wanted a maritime version.

Plus, you can't really classify the F/22 as a "fighter" because of the stealth technology. The stealth can protect it from some ground radar, but not an enemy aircraft radar. So if the F/22 should be used at all, it should be used as a bomber rather than a fighter. The stealth technology is virtually useless against other fighter jets.

What is the difference between a ground radar and an air radar that would allow air radars to pick it up but not ground radars?

 

[dream431ca]

Dream, nice argument, you gave some solid points to back up your statment.

A question, could you give us your opinion on the French rafale ?

http://www.mk2review.com/Images/wallpapers/rafale-best1.jpg

Sure. I only saw this aircraft once with my own eyes. It was 2 years ago, in France. I was lucky enough to attend the airshow there. Very impressive aircraft. The best fighter france ever built. It's built almost to the specs of the Eurofighter except for some differences. The Rafale has 2 models:

The Rafale A

The Rafale B

The Rafale A is similar to the Eurofighter since it can dog fight pretty well and it has remarkable aerobatic capabilities. This model was meant for dog fights. Although you could strap a couple bombs to the bottom of the Aircraft, it wasn't meant to carry bombs, since it's weight was too light.

Rafale B on the other hand was a bomb carrier only. It was purely designed to take about 8 bombs and deliver the payload to the enemy. The Rafale B can carry bombs because of the added weight to the aircraft. (The Rafale A had less metal on the aircraft for aerobatic purposes while the B model used more metal on the bottom of the aircraft, to carry 8 bombs.)

The idea was this: In a combat situation the Rafale A would beable to intercept any enemy aircraft while the Rafale B delivered the Explosives to the target on the ground. It's been done in simulations countless times, but never duplicated in real life. They have practice runs of this sort of thing a lot to keep the pilots focused.

Overall the aircraft is a great fighter, capable of doing it's job effeciantly and effectively.

One of the most impressive features of the aircraft is the engines...a total of 40000 pounds of thrust. That thing could accelerate up to any altitude in a very short period of time. Although it's quite loud and doesn't have any shielding for the heat, again, the same as the Eurofighter, where it can be difficult to shoot down because of the aerobatic capability.

And to answer a question by ghOst about the G's, The eurofighter pilots have the most advanced G suits in the world. The G suits the pilots wear can help them to acheieve 12 G's for 3 seconds. That is quite a lot. The F-18 for example can only handle 9 G's for 2 seconds at it's maximum. The F/22 has no need for this because of the stealth capability. But I assure you, Stealth does not work on enemy aircraft. The enemy aircraft can still see the F/22 on radar. It's the ground stations that cannot.

And you are correct when an EMP can knock out a Eurofighter...or almost any aircraft, which begs the question, why isn't anyone using them yet? They are far more efficent as a weapon than a normal SAM missle. You could miss the target by 80 feet and the EMP still would hit the target, rendering it useless.

The F/22 is an awesome aircraft but it's not perfect and neither is the Eurofighter or any other aircraft you might hear about. My previous post was there to describe the various advantages and flaws about each aircraft, and not to diminish the value of these aircraft to their parent countries.

 

[dream431ca]

As far as i am aware, the Rafale can be equipped with the Amraam and the Asraam, French missiles though aren't bad but definately aren't to the level of Russian missiles or Western missiles. The Gripen is really the aircraft that should be compared to the Rafale, both a cheap lightweight simple aircraft, but the Rafale has the maritime capabilities - which is one of the reasons France pulled out of the Eurofighter project as no other country wanted a maritime version.



What is the difference between a ground radar and an air radar that would allow air radars to pick it up but not ground radars?

Here is the answer: It's the angle of the airframe that determines what we call "stealth" in aviation. Stealth aircraft design the airframe so that ground radar cannot pick it up by making the angle of the airframe at a critical angle to the radar beams, meaning that the radar beams bounce right off it in a totally different direction instead of going back to the radar station. Also they use a special paint on the aircraft to absorb radar to diminish the radar feedback to the radar dish.

Stealth works great against stationary ground stations, but not so well with another aircraft.

The F/22 is the best stealthed aircraft in the world, but aircraft with radar can still pick it up. The angle is not there because the aircraft is either above the F/22 or at the same level as the F/22. At those levels you loose the critical angle of the airframe that is useful in reflecting radar beams in a totally different direction. Also, specific aircraft like the rafale has a stealth countermeasure on the the aircraft, which the radar fires a beam every direction around the aircraft picking up possible targets. This procedure can basically find the stealth aircraft "weak point" as some of the beam will bounce back at the aircraft and get a bleep on the radar screen. The weak point is mostly found on the top of stealth aircraft, where you find a surface less angled and therefore more prone to reflectivity.

Aircraft radar and ground radar are exactly the same thing, what the difference is, is the situation the radar is in. Also the paint they use on stealth aircraft only absorbs 30% of the radar or less depending if the metal is hot or not. What really matters is the angle, and there is always a point to be exploited on a stealth aircraft where you will get reflectivity back.

EDIT: Sorry for Double post

 

[Razor]

Here is the answer: It's the angle of the airframe that determines what we call "stealth" in aviation. Stealth aircraft design the airframe so that ground radar cannot pick it up by making the angle of the airframe at a critical angle to the radar beams, meaning that the radar beams bounce right off it in a totally different direction instead of going back to the radar station. Also they use a special paint on the aircraft to absorb radar to diminish the radar feedback to the radar dish.

Stealth works great against stationary ground stations, but not so well with another aircraft.

The F/22 is the best stealthed aircraft in the world, but aircraft with radar can still pick it up. The angle is not there because the aircraft is either above the F/22 or at the same level as the F/22. At those levels you loose the critical angle of the airframe that is useful in reflecting radar beams in a totally different direction. Also, specific aircraft like the rafale has a stealth countermeasure on the the aircraft, which the radar fires a beam every direction around the aircraft picking up possible targets. This procedure can basically find the stealth aircraft "weak point" as some of the beam will bounce back at the aircraft and get a bleep on the radar screen. The weak point is mostly found on the top of stealth aircraft, where you find a surface less angled and therefore more prone to reflectivity.

Aircraft radar and ground radar are exactly the same thing, what the difference is, is the situation the radar is in. Also the paint they use on stealth aircraft only absorbs 30% of the radar or less depending if the metal is hot or not. What really matters is the angle, and there is always a point to be exploited on a stealth aircraft where you will get reflectivity back.

EDIT: Sorry for Double post

I've never heard that before, ever. Stealth technology doesn't make an aircraft invisible, it just lowers the effective range of the radar, thus, making the windows where no aaa, radar, etc, can detect the aircraft much greater so the stealth aircraft can slip through.

The problem with a airborne radars though is that the enemy aircraft has to be pointing the radar at the stealth aircraft at a shorter range to pick it up. If a patrol isn't aware of an enemy in the area or get a warning on their rwr but can't pick up the attacking aircraft up until around 20miles, by that time the f22 would of fired it's missiles and turned away, then the f22 would have the huge advantage. Another thing that the f22 has, that the Eurofighter most probably has as well, is the datalink between wingmen. The leader could track and lock onto an enemy aircraft whilst his wingmen, who is 10miles away in another direction, fires the missiles. The locked up aircraft will turn towards the f22 tracking it and not the one shooting the missile.

To really see the full capabilities of these aircraft, you really need to put them into engagements with aircraft that can match them in combat situations with pilots just as skilled. Iraqi pilots had poorly maintained equipment and would of been nowhere near as skilled as the western aircraft would be, so it would be a turkey shoot with something like an F15 let alone an aircraft as advanced as the Eurofighter or the Raptor.

 

[dream431ca]

I've never heard that before, ever. Stealth technology doesn't make an aircraft invisible, it just lowers the effective range of the radar, thus, making the windows where no aaa, radar, etc, can detect the aircraft much greater so the stealth aircraft can slip through.

The problem with a airborne radars though is that the enemy aircraft has to be pointing the radar at the stealth aircraft at a shorter range to pick it up. If a patrol isn't aware of an enemy in the area or get a warning on their rwr but can't pick up the attacking aircraft up until around 20miles, by that time the f22 would of fired it's missiles and turned away, then the f22 would have the huge advantage. Another thing that the f22 has, that the Eurofighter most probably has as well, is the datalink between wingmen. The leader could track and lock onto an enemy aircraft whilst his wingmen, who is 10miles away in another direction, fires the missiles. The locked up aircraft will turn towards the f22 tracking it and not the one shooting the missile.

To really see the full capabilities of these aircraft, you really need to put them into engagements with aircraft that can match them in combat situations with pilots just as skilled. Iraqi pilots had poorly maintained equipment and would of been nowhere near as skilled as the western aircraft would be, so it would be a turkey shoot with something like an F15 let alone an aircraft as advanced as the Eurofighter or the Raptor.

Well, I do work in the industry so I know these things. You have no idea what it's like to sit in a room full of Europeas, Australians, Americans and Canadians. The debates that come up are priceless. That's where I get my information from. If you have to trust anyone on these forums about aircraft, trust me. It's what I do for a living.

 

[Razor]

Well, I do work in the industry so I know these things. You have no idea what it's like to sit in a room full of Europeas, Australians, Americans and Canadians. The debates that come up are priceless. That's where I get my information from. If you have to trust anyone on these forums about aircraft, trust me. It's what I do for a living.

Relax, i used to work at BAe Systems up in Edinburgh so know my stuff , just never heard that.

 

[dream431ca]

Relax, i used to work at BAe Systems up in Edinburgh so know my stuff , just never heard that.

Cool! It is real. I learn about 10 new things everyday where I work. It's nuts! I work at a place called SPAR. It's a place where I work on Military aircraft (mostly cargo carrying aircraft). I don't have the authority to work on fighter jets because I need a completely different degree to do that. What I heard is from US military personel and European Military Personel. I've been working on this one Cargo carrying aircraft for almost 11 months now. You should see when the US and the European military guys get into a debate. It so much fun to watch.

 

[ComradeBadger]

There's a BAE systems down here too, I nearly worked for them over the summer.. long hours, hard work - but supposedly very interesting

 

[Adrien C]

As far as i am aware, the Rafale can be equipped with the Amraam and the Asraam, French missiles though aren't bad but definately aren't to the level of Russian missiles or Western missiles. The Gripen is really the aircraft that should be compared to the Rafale, both a cheap lightweight simple aircraft, but the Rafale has the maritime capabilities - which is one of the reasons France pulled out of the Eurofighter project as no other country wanted a maritime version.

My friend, France has some remarcable missiles, including the famous exocet, responsible for the sinking of British ships in the falkland war.
It's so powerfull it even destroyed a ship not even denotaing itself on impact :

Wikipidia : The Exocet that struck the Sheffield failed to explode but the impact of the missile travelling at 315 m/s and laden with unburnt rocket fuel was enough to set the ship ablaze. Accounts suggest that the initial impact of the missile immediately destroyed the ship's onboard electricity generating systems and prevented the anti-fire mechanisms from operating effectively, dooming the ship to be consumed by the raging fire. Although the loss of the Sheffield was a blow to British self-esteem, the missile used earned itself a curious kind of respect, and the word "Exocet" passed into British colloquial usage to denote, "a devastating attack". It is still occasionally heard, and as of 2004, remains widely understood

I can't find the other missiles, but check out the storm shadow : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storm_Shadow_(missile)

 

[Razor]

There's a BAE systems down here too, I nearly worked for them over the summer.. long hours, hard work - but supposedly very interesting

It was definately a great place to be and you should of taken them up on the offer, great money and great company to work for. There was a protest from a load of nutty people though who blocked the carpark one morning and calling everyone baby killers who walked in...i just wanted a more hands on approach though so decided to join the airforce and follow my dream.

My friend, France has some remarcable missiles, including the famous exocet, responsible for the sinking of British ships in the falkland war.
It's so powerfull it even destroyed a ship not even denotaing itself on impact :

Sorry, i was referring more to the air to air missiles like the Magic. The Exocet is probably one of the very best antiship missiles though and certainly was devasting in the Falklands war, might not of been as so easy for Britain to win the war if the Argentinians had more then 6 of them.

 

[Adrien C]

Aight, check this missile out guys : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Meteor