مشاهدة المرفق 276691
الكتابة باللغة اليونانية ..
ولكني وجدت احدهم يترجمها الى الانقليزية .. اعتذر على الخطأ الرادار كان V9 يظل ليس افضل ماتقدمه F-16 ولكني اخطأت لاني كنت اروي الكلام من ذاكرتي عن الموضوع وقد مضت عليه سنين ...
4 Rafale M(marine) F1(T1) from the CDG aircraft carrier square-off against 4 F-16 blk 52+. A Greek Erieye was feeding info to the French ACC, and monitoring the simulated battle for the Greeks. The BVR tactics of the Frech were not impressive, and after some succesful and unsuccesful launches, the Greeks were in the "no-escape" zone of their AIM 120's. The Greeks had a high percentage of launches to downings, while the French percentage was lower, but with a higher range. The Rafales can also fire on 4 targets simultaniously, while the F-16 can fire only on 2. The Rafale can track 40 targets, with prioritizing. All in all, any advantages that the Rafale's have were deemed as marginal in this AA batle with the blk 52+.
Also said the French had a fairly serious problem with the mission computer, but that was the only problem. The capabilities of the radar to locate targets, and the ECM and ECCM suites are very impressive, capable of giving a complete view of the operational combat environment without AWACS. It can locate enemy radar signals to their precise location from over 200 miles away. F2 and F3 will have many vast improuvements from experience gained from the F1.
the Rafale has also had a chance to train against US ACC, with F-14's and F-18's, as well as the F-16's. The F-14 and F-18's were easy prey. Afgainst the F-18's, the Rafale's easily out-maneuvred the F-18. The US did not want to engage the French at BVR, not wanting to compare AIM-120's to Mica's.
the aircraft our boys faced were M version F1standard
the major points :
1) The lack of RWRs in the F-16s was a problem; the French fighters aborted when they detected a lockon; the Greek fighters were not able to do that.
2) The F-16's AGP-68(V)9 worked extremely well and gave the HAF the ability to detect the French from quite a long distance and coordinate maneuvers at long range via Link-16
3) Due to its PESA architecture, RBE2 range is inferior to AESA; based on performance in the exercise HAF estimates its range is not superior to the [mechanically scanned] AGP-68(V)9. However the RBE2 was, as expected, more flexible, giving it the ability to track more targets simultaneously.
4) The French requested a second exercise after the conclusion of this one, which speaks well of 115CW and its F-16 Block52+
5) The ECCM of the 52s worked smoothly when the Rafales used their Spectra ECM system. The active jamming on the Rafales was not able to break the lock of the APG-68(V)9s.
6) The French pilots reported all their shots as a shoot-down regardless of range. The HAF improved its performance placing the majority of its shots in the "Noescape" zone of the AMRAAMs. So the French aircraft got more shots, but the HAF's ones were much more likely to result in an actual kill.
7) In all,the Rafale showed a marginal superiority but with a large numbr of low PK shots ow probability of success , unlike the Block 52s which achieved fewer shots but all in their missiles' no escape zone. All in all, the Rafale had only a marginal advantage in this exercise with the blk 52+.
Certainly, the HAF aircraft in no way dominated the Rafales. But the Rafales' performance fell far short of the claims often made about it.
8)one of our EMB-145H worked closely with the CDG carrier,testing its Link16 and Link11...After its take-off from its base,established a connection within 10 mins with the French carrier ...thus certifying its capabilities in net centric ops ,something usefull other co-trainings with the French in the future
