The International Rafale forum

True that, what we forget also is that Rafale A was routinely flown at AoA of 45* by Guy Mitaux-Maurouard at the same Airshows...

I really think we have seen little of its true flying capabilties.

http://dassaultwebtv.empreinte.com/web/c-2/v-341/rafale_a_-_1st_flight.html

To start with, I saw the entire program and was appalled at the crap that was uttered! This was probably the worst program that channel has played in a long time. When the B-1 entered the dog-fight to 'save' the F-22, I almost threw up my dinner! Not even good science fiction.


I don't know about the Rafale, I expect it to have a HMDS in a future upgrade. On the other-hand, in (I think) 2011, the F-22A will receive the "3.2 upgrade". This will combine the F-22A with the "-9X". The budget mess has caused the F-22A to delete the HMDS from the program! Of all the new features, the F-22 community considered the HMDS the most expendable! URL;
http://www.examiner.com/x-5411-Military-and-Civil-Aviation-Examiner~y2009m6d18-Sharpening-the-Raptors-talons#


After all the advertisement, I expected a program to have had better quality. I wasted an hour of my time. I could have watched Sesame Street on, 'on-demand TV' and saw something more intellectual!


The counter to the Cobra was developed between the F-15C community and the F-22As. The F-22 can do it and maintain more energy than the Sukhois.
The cobra can only be done in the 'guns' environment. If you look at the diagrams shown at Russian websites, they show the offensive fighter only 600-m behind the defensive fighter. Any further away and the offensive fighter does not need to perform the yo-yo to get a kill, the offensive fighter can continue on with enough reaction time to simply gun the defensive fighter while it is doing the cobra. The pilot has to be careful in when and how it looses energy.


In "free play" exercises between the F-22A and the other teen fighters (F-14D, F-15C, F-16C and, F/A-18C & E)... it isn't close with the F-22A having such an advantage in performance that the fights are boring. The F-14D and F/A-18E/F have IRST and were no more successful than any other fighters. They were in the heart of the AMRAAM (AIM-120A) range before the F-22 was detected. From what I have heard, the Pirate system has not been a raving success against the F-22!

The F-22A offers training to no one without ROEs. The F-22A learn nothing more because of the lop-sided scores. The teen fighters learn nothing because they die so readily. The F-22 does well because of its exceptional performance, stealth allows it to surprise its victims but, performance is what sets up the kill. It is able to operate crisply above 60,000-ft. (18,300-m) in situations where other aircraft wallow. One female test pilot in an interview talked about how well it maneuvered at high speed and altitude.... 60,000-ft, 800kts while pulling "5G's"! Even in WVR, the F-22A can kill without giving up its altitude advantage.
Currently the APG-77 radar does not set off any RWRs! The F-22A has different levels of stealth. This affords it the ability to train under many circumstances.

When you hear of any new fighter having its way with any teen or legacy fighters.... the first question to ask is, "what are the rules of engagement (ROEs)?" Once you know what the ROEs are known, you have a better idea of what really was going on.

An F-16C pilot discusses the F-22A.
F-16C Pilot ___ "VprWzl"
F-16 Versus the F-22 By Vprwzl -3rd post on pages #9 (04/17/05)
http://www.f-16.net/index.php?name=PNphpBB2&file=viewtopic&t=771&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120&sid=30fde129986697c0648213bc383fa95f

The following was a posting from "Dozer" (Dozerf22 on 'Fence Check' & other web boards) on another site but, the only one I could find now was a quotation at URL (the sixth post on the page). Tittle "Time-to-climb record attempt - F-22A Raptor";
http://www.f-16.net/f-16_forum_viewtopic-t-5096-postdays-0-postorder-asc-start-15.html

"Raptors wield 'unfair' advantage at Red Flag" (An RAAF F-15C pilot discusses his experience against and F-22A. URL;
http://www.acc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123041831

Hi Avon! I read your post with interest, there are one or two things bothering me...



In the US.

In France IPNER graduated pilots developed Cobra and other PSMs early in the Rafale flight-test programe, ONERA simulated them as well fefore the tests but they came to the same conclusions about vulnerability.




True but it still deplets most of it, these maneuvers are passed at around 250 kt, reason why they won't use PSM in most cases, the Sukhois are the worst possible example of the use of PSMs in air combat.

Now i have a question: If you really whant to slow-down, why not separating with altitude while keeping your target in sight?

With a Rafale you can do that very well and in descending spirals have the nose well up high aoA with a high turn rate turn, it doesn't mind PSM at low speed at all, i saw Ker Herve doing in on the M01 at Farn'rough.





We never heard of the RAF making use of Pirate a culture as is the case in Rafale Squadrons with OSF, MICA IR (and SPECTRA)...

RAF seems to rely on the performances of Captor instead, AdA/MN are looking at a near-total discreet approach for intercepts and develop their tactics accordingly.



Seriously, I can't believe the figure of 800 kt at 60.000 ft in calibrated airspeed, at 60.000 ft M 1.5 gives you 860kt+...

She is most likely talking about maneuvring in supercruise at below M 1.4 (M 1.394) at 60.000 ft which is interesting considering the stories we hear about higher SUSTAINED supercrusing Machs.

Then i will always take with a pinch of salt their comments:

They compare to what they know, only the F-15 is optimised for similar cellings and i doubt they flew them often without external tanks at these altitudes, this puts the whole thing back into perspective and wouldn't be exeptional.

The British (and others) are revving about Typhoon but none of them ever flew a performant dogfighter before appart in exchange with the US or France.

The USAF is comparing the F-22 performaces to that of the Legacy or Russian fighters of which only the F-15 is optimised for ceillings comparible to that of a Mirage 2000 for example.

When French Mindef gives 50.000 ft as Operational celling it is not representative of the aircraft real capabilties but the maximum allowed without pressure suites, this is something US readers have a hard time understanding.
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decouverte/equipements/aeronefs/rafale_m

The USAF F-22 Factsheets:
Ceiling: Above 50,000 feet (15 kilometers)
http://www.af.mil/information/factsheets/factsheet.asp?id=199

So at the end of the day, we hear of maximum performances from the US side (and then some), almost never from ours...

The F-22 TVC is designed to allow for the loss of control authority of conventional fighter designs at these altitudes, it doesn't mean though, that other aircrafts needs such compensative devices, expecially when more than 10t lighter.





Again; this is only valid for US designs or less advanced Russian designs.

Interferometry should change this as it is designed for the purpose.





ROE are what i find disturbing coming from the USAF pitting their new fighters vs anything, or even US manufacturers, i haven't seen any chasing aircraft not equiped with external fuel tanks for example in the case of F-35 and i am quiet sure they follow the same procedure using F-15 vs F-22s.

In this case these ROE are bogus as combat TVC are normaly computed with only 50% internal and weapons.

I know "Dozer", from many posters in this forum he is one of the most serious guys about.

His comments are interesting but this bring us to the real TWR in combat configurations as they are managed in these conditions and there the Raptor doesn't fare much better...

Rafale C TWR = 1.214

F-22 TWR --- = 1.26

Then we have the Winloadings (empty)...

45,70 m²
9.500 kg 207.87 kg/m²

78.04 m²
19,700 kg 252.434 kg/m²

So at the end of the day, making comparisons like these with aircrafts carrying their main fuel fraction externally is not a fair deal.

It will be when pitted vs eachother in their true combat configurations.

Finaly, Some rapid calculation on the TWR of the Raptor flown by Dozer...

Using the USAF own website figures not including the 6 X AAMs.

Weight: 43,340 pounds (19,700 kilograms)

Fuel Capacity: Internal: 18,000 pounds (8,200 kilograms).

->With 2 external wing fuel tanks: 26,000 pounds (11,900 kilograms)*.

Thrust: 35,000-pound class X 2.

Fuel fraction: 0.4153 vs 0.500 for a Rafale.

TOW = 61,340 pounds

TWR 1.141

TOW = 14.250 kg

TWR 1.052

His experience as incredible for him as it was isn't unknown from other pilots, the main difference i believe is the way they are used (configuration) and performances clean (Read without tanks).

Observations.

NO F-16 is going to accelerate as fast as that with a 40* sweept wing.

Rafale have a 48* sweep angle and a higher fuel fraction (based on these figures), it also carries 1 X to 3 X external tanks in most configurations.

I'm quiet certain that his comments about the Raptor being way more maneuvrable refers as their respective configuration, not mentioning F-16 AoA limitations...

Take a Viper on 50% internal fuel and 6 AAMs it might well be a different story, i know it would with a Rafale.

The only reason I can think of in finding a tactic to counter the cobra, taking so long is.... until the testing of the F-22A was over and one was available to help the F-15 community, no other US fighter could truly simulate the Su-27 & family. The closest would be the F/A-18.
Although, just doing calculations on energy maneuvering should have lead to the same conclusion, much earlier.


You are correct, losing speed equals loss of kinetic energy.


I can't agree with you on the Sukhois being the worst possible example in doing the PSM. Think about it, how many other operational 4th generation fighters can do it?
Remember, when the MiG-29 and Su-27 were designed, the Soviet AF still believed in the 'furball' (many versus many fighters). That many of the kills would be with guns or WVR missiles where air parity would exist. Air parity, would allow the Soviet ground forces to operate effectively.
BVR is where lopsided kill ratios can be made.


That is exactly what she was talking about. That is the area that the F-22A was designed to excel at, where other aircraft can not operate! Many can get to 60,000-ft. but, once there can do little performance wise.
The F-22 has been cleared for operations to 65,000-ft. (19,820-m) and in future upgrades will enable it to fight from 70,000-ft (21,350-m).
From 60,000-ft, opponents of the F-22A have to realize that their missiles will have the range of their missiles cut in half, while the F-22s missile range will be increased by 50%!

I know from an interview with Typhoon test pilot Craig Penrise, the heart of the Typhoon's envelope is 39,000-ft (11,900-m). That is where its performance is its best. I have not heard any figures or seen interviews with any test pilots, in english about the Rafales flight envelope.
As the RAAF pilot discovered, as he could look out his cockpit and see the F-22A but, the seeker of the Sidewinder-9M could not see it!!! Next to the RF spectrum, the F-22A is designed to defeat IR spectrum by reducing their ability to detect the F-22. BUT, in many exercises the F-22 operates as though they can be detected since, sooner or later someone will find a way to detect LPI radars.


The first encounters (between the F-22 and the Typhoon) started off, very scripted as to exactly what each pilot was supposed to do. Both sides had discussed what the two aircraft were to do and the results were to be able to predict what many parameters would be. It was an engineering exercise. While both communities deny having any encounters officially, there are a few comments that come out from time to time from pilots. URL;
A posting by 'drgondog' (Post #126)
A Typhoon Pilot Discusses His Efforts Against An F-22A
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/modern/f-22-vs-12344-9.html#post351443


Whereas we don't have any figures on real world performances between the F-22A, Rafale or, Typhoon... comparisons against legacy is all that is publicly available. Knowing what a fighter can do is one thing, how the manufacturer made the product is something entirely different and more difficult to find out. The RAF and USAF took their time in exploring the capabilities of the other's fighter. Mainly, this was done to discover the best way to use the Typhoon and F-22A in combat along side of other aircraft.
Aerodynamically, 'all' the interested countrys know what the competitive aircraft can do! A couple of pictures and one can use descriptive geometry to determine actually distances, radius of curvatures and, angles. A type of 'reverse engineering'. A lot can be determined by using IR cameras and paying particular attention to the color frequency of the exhaust.
EXAMPLE -The KGB and GRU had supplied the Soviet AF command structure of the performance specs on the F-117 back in the mid-1980s. The Soviet felt that Lockeed had a disinformation operation going on, to get an attack aircraft with such a low RCS. The PGW#1 showed the intelligence was accurate.


If you believe that then you will also believe the USS Seawolf (for example) can only do 25-kts submerged and that its maximum depth is 800-ft (250-m)! Or the official maximum altitude for the SR-71 is only 84,000-ft. (25,600-m).
Both operational and test pilots have stated in lengthy interviews some of the unique capabilities of the F-22A. Discussing these capabilities openly was to gather support for the F-22 program.
Typhoon test pilot Craig Penrise said in an interview, if the USAF and RAF go to war against 'some' opponent, the F-22A would fly ahead and wait over enemy airbases. The Typhoons would provide top cover close by for the strike package. The F-22 would attack the interceptor shortly after take-off. The interceptors that leak through the F-22s would be dis-organized and easy prey for the Typhoons.
By the way, F-22A pilots just like the Rafale and Typhoon pilots have completely new designed G-suits. URL:
The Well-Dressed Raptor Pilot Practical Aircrew Apparel Has Come A Long Way (Code One Magazine)
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives/2004/articles/oct_04/fa22Support/index.html


It would be difficult to surprise a Typhoon pilot if his RWR is screaming in his ears, wouldn't it. ESM would also provide (at least) the approximate bearing of the signal. The APG-77 radar that transmits each pulse at a different frequency across five spectrums plus each pulse is transmitted at a different power level. So, while being tracked by radar lock-on, no two pulses are the same. The signal is at such a low power level, its signal is buried in background noise.


"DOZER" IS SPECIAL! (You then know he was an F-15C pilot with a kill of a MiG-29 over the Balkans plus the first commander for the 1st Fighter Squadron at Langley, Va, USA which was the first squadron equipt with F-22A.)
I would suggest you contact Dozer through IM and get his take on this. He has described how he was climbing shortly after take-off and has ability to accelerate from a clean F-15 chase plane in afterburner while he was in military power only. Another time taking off and flying a few feet-meters off the ground and by the time he reaches the end of the runway, he was doing 570-mph, then he pulled up into a climb! Most likely he will be able to point a positive about the Rafale that you hadn't noticed.
I would go over what Dozer has written again, he believes there is nothing ordinary about the F-22A. I contacted "VprWzl" by IM after he posted his piece about his encounter with the F-22 and, asked him, "did you think originally, the F-22 was like a F-15 or F-16 on steroids"? He said he knew it would be better than the F-15 and F-16 but, the margin of which it is better greatly exceeded his imagination.
Dozer is interviewed on You Tube about his kill of a MiG-29. URL;
Red Flag -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4mTrLhfXiM
Dogfights Nightfighters -http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gsdTWOCKZs&feature=related


The ROEs are for finding the limits of the new aircraft. Yes they do make an artificial environment. Are they sometimes used for PR purposes, definitely yes. In exercises after the aircraft become operational, ROEs are imposed to make sure ALL involved will gain from the experience.


Ahhhhh..... NO! His opinion is that his bird is real special.

PSM? A lot more than you might know about.

I don't think it is so much about doing whatever maneuver you get your head around (Still is a matter of skills) but what it does for you in terms of tactical situation.

Look at the latest example of crash involving a Sukhoi...
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/08/30/331659/video-su-27-crashes-at-radom-air-show.html

Infortunately this one killed both pilots and it is not a nice thing to do to bring the issue here, but i can't fail to point out how much the aircraft is sinking at high AoA.

Canards or NO canards the Sukoi doesn't have the LIFT, so i stick to my statement about them being the worste example for use of PSMs.

. During the very spectacular crash in the Ukraine it was the same.

. AGAIN at the Paris Airshow it failed to follow its high AoA attitude with a change of direction, a Rafale M with a 1.250 l would make it, it is one thing to capture a given AoA, yet another one to move the velocity vector up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSS0SmVwZ00

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrB-YQqeNpk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vmwW-yDEikg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwGVCrhVWWk

Observe the aircrafts AoA and relative horizontal speed, then compare their respective attitude and trajectory between the videos, the Sukois had comparatively less weight/drag on them that this F-12 Rafale and still failed to recover both speed and altitude...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bcwahy_n4dM

The Rafale M have a desadvantage of 696 kg in airframe weight compared to a C plus the extra weight and drag of its 1.250 l external tank, yet it pulls UP with an AoA well over 40* and NO TVC...

When you have MORE lift available, you make it OUT of this sort of situation, it is there when you need it to be, TVC or/and higher TWR doesn't do it for you it is a simple rule but everyone forgets it.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/passion/dassault-aviation-decouvrir-lavion-en-plein-vol/lavion-comment-vole-t-il.html

What people doesn't seem to understand is that "pointability" is not providing you with LIFT and high TWR won't work vs the inertia of a 29t aircraft.

You loose speed, the aircraft quits flying (even so you still can control yaw pitch and roll in the best case), you're just gone ballistic, in Post Stall.

Top US pilots pulled PSMs in Vietnam flying F-4s, John Boys was doing it on F-100s, I've done them on Jodels, Rallies etc (Renversements).

This is something one learns to do, stalling an aircraft and maneuvring it passed the stalling point safely, but in combat they always are aware that speed is life and work hard to check and manage their energy.

You loose your energy, you loose the fight.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rv9YC-gaNYo

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ML6pQ_6Lgf4




USN pilots reported a similar problem with Rafale low IR signature the first few encounters using the same AAM, the next IIR generation of seekers levels out things a little...




So is the Rafale although it is not designed with a cooling system as developed for the wing leading edge and the rest...





It is not so the fighter itself but its configuration at the merge.

The "Legacy" fighters were never designed to be getting into a furball with at speed lower than M 0.90 to M 1.4 for best turn rates or and having to go through all the maneuvers with subsonic or even supersonic tanks.

Requiered specification were very specific about the COMBAT weight vs best turn rate vs combat range, LWF best turn rates were requiered to be possible with only two AIM-9.s not even AIM-102s.

The limitations for these configuration are WAY too high for a fair comparison, i don't think a F-15 C would be that easly outclassed flying at 50% internal with 6 X AAMs it all come down to the same equations about weight/drag vs Lift/thrust.






Something Dassault-Aviation doesn't do, we get little information as to a Rafale "Special" gifts, only a couple of PDF each years, old archives with interviews etc.

But since the creation of the GIA, we got nothing on Rafale flight envelop, appart from the minimum.





That's the theory and people in every side of the pound are trying to defeat this.

Thinking of it again it is the shield vs the spear issue, question of developements and generations of technologies.






Agreed, the real stuff as they say...






One of the main reasons for this is the wing sweep angle and resulting Critical Mach, better than both F-15 and F-16.

We got similar stories from Mirage 2000 Jockeys saying that they have to be in FULL AB from the merge vs a Rafale to have the slightest chance to turn on it (with an instantaneous turn rate working quiet well vs a F-16 btw).

The Rafale can stay out of A-B for the whole fight and still out-fly it, i think it should be comparing well to the sort of performances you can expect in a turning fight from F-22.

We also have squadron noises about Rafale inbelievable "climb rates", apparently well over the figures given by Dassault-Aviation.

What i insits it telling you is that we got little precise info on it and enev less the right-hand top corner performances for the Rafale.

We don't even know it's real Maximum AoA because between what was writen about the tests (No departure ever, near unlimited AoA up to 100*+, 18 kt Minimum (controled fight) speed, what we have seen in videos so far, and the "official" figures we saw sometimes very noticeable differences.

As opposed to the manufacturer's fight for figures we have seen with the 2000 vs F-16 era, even figuring out the Dash from the Max Mach have been a struggle.

We were completely starved of datas in the case of Rafale, if it haven't been for my habit of downloading web pages, i wouldn't even remember that the Marine Nationale were giving the configuration/TOW for the Rafale M and a Dash of M 2.0.

They are the only service giving precise datas including airspeeds.

Caractéristiques du F1

Envergure : 10,90 mètres
Surface alaire : 46 m²
Longueur : 15,27 mètres
Hauteur : 5,34 mètres
Masses :

à vide : 10 196 kg
maximale : 24 000 kg
Vitesse maximale : Mach 2 (1 290 noeuds)
Vitesse d'approche : 120 noeuds
Temps de patrouille : supérieure à 3 heures
Plafond : 50 000 pieds
Distance franchissable : 1 000 nautiques
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decou ... s/rafale_m

Interesting isn't it?

They developed their own culture of the aircraft, based on the F1 M specifications, using the 1.250 l supersonic tank mainly on the central position, 4 AMMs they do M 1.02, M 1.03 without the tanks.

An external tank costs you 0.01 M in drag and military power settings normaly cruising should be 89% dry trust, not mentioning weight, roll rate, g, AoA limits and acceleration.

The 1.250 supersonic tank is cleared for 9 g full and limited to M 1.6, one would do ok tactically, three, you got to dump them...




They flew them vs Greek F-16 with their own BVR tactics, based on the MICA own firing envelop and what they were learning from AdA exchange pilots, they developed some of them.

Most Marins had no BVR experience and none of the F1 ever was deployed with OSF, although M 01 and M 02 were used for its developement and carrier qualification.





I have a problem with the way you are giving datas, the speed of 570-mph doesn't mean much to me, it makes even less sense, not knowing the runway length.

I learned from civilian flying schools; not to US but International standards with the good old Feets (ft)/ Milibar (mb), Nautical Mile (nm), g, M/sec, Deg/sec and more later from the AdA.

To tell you the truth, considering their respective TWR, aerodynamics (Including that degraded of 4 pylons and 4 additional AAms) i don't see a F-22 out-accelerating Rafale by much if at all.

It wouldn't do it vs a Rafale on 50% internal fuel and 6 AAMs, it's TWR isn't high enough to pull it away; if they are in subsonic, the only advantage of the F-22 would be a superior thrust in military power.

F-22 wing is optimised for the transonic region, but looses out in drag to a maximised laminary profile once out of it and in any case with similar wing aerodynamics, it still have a lower Critical Mach.

In the case of low altitude acceleration it isn't a clear cut sort of thing...

Now: You're in charge of a Squadron of Rafales...

Since you whant your pilots to get the maximum performances from their fighters:

You will get them to the HOT area with close to 50% internal, wingtank free.

You will make sure they will be at the Optimum altitude for a maneuvring fight with the speed and altitude they need to avoid/defeat a threat.

In this sort of environement, and considering the script (visual combat conditions), i don't see the Raptor makings much an impression on it.







As for a Viper to be able of Post-Stall Maneuvers for example?

Because in test-flights they went at up to 100* AoA too although the level of controlability isn't specified it makes a notable difference.

Give me any reason to declare the F-16 Block 60,50 "Optimised for the Air-to-air role"?

If they wanted to optimise the F-16 for modern air combat they would probably go through a few redesign point; get rid of everything that doesn't belong, the A2G stuff.

Sort out the Superstall issue one way or another (imagine DRYDEN doing just that) and relax the flight envelop with AoA (recoverable/low speed) of up to 70*...

Maximised the combat weight, with a similar TWR to the F-22 do you think it would be that easy to beat?






Precisely what is making things harder for analysts:

Rough comparisons means nothing, we can only make demonstrations of known facts and laws (physics, aerodynamics etc) but looking at it with some insight calls for caution.






I think we have a similar procedure over here...






Not saying, only said that it is based on his own experience, the number of time he have took-of with a F-15 carrying only the same amount of fuel (than a F-22) must be close to nil.

The F-22 is not designed to operate the same way than other fighters, in a combat situation, the Rafale pilot would have droped his tanks, i don't think they would not.

The F-22 can enter the fight 0.4 to 0.5 Mach higher with a low IR signature but that's about it, it got to keep its energy because as early as it starts loosing it, it come into the area where Rafale is simply better, it would give you 100* AoA if you could (or can they?) over-ride its FCS limiter, on aerodynamics only.

It might be worth noting that british and italian pilots claim operations up to altitudes of 55k ft in combat configuration and I mean to remember that in one source it was said the the Typhoon is able to operate up to such altitudes without reheat. Gavin Parker C/O of the No.11(F) sqn and Glenn Torpy the former CiC of the RAF claimed that the aircraft is often operated at altitudes between 45k and 50 k ft (even in the strike role). That doesn't negate Mr. Penrise's claim, however.
I'll seek for the links if required.



Doesn't mean it will achieve its best performance there.



Well the truth is there have been two reports about such encounters both of which are unofficial and not confirmed. The first encounter was reported by an anonymus source supposley from the No.17(R) sqn which deployed to China Lake in 2006 for operation High Rider. It has been claimed some DACT was performed and that the Typhoon did well in WVR, while the F-22 dominated BVR. Dozer seems to have dismissed it (at least officially), while the UK MoD refused to comment and have ordered that the topic won't be brought up again.
The link you refer to was a second encounter during the No.11F sqn US deployment in 2008 and the poster is supposley an USAF man, not a Typhoon pilot. He claims to quote RAF Typhoon pilots however. This is by no means official or confirmed either.



If any encounters really happened and it has to be taken into account that the PIRATE in its early form is more a FLIR, with limited to no IRST functions, ablbeit this is due to change by a software update. Don't no if this has been realised by now.

Might have to do with the fact that most of the very few reports, or should I say pilots side notes date back at a time when the PIRATE wasn't operational.