The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft [Archive]

Rich

May 15th, 2007, 06:48 AM

Its a mystery to me too. Do you think its down to economic reasons? The Euro being so strong and the dollar being very weak at the moment?

I think without question the weak dollar has something to do with it.
But mostly I think it was just the wrong fighter at the wrong time and its biting them in the rear, even tho the airplane will have a successful service like in the French air forces. The rafale doesn't have the LO of the EF, nor is it as capable in the ATA. It has very little, if any, improvement over Yank legacy strike fighters. Least of all the F-15 SE.

Tho as a penetration fighter bomber at low altitudes I would give the Rafale fairly high marks. The Spectra EW suite is very good and the airplane comes into its own as a carrier strike fighter.

I think most potential customers are more concerned with French dedication toward bloc upgrades. I cant say I understand that because the Rafale is going to be the backbone of their fighter force for decades to come.

On balance however its not a particularly fast airplane, or have anything special in combat range , "compared to the SE that beat it our in Korea and Singapore", nor does it have remarkable LO performance. Even its great agility is questionable as a 21'st century asset because in todays fighter environment what are the chances of tail chasing, up close and personal dogfights? Extreme agility has really lost its relevance. And its ability to super cruise with any kind of payload is questionable.

Its biggest drawback is its radar performance, "I dont know has that been addressed"? In making the fighter light Dassault sacrificed radar performance.

So with customers who need ATA performance the Rafale has to compete with the EF, while customers most interested in strike performance the Rafale has to compete with the F-35, or, legacy strike fighters including their own M-2000.

The argument can be made that the fighter is perfect for French needs and this fact alone makes it a success as a design. The truth is however this Dassault made, heavily Govt. subsidized, aircraft really needed to be sold on the export market to make it viable. I suspect it will be the last All-French fighter because when compared to its predecessors it has failed miserably as a commercial venture.

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 06:54 AM

From what i could gather there probabily were technologic issues for Rafale export failure too.

Even if i had to read between the lines of some Assemblee Nationale documentation, it seems to me that the SPECTRA suite and OSF weren't part of the proposed package while there was NO AESA available to potentila customers.

For the price, a Mirage 2000-9 was a better deal.

No Spectra and OSF offered? Sounds a bit unlikely to me. You can't sell a combat aircraft without EWS. Degrading it is another thing, but excluding it is totally senseless.

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 06:56 AM

Are there any efforts to offer a special export version of the Rafale with e.g. the uprated M88 engines, AESA-radar and "internationalized" weaponry and avionics then?

A export version designated Rafale Mk.2 was once proposed, but was canceled due to the lack of funding. Dassault now offers the Rafale F2/3 as they are used by the AdA and MN. AESA and stronger engines integration is however offered and if a customer is willed to pay they would also integrate other weapons. The Rafale is theoretically able to use all NATO weapons.

Waylander

May 15th, 2007, 07:02 AM

swerve

May 15th, 2007, 07:04 AM

... So with customers who need ATA performance the Rafale has to compete with the EF, while customers most interested in strike performance the Rafale has to compete with the F-35, or, legacy strike fighters including their own M-2000.....

No competition with the Mirage 2000 any more. Out of production for over a year. Line closed, no longer marketed.

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 07:12 AM

The rafale doesn't have the LO of the EF, nor is it as capable in the ATA. It has very little, if any, improvement over Yank legacy strike fighters. Least of all the F-15 SE.

That's not true. Rafale has even more LO features than the Typhoon. You have to see the overall platform not single technologies. Rafale provides full sensor fusion, a navigational suit which most other fighters can only dream of, comprehensive EO systems, an EWS which is more comprehensive and advanced than for most other fighters and an increadible range/payload capability especially if you consider the aircraft's size and weight.

I think most potential customers are more concerned with French dedication toward bloc upgrades. I cant say I understand that because the Rafale is going to be the backbone of their fighter force for decades to come.

Most customers depend on "block" upgrades. This is also true for the F/A-18E/F, F-22A, Eurofighter etc.

On balance however its not a particularly fast airplane, or have anything special in combat range , "compared to the SE that beat it our in Korea and Singapore", nor does it have remarkable LO performance. Even its great agility is questionable as a 21'st century asset because in todays fighter environment what are the chances of tail chasing, up close and personal dogfights? Extreme agility has really lost its relevance. And its ability to super cruise with any kind of payload is questionable.

Rafale is no alround covered stealth aircraft like the F-22 or F-35, but it has significantly reduce radar & heat signature, along with LPI for its RF emissions. Its operating radius is up to 1800 km+ for long range CAP and deep strike penetration missions! And even in the 21st century dogifghts can occur. It is interesting how people dismiss agility for one aircraft, but not for other. All fighters which were conceptually designed throughout the cold war were designed for high agility this includes Eurofighter, Rafale, Raptor as well as the not productionized russian Su-47 and MiG MFI.
And a speed of mach 1.6 with 3 drop tanks or mach 1.8 with a load of AAMs is nothing what I would call slow. According to a french navy pilot he took the aircraft to 12200 m within 2 minutes and then supercruised while loaded with a centreline drop tank and 4 AAMs.

Its biggest drawback is its radar performance, "I dont know has that been addressed"? In making the fighter light Dassault sacrificed radar performance.

It's indeed a disadvantage which is adressed with the proposed AESA upgrade. The RBE2 performance is not that bad as often alleged. In fact it has a similar range to the Mirages 2000-5 RDY-2. This radar performes better than the AN/APG-68 in any version and than the AN/APG-65. And don't forget that range performance isn't all alone. LPI. ECCM, effective multiple target track/engagement etc. are all important factors as well. And the Rafale was designed for network centric warfare operations.

So with customers who need ATA performance the Rafale has to compete with the EF, while customers most interested in strike performance the Rafale has to compete with the F-35, or, legacy strike fighters including their own M-2000.

Many platforms are offered for purposes even for which they are not perfectly suited. Japan for example requires a fighter and the americans try to sell them the F/A-18E/F and F-35. BTW the Mirage 2000 isn't in production anymore and therefore no concurrent. Dassault offered the M2k mainly there were they haven't seen chances to sell the Rafale because of its higher costs.

The truth is however this Dassault made, heavily Govt. subsidized, aircraft really needed to be sold on the export market to make it viable. I suspect it will be the last All-French fighter because when compared to its predecessors it has failed miserably as a commercial venture.

The Rafale is still at an early stage of its service carreer so there is enough time left to sell the aircraft, though it won't become easier in the future with new fighters on the road.

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 07:14 AM

How far goes this theoretically capability to use NATO weapons? Which weapons apart from the french ones are really integrated?

If a customer needs to spend extra money for final integration of weapons like AIM-120, AIM-9, several bombs, etc. this could be part of the reasons for the export problems.

LGBs such as GBU-10/12/24 are or will be used by the french forces them self. Rafales hardpoints are fully NATO-weapon compatible as its MIL STD 1760 weapon interface busses are.

Waylander

May 15th, 2007, 07:16 AM

Ok, so the wiring is there and several bombs are fully integrated.
So a potential customer would not need much time/money to fully integrate other NATO AAMs.

Thanks for that. :)

Falstaff

May 15th, 2007, 08:10 AM

Well, in that case I don't understand why the French don't offer a fully "internationalized" Rafale. The market is pretty saturated and competition is hard.

Perhaps all western European fighter manufacturers should bundle their activities and offer all three planes (EF, Rafale and Gripen) for different roles. There already are a lot of connections between those companies.
EF as air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack role, Rafale as superior ground attack fighter with good ATA capabilities, Gripen as a cheaper, easy to maintain multi role fighter. A very sophisticated range of weapons would be offered if all companies put their heads together.
A lot of work would have to be done to reach more commonality between these three but I think a lot could be done in this respect. A common sensor suite (in variants according to role), cockpit and e.g. the EJ 200 for the next gen. gripen for a start.
A common marketing, training and support infrastructure as a fundament and coordinated upgrade paths for all three.
Just imagine the possibilities: Rafales as replacements for the German Tornados, EF and Gripen sold together as a Hi-Lo-Mix, full service packages according to the customers' needs for all requirements.

I guess I'm just dreaming...

BKNO

May 15th, 2007, 09:09 AM

? "On balance however its not a particularly fast airplane, or have anything special in combat range,"

It is proven to go over 1.000 nm mark in a "typical" strike configuration.

That's 4 AAMs, 2 X 1 300 kg SCALP and 3 X 2.000 l external tanks.

For that matter the strike mission profile would be flown Hi-lo-Hi, at "typical" cruising speed of 840 kt with a red line at 950 kts and this is more warload 300 nm further away than L-M own figures for the F-35 in a Hi-Hi-Hi mission flown between 30.000 and 40.400 ft.

Automatic Terrain Following mode is possible in BOTH passive and Active (radar) modes, at 300 and 100 ft respectively. Only the F-15 K does better.

More to it, Dassault keep giving it for M 1.8 but this is its operational Mach, SUSTAINED DASH is M 2.0.

Once its weapon launched it is CLEARED for M 1.6 with ALL types of external tanks, the 2.000 lincluded, 2.000 l are limited to 5.5Gs (Full/empty), the 1.250 l to 9G (empty).

Gs structural limits are 9 Gs + 90% GUARANTEED by manufacturer.

? "Even its great agility is questionable as a 21'st century asset because in todays fighter environment what are the chances of tail chasing, up close and personal dogfights?"

Been able to pull Gs is NOT only an asset in terms of close range combat.

In AdA/MN service, BVR tactics are devided over Rafale turning capabilties, "lofting" AAMs, turning hard and still retain speed are more than a necessary asset, it allows for larger engagement and desengagement envelops than been limited to 7.0/7.5gs or even 9 G for that matter.

The Rafale can pull 11.5 G going throught its "Soft" stops.

More to it this ALSO reduces SIGNIFICANTLY AAMs NEZs which are dependent on targets velocities and vectors, it will grow in size if you dont maneuver and keep coming at it, shrink if you bug out and is NOT a static bubble.

? " Extreme agility has really lost its relevance."

WRONG. All our Air Defense pilots tell the opposite story, and believe me since the entry into service of the Rafale there is a LOT of highly qualified people in a permanent brain storm over this issue.

This argument was once brought forward after US simultaion of BVR engagements untill they actually got trashed senseless by the IAF who were puting the emphasis on high-G maneuvres in BVR engagements.

No the Rafale community is confronted to a "cultural" shock, paerticularly the "Greens" (attack) who spent much of their time below 500 ft and 5.5 Gs.

So much so that in actual squadron service, the emphasis is now put to A2A tactics at 90%, this is the result of the increasing ease of use of the aircrafts in A2G, being FULLY capable of engaging 6 A2G targets SIMULTANEOUSLY and do the A2A work at the SAME time.

THIS was fully demonstrated, validated and reported byt the 1/7 pilots during/after the 2007 NATO TLP (Tactical Leadership Programme).

Now it is a well known FACT that Mirage 2000 or Rafales can launch MICAs in "Fire & Forget" mode and still expect a 75% kill rate.

If you prefer to stay 25% to 75% longer inside your opponent engagement envelop (or dont have the kinetic energy/maneuvrability to get out of it) it's your prerogative, all i can say is that you'll get killed FAST for thinking WRONG.

Rich "No Spectra and OSF offered? Sounds a bit unlikely to me. You can't sell a combat aircraft without EWS. Degrading it is another thing, but excluding it is totally senseless."

It doesnt mean NO defense suite, that of the Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 comes to mind.

EXTRACT: Ainsi, un radar air-air à plus long rayon d'action est destiné à pallier pour certaines aviations l'absence d'Awacs, ou encore une furtivité moindre du fait de l'absence de capteurs OSF ou de systèmes d'autoprotection comme le Spectra.

Audition du général Richard Wolsztynski, chef d'état-major de l'armée de l'air, sur le projet de loi de finances pour 2006 (n° 2540)

CONSTITUTION DU 4 OCTOBRE 1958

ONZIÈME LÉGISLATURE

Enregistré à la Présidence de l'Assemblée nationale le 11 octobre 2000.

AVIS

PRÉSENTÉ

AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION DE LA DÉFENSE NATIONALE ET DES FORCES ARMÉES(1),

SUR LE PROJET DE loi de finances pour 2001 (n° 2585)

TANSLATION: So a longer ranged air-to-air radar is meant to compensate for the absence of AWACS in the case of some Air Forces, or even a lower stealthiness due to the absence of OSF or the auroprotection system like SPECTRA.

-----It is taken within the contest of the failure in the export of Rafale and these comments were made by général Richard Wolsztynski, AdA Head of Staff...

Waylander "If a customer needs to spend extra money for final integration of weapons like AIM-120, AIM-9, several bombs, etc. this could be part of the reasons for the export problems."

Another quote: "_ Par ailleurs, certains des développements proposés pourraient profiter un jour aux appareils français."

TANSLATION: By the way, many of the proposed developpement MIGHT beneficiate one day to the French (in French service) aircrafts.

There are MANY different issues with Rafale systems.

One noticeable is the absence of integration of the Damocles pod to the fleet, Damocles was flight-tested and integrated to Dassault test aircrafts, even Carrier tested on CDG.

But because AdA already have a significant laser designation capabilties, (plus a choices to make as to what they could afford at once), the priority was given to the integration of AASM which doesnt requiers laser illumination.

Damocled is part of the F3 standard due to enter service in 2008 but is already available for export version.

>>>>>

Very relevant point, expecially because Singapore made their choise after the US Senat cleared the full list of weapons they asked for...

Scorpion82 "And a speed of mach 1.6 with 3 drop tanks or mach 1.8 with a load of AAMs is nothing what I would call slow."

Well i tend to desagree with your figures here, althoug Rafale design was originaly that of the M 2.2 ACX, requierements were for an Ops Mach on 1.8.

The M 1.6 "Supercrusie" one was given by SNECMA in the event of a simulated upgrade with M88-3 but never validated in flight-testing.

The most likely figure is 1.4 with 6 AAMs and 1 X 1.250l, the difference in the number of AAMs is due to the actual MN/AdA policies on sparing seeker life-span.

Rafales are rarely seen carrying more than 4 wehn the actual AAM load is 8.

The 1.8 M is in effect the "Operational" speed at which the AAM release was cleared, not that even if not many people realise this, most conventional designs have similar aerodynamic/kinetic limits, including the Typhoon and the Sus, generally 0.2 to 0.5 Mach lower than the Max designed Mach to the exeption of the Mirage 2000 which was designed for launch at Max Mach.

NONE of them can launch at DASH speed or their systems have to be overided by the pilots (unlikely) and they'll take the risk of an accident.

Many speed limitation are de-facto that of the weapon manufacturers and their corresponding clearences on types.

Falstaff Well, in that case I don't understand why the French don't offer a fully "internationalized" Rafale. The market is pretty saturated and competition is hard.

The politics of France are based around the preservation of our won design/production and technologic capabilties.

Other european countrie chosed another way but the FACT is that Dassault is the only European manufacturer to have designed/produced a sery of fully indigenous fighters since 1955 or so.

This is part of France's industrial assets.

Falstaff Perhaps all western European fighter manufacturers should bundle their activities and offer all three planes (EF, Rafale and Gripen) for different roles.

SAAB are doing rather well in their own niches that of a lightweight/cheaper fighter, as for eurofighter i just cant ASEE what would be the advantage for France to go along with them,. there is NOTHING to gain for French manufacturers who can consistantly do better at a lower cost.

Falstaff There already are a lot of connections between those companies.
EF as air superiority fighter with secondary ground attack role, Rafale as superior ground attack fighter with good ATA capabilities, Gripen as a cheaper, easy to maintain multi role fighter.

Not too good for a competitive market.

I'd rather see Rafale fail on the export market than any form of collaboration which would involve a loss of capabilties in the long term.

Dassault are doing JUST FINE, the military market is only secondary to them since they are top in the Falcon-like market.

Falstaff A very sophisticated range of weapons would be offered if all companies put their heads together.

looks like you need to refresh your infos on what Rafale is scheduled to be cleared with...

For the time being: AASM, LGBs, Exocet, SCALP, ASMP, MICA IR/EM, METEOR.

Falstaff A common sensor suite (in variants according to role), cockpit and e.g. the EJ 200 for the next gen. gripen for a start.

I dont think this is a realistic approach to the issue expecially from the diverse manufacturers PoVs...

Falstaff A common marketing, training and support infrastructure as a fundament and coordinated upgrade paths for all three.

thats part of the diverse manufacturers packages as well...

Falstaff Just imagine the possibilities: Rafales as replacements for the German Tornados, EF and Gripen sold together as a Hi-Lo-Mix, full service packages according to the customers' needs for all requirements.

Rafale replaces 7 types in MN/AdA service and according to our pilots there is NO need for a Typhoon or a Gripen.

Falstaff I guess I'm just dreaming...

Yep! Quiet loud...

Falstaff

May 15th, 2007, 09:18 AM

I'm afraid I don't have the time to answer but just one thing: the first three quotes are not mine... Perhaps you could fix (edit) it.

BKNO

May 15th, 2007, 09:41 AM

Done! Sorry for the mix-up... :rolleyes:

Rich It has very little, if any, improvement over Yank legacy strike fighters. Least of all the F-15 SE.

I very strongly suggest that you start informing yourself...

Rafale makes a cold meal of all "Legacy" fighters and is more than on par with Typhoon, it actually can out-turn/ out-accelerate a Mirage 2000 in DRY power only, the 2000 is the very aircraft giving the Falcon a serious run for its money.

THIS according to their pilots and BTW NOT the light C AdA model, the M with 650 kg extra weight and the old fashion avionics and MDPU.

The MDPU fited to the F1 is that of the Mirage 2000-5F (2084 XRI ) that of the F2 is 50 time more powerful and it have 18 of them instead of 3...

We're going to have FUN informing you guys....

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 10:05 AM

Automatic Terrain Following mode is possible in BOTH passive and Active (radar) modes, at 300 and 100 ft respectively. Only the F-15 K does better.

F-15K do better? The K has not even the TFR pod and I never heared about TRN for the Eagle. There're other aircraft with compareable or better terrain following capabilities.

Well i tend to desagree with your figures here, althoug Rafale design was originaly that of the M 2.2 ACX, requierements were for an Ops Mach on 1.8.

The M 1.6 "Supercrusie" one was given by SNECMA in the event of a simulated upgrade with M88-3 but never validated in flight-testing.

The most likely figure is 1.4 with 6 AAMs and 1 X 1.250l, the difference in the number of AAMs is due to the actual MN/AdA policies on sparing seeker life-span.

Ehmm did you really read AND understand what I wrote? I doubt so, please do it again!

The 1.8 M is in effect the "Operational" speed at which the AAM release was cleared, not that even if not many people realise this, most conventional designs have similar aerodynamic/kinetic limits, including the Typhoon and the Sus, generally 0.2 to 0.5 Mach lower than the Max designed Mach to the exeption of the Mirage 2000 which was designed for launch at Max Mach.

Typhoon's design goal was mach 2 and this speed was already achieved with less powerfull RB199 MK104D and can even be achieved with 6 AAMs. Just for info.

rjmaz1

May 15th, 2007, 10:10 AM

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 11:49 AM

Yes i definitely believe the Rafale came at the wrong time.

Anyone who wants a cheap fighter buys an F-16, anyone who wants an expensive fighter buys a Eurofighter. The Rafale sits awkwardly inbetween.

Dassault should have kept going with the Mirage 4000 IMO that would have came out a decade before the Rafale and it would have been the best aircraft in the world at that time. The french could have sold it to the Eurofighter customers if they let them help manufacturer it.

BKNO whats your opinion on this? Is the Rafale similar to the Mirage 4000, The Rafale is a bit smaller and lighter, do they use similar engines?

Eh the Mirage 4000 is a completly different and older aircraft. And don't think it would be cheaper or that one of the EF partners would have bought it. The Mirage 4000 was more a kind of heavy competor for the Mirage 2000. Rafale has its own pros and cons and might fit in where others don't fit in.

BKNO

May 15th, 2007, 12:24 PM

Remenber the famous "The F/A-18E/F Super Hornet:A Test Pilot Dispels The Myths"???

Well i have to say that since i am into aviation, since roughtly 40 years or so, i have never seen as much mythology writen about an aircraft than in the case of Rafale.

For a start with many US/UK/non-French writers LOVES to compare it to legacy fighters in terms of performances, forgeting that the actual NATO-Europe bemchmark have been the Mirage 2000, NOT the F-15/F16...

To summerise: A Rafale will out-accelerate, out-turn, out-climb everything bar the Typhoon and perhaps F-22 in all flight regimes at up to M 1.8.

At Farnborough i have SEEN Dassault chief test pilot Yves Kerherve turning a HIGH-AoA 360* descending spiral on the M-01 (after climbing vertical from take-off) in less time than it took the Su to pass a Cobra.

Every airfan were amazed at the performance of the Russian aircraft but quiet franckly operationaly that of Kerherve makes more sense and is achieveable by an average squadron pilot any time...

Typhoon and Rafale have a similar corner speed but Rafale have a better instantaneous turn rate by a few degrees.

Weither the TVC equiped Raptor can pass a Cobra maneuvre when flown by a top flight-test pilot during airshows, in operations it is limited to 26* AoA.

Rafale Max AoA in ALL configurations have been demonstrated at 32*.

In Operation it will be software limited to 30* AoA.

During flight-testing 100* AoA and negative speed of 40 kt have been reached and this WITHOUT TVC.

So when someone tells you it doesn't have TVC you can reply that it doesn't NEED TO (have them).

Here are some of our pilots comments to make the point stick...
http://img70.imageshack.us/img70/6566/advantagerafalevb2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

On the radar...

"I think our RBE2 electronic scanning array is very good indicates Lieutenant Le Bars.

Against a F-15 or a F-16, two aircraft types that have enormous radar cross-section because of their massive ain-intakes, our detection ranges are excellent".

Maneuvrability:

A Mirage 2000 pilot: "We have to select full afterburner as soon as the fight begins while the Rafale pilot can throtle back and even remain in full DRY, military power.

The Rafale pilot: "The Rafale offering better sustained turn rates than the F-16 at low, medium and high levels.

Simulation of "Cobra" and "HERBST" manoeuvres...

http://www.onera.fr/cahierdelabo/english/amil4.htm#

These combat maneuvres have been simulated before been flight-tested at Istres.

So of course we're going to read anything from "its perfs are no better than a F-16" to "hypermaneuvrability is obsolete". Yeah! Sure....

A little story: During CdG first deployement in the Golf, they were pitted vs a raid of Saudi tornasdos escorted by F-152.

Scenario 1 vs 2 in the Saudi favour. Result? All killed for ZERO loss.

And we're talking the UNDER-DEVELOPED F-1 with avionics the generation of the Mirage 2000-5, limited SPECTRA defense suite, bugs in the radar (YEP these too for a while), NO MICA IR but still the old Magic II, NO gun integrated at the time, NO OSF and all of that on the Marine version carrying 600 kg extra weight and the M-88-2 E1.

If you guys were caring about reading about it a little you'd see for yourself that there arent many aircrafts (NOT even Typhoon) which are going to make the grade in front of a fully developed F-3 or post F-3 for that matter...

After assymetric combat mock-up vs Italian Typhoons these under-developed Rafale M F1 pilots were saying that their aircrafts compared very favourably to Typhoon T1.

I think that appart for giving more specific infos i can't bother saying more than this because anything less than reality is what it is a Myth.

>>>>>

Besides the multimode capability this included ensuring the radar was resistant to electromagnetic spikes from nuclear blasts as well as being able to withstand the shock of a carrier landing. The radar also had to be 30% lighter than that of the Mirage 2000-5 and occupy half the volume. "We have achieved this,"

DATE:09/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
RBE2 radar gets ahead
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51952/rbe2-radar-gets-ahead.html

BTW The Rafale outperforms the Mirage 4000 by a fair margin, the 4000 top speed doesn't change this fact, it was heavier, had a lower TWR ratio and a fixed canard surface.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/passion/avions/dassault-militaires/mirage-4000.html

In fact it was never a French armement agency programme but Dassault own private venture and was more of a technology demonstrator than anything else.

Scorpion82 F-15K do better? The K has not even the TFR pod and I never heared about TRN for the Eagle. There're other aircraft with compareable or better terrain following capabilities.

Yes it DOES. Payload as well as range and also maximum low-level speed of 800 kts vs 750.

Scorpion82 Typhoon's design goal was mach 2 and this speed was already achieved with less powerfull RB199 MK104D and can even be achieved with 6 AAMs. Just for info.

Same in the case of Rafale which was the FIRST of the two to demonstrate a SUSTAINED M 2.0, but you dont distinguish between operational and DASH here, which was my point...

DASH is Mach Max, Operational speed is that at which the aircraft can be operationaly used in combat representative situations.

If you caree looking at the famous Typhoon website you will read this just like i did.

Since they are in the buziness of carrying AND launching weapons the Typhoon DASH speed and its operational speed are TWO different Mach limits.

DASH with the maximum number of AAMs doesn't mean weapon clearence and we're still awaitnig Typhoon M 2.0 AAM clearence after trial. Just for info.

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 01:28 PM

Typhoon and Rafale have a similar corner speed but Rafale have a better instantaneous turn rate by a few degrees.

So you have exact ITR for Typhoon? I doubt so. An figures flowting around are assumptions. The only thing known for sure is, that it is >30°/sec. Given the more unstable nature which results in higher g-onset which is important for ITR I tend to say they are equal, but for sure not that the Rafales ITR is superior by few degrees. I could however imagine that its STR might be slightly better, though that's a guess and not more.

Weither the TVC equiped Raptor can pass a Cobra maneuvre when flown by a top flight-test pilot during airshows, in operations it is limited to 26* AoA.

Ehm the various manoeuvres shown at Langley were performed by 27th FS pilots not by test pilots. I think you are misinformed here.

If you guys were caring about reading about it a little you'd see for yourself that there arent many aircrafts (NOT even Typhoon) which are going to make the grade in front of a fully developed F-3 or post F-3 for that matter...

Ehm other aircraft further develope as well. Though I agree that the Rafale is going to be superior to most other fighters, I wouldn't bet on it to be superior to all other platforms (I know you exclude F-22 here).

After assymetric combat mock-up vs Italian Typhoons these under-developed Rafale M F1 pilots were saying that their aircrafts compared very favourably to Typhoon T1.

I know that statement but it is very fishy and says not much, except that they weren't bad at all. The italian comment was much similar and says as much as the french one. Note that the Typhoons being flown were block 2 IOC, meaning not more developed than the F1 which are already FOC. Due to the lack of detailed info and the inaccurate statements I would say lets wait some time until both types meat more often.

Yes it DOES. Payload as well as range and also maximum low-level speed of 800 kts vs 750.

That doesn't mean anything in terms of ride quality and low level terrain following at all. The F-15s aerodynamics are far from being suited for such conditions and the F-15K has no AN/AAQ-13.

Same in the case of Rafale which was the FIRST of the two to demonstrate a SUSTAINED M 2.0, but you dont distinguish between operational and DASH here, which was my point...

The problem is the achieved speed for Typhoon wasn't accuratly disclosed as dash or sustained. Its first mach 2 flight in late 1997 was probably dash but this was already achieved with much weaker engines. I see no reason why the aircraft shouldn't be able to fly mach 2 sustained. But its operationally not relevant. Typically the aircraft will accelerate to mach 1.6 - 1.8 for BVR missile launch.

DASH is Mach Max, Operational speed is that at which the aircraft can be operationaly used in combat representative situations.

I'm well aware about that.

If you caree looking at the famous Typhoon website you will read this just like i did.

And if you would differ between officially published data and more or less free accessable ones you should know that the manufacturer does not every time state the aircraft's max performance, but design goal...

Since they are in the buziness of carrying AND launching weapons the Typhoon DASH speed and its operational speed are TWO different Mach limits.

For sure as it is the case for every aircraft. The problem is no one knows the exact speeds for the Typhoon. The only thing which is know is that it achieves more than mach 2 (demonstrated and confirmed by EADS) and that it is able to achive mach 2 with 6 AAMs.

DASH with the maximum number of AAMs doesn't mean weapon clearence and we're still awaitnig Typhoon M 2.0 AAM clearence after trial. Just for info.

I agree, but don't expect all data being published.

Rich

May 15th, 2007, 05:41 PM

Rafale makes a cold meal of all "Legacy" fighters and is more than on par with Typhoon, it actually can out-turn/ out-accelerate a Mirage 2000 in DRY power only, the 2000 is the very aircraft giving the Falcon a serious run for its money.

I said legacy "strike" fighters. Exactly what does the Rafale give you over the strike Eagle as a "strike" aircraft?

I'm not talking about air show performances here.

Or do you think we dont make fighters more manueverable because we cant?

WRONG. All our Air Defense pilots tell the opposite story, and believe me since the entry into service of the Rafale there is a LOT of highly qualified people in a permanent brain storm over this issue.

This argument was once brought forward after US simultaion of BVR engagements untill they actually got trashed senseless by the IAF who were puting the emphasis on high-G maneuvres in BVR engagements.

The F-series aircraft in India were set up to lose by the very people flying them. I remember choking when I first heard USAF was going to take F-15s over there, while at the same time they were screaming for more Raptors. You didn't need a house to fall on your head to figure out what was going to happen during Cope India. Youve been reading to many blogs Pal.

Be that as it may I have no problem calling the SU-30 a good aircraft, or the Mirage-2000, or the Rafale. Under some conditions the SU-30, Rafale, EF, can outperform the 30+ yo legacy designs we still have flying. Tho they will have a serious problem when taking on the combined resources of the USAF and USN. Most of all if facing the F-22 and eventually the F-35.

And back to the Rafale, which is what this thread is about, does this aircraft's incremental increases really justify the huge R&D costs born by the French taxpayer, in what is the equivalent of a Govt. sponsored defense welfare program? Was it worth it?

Who are these "highly qualified people"? And what exactly was/is your position in the defense industry? This is the third time Ive asked you this, and the third time youv avoided answering. Avoid it again and we'll have to assume your full of hot air.

Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

Scorpion82

May 15th, 2007, 06:24 PM

And back to the Rafale, which is what this thread is about, does this aircraft's incremental increases really justify the huge R&D costs born by the French taxpayer, in what is the equivalent of a Govt. sponsored defense welfare program? Was it worth it?

IMO yes. There was no alternative at all. The entire Rafale programme costs about 33 bln €. That includes developement, testing, production and associated logistics etc.. Of course a lot of money for a single country, but the programme provides economical benefits for the country as well.

Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

I think that was answered more than one time. Please reread the answers above once again.

And for more information I suggest to ask the single nations or Dassault:onfloorl:

BKNO

May 16th, 2007, 04:53 AM

Rich I said legacy "strike" fighters. Exactly what does the Rafale give you over the strike Eagle as a "strike" aircraft?

Carrying 1.5 its own weight, been able to ENGAGE 6 targets simultaneously in BOTH A2a and A2G (MICA/AASM) YOU are more than welcome to SHOW us ANY US aircraft in service or even future with this capability.

+ been more maneuvrable in all configuration, a lot more steathier EM/IR and a lot less observable because smaller and lighter by a FAIR margin.

Rich I'm not talking about air show performances here.

Could YOU tell the difference?

You speak about ACMs without having any idea of what energy is as a factor...

Rich Or do you think we dont make fighters more manueverable because we cant?

Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that you CANT, weight matters a LOT, inertia is also a b£%$&* and in view of L-M cluster-sized design FCUK-UPS with F-35 doing better than Dassault with the same sotware is not in your agenda.

Rich The F-series aircraft in India were set up to lose by the very people flying them.

I'm talking asbout the Israeli Air Force, the world's benchmark...

Rich Was it worth it?

Rafale cost us LESS than a Typhoon in BOTH developement and unit cost.

Rich Who are these "highly qualified people"? And what exactly was/is your position in the defense industry?

AdA pilots and DGA analysts for a starter.

Rich This is the third time Ive asked you this, and the third time youv avoided answering. Avoid it again and we'll have to assume your full of hot air.

I'm NOT about to disclose my military record in the internet for the stake of pulling ranks, I'm past this age mate,i rather prefer to inform myself properly...

Only reading what you post make me think that you're not in the loop and believe that everything you read in the web is validated by real life experience. It is certainly not so.

For a starter what i post is the result of DGA studies and 1/7 squadron pilots reports, if you can comprehend what it means in term of operational values.

Rich Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

Apparently i might just prove you wrong...

http://www.dev-export.com/detailsafrique.php?numafrique=414

I think i have alrweady given some proper explainations to this question, particularly in view of the fact that these were official.

As opposed to what you might think i DONT do blogs, i leave this to guys who are happy posting copy/paste stuff they can gather in the web.

I i need an info i'll start with official sources such as DoD/MoD/DGA and in the case of French programmes the best place to start is that of the Assemblee Nationale finishing with squadrons websites.

http://www.ec17provence.org/

Like this one for example...

Rich

May 16th, 2007, 05:54 AM

Carrying 1.5 its own weight, been able to ENGAGE 6 targets simultaneously in BOTH A2a and A2G (MICA/AASM) YOU are more than welcome to SHOW us ANY US aircraft in service or even future with this capability.

+ been more maneuvrable in all configuration, a lot more steathier EM/IR and a lot less observable because smaller and lighter by a FAIR margin.

I'm looking into this. I dont have time to research right now. I'll say this however, if the Rafale is out-radared it doesn't matter what it can track. Anyway, from the beginning, Ive called it a nice little ATG airplane.

That's not true. Rafale has even more LO features than the Typhoon.

That is until you talk to Typhoon people who say the EF has a RCS of 0.05~01 m2, compared to 0.1~0.3 m2 for Rafale.

Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that you CANT, weight matters a LOT, inertia is also a b£%$&* and in view of L-M cluster-sized design FCUK-UPS with F-35 doing better than Dassault with the same sotware is not in your agenda.

Here your just being ignorant. No wonder you were put on the bench for 3 days. The F-35 wasn't even in the discussion but thanks anyway for telling us what a disaster the design is going to be. Maybe you should tell the dozen other nations who have signed onto the program already, and doing so have bypassed the Rafale. <smirk>

I'm talking asbout the Israeli Air Force, the world's benchmark...

Benchmark to who? And they fly the same aircraft as we do.

Rafale cost us LESS than a Typhoon in BOTH developement and unit cost.

Until you talk to EF people. Fact is they are both "about" 50 m per copy airplanes.

AdA pilots and DGA analysts for a starter.

Who?? As in "names"? Not that your word isnt golden here:onfloorl:

I'm NOT about to disclose my military record in the internet for the stake of pulling ranks, I'm past this age mate,i rather prefer to inform myself properly...

I thought so.

And your sale to Libya? Well I dont read French. I dont even like crepes. Last I heard, and your article is from May 2006 "I can read that much", is that both Govt.'s are denying that sale will go forward.

Bottom line is nobody has ordered the aircraft yet even tho its been available for a couple years. Thats "no-body", as in "zero" customers.

And you call the F-35 a disaster?:onfloorl:

Scorpion82

May 16th, 2007, 07:13 AM

That is until you talk to Typhoon people who say the EF has a RCS of 0.05~01 m2, compared to 0.1~0.3 m2 for Rafale.

That quote was from me not BKNO. ;)
From the external viewable features the Rafale employs more of them. I personally think the Rafales overall RCS and IR signature are lower than that of the Typhoon, but I'm not going to say how much. This is a sensitive matter and exact data are classified. All data floating around are more or less nice guesses based on hints from the industry or customers. Let me say I'm sceptical about "Typhoon people" speaking about Rafales RCS, from where can they no it? Its of course the same the other way round! My assessment is that their frontal RCS is more or less similar, but the Rafales overall signatures are lower. How much nobody knows for sure.

Until you talk to EF people. Fact is they are both "about" 50 m per copy airplanes.

If you compare the prices the french pay for F3 Rafales (3rd batch) and germans or austrians pay for tranche 2 you come to the conclusion that Rafale costs about 54 mio € and Typhoon ~60-62 mio €. That is a fact, but it's of course necessary to look what's being included in these costs and there we have few to no sight in.

jaffo4011

May 16th, 2007, 08:47 AM

I said legacy "strike" fighters. Exactly what does the Rafale give you over the strike Eagle as a "strike" aircraft?

I'm not talking about air show performances here.

Or do you think we dont make fighters more manueverable because we cant?

The F-series aircraft in India were set up to lose by the very people flying them. I remember choking when I first heard USAF was going to take F-15s over there, while at the same time they were screaming for more Raptors. You didn't need a house to fall on your head to figure out what was going to happen during Cope India. Youve been reading to many blogs Pal.

Be that as it may I have no problem calling the SU-30 a good aircraft, or the Mirage-2000, or the Rafale. Under some conditions the SU-30, Rafale, EF, can outperform the 30+ yo legacy designs we still have flying. Tho they will have a serious problem when taking on the combined resources of the USAF and USN. Most of all if facing the F-22 and eventually the F-35.

And back to the Rafale, which is what this thread is about, does this aircraft's incremental increases really justify the huge R&D costs born by the French taxpayer, in what is the equivalent of a Govt. sponsored defense welfare program? Was it worth it?

Who are these "highly qualified people"? And what exactly was/is your position in the defense industry? This is the third time Ive asked you this, and the third time youv avoided answering. Avoid it again and we'll have to assume your full of hot air.

Oh and one more thing, for the 5'th time, why has the Rafale faired so poorly on the export market?

i think the rafales main problem with exports has been the typhoon and its marketing.without the typhoon it would have gained sales from pro european countries but the typhoon's makers are equally as european and the aircraft is on balance perceived as being more capable at this time.

in respect of the quote of the americans not designing more manoueverable aircraft'on purpose',i do find this pretty funny.the makers of all the aircraft set out their designs a long time ago and all of them set out to make them to the best of their ability,im sure.

the f22 was touted by numerous sources as being the most manoueverable aircraft of the next generation with its thrust vectoring etc.it obviously hasnt turned out that way in respect of the superior performance of the tyhoon and rafale in that aspect.

the f22 has advantages in some other areas but you cant just change the rules when your favourite plane doesnt match up as well as you'd hoped!

i think that the western powers are lucky to still have several manufacturing nations to produce the varying aircraft types still available which can only serve to increase competitivness and performance of the f22,tyhoon,rafale and gripen(which is unfairly neglected in these forums and which i would have liked to have seen replace the harrier and jaguar in british service)

BKNO

May 16th, 2007, 10:10 AM

Rich I'm looking into this. I dont have time to research right now. I'll say this however, if the Rafale is out-radared it doesn't matter what it can track. Anyway, from the beginning, Ive called it a nice little ATG airplane.

Well you CAN look as hard as you want as for been out-radared you still dont get it do you?

That is until you talk to Typhoon people who say the EF has a RCS of 0.05~01 m2, compared to 0.1~0.3 m2 for Rafale.

Sure they talk about Rafale A demonstrator in a simulation dated from 20 years ago.

Here your just being ignorant.

Sure you're more than welcome to elaborate on aerodynamics, im YOUR man any time...

Benchmark to who? And they fly the same aircraft as we do.

And trash you senseles any time you try them out.

you talk to EF people. Fact is they are both "about" 50 m per copy airplanes.

Keep talking to all these people because apparently it is taking time for reeality to sink-in.

Until Who?? As in "names"? Not that your word isnt golden here

I will dig some infos for you...

I thought so.

You thought RIGHT we' didnt do the AF cadet school together that's all i'm going to tell you about it and i'm not in the buziness of desinforming people.

I think you should consider trying making some points here, you havent so far writen anything that made the grade.

Rich Well I dont read French.

Ignorance is blessed.

Bottom line is nobody has ordered the aircraft yet even tho its been available for a couple years. Thats "no-body", as in "zero" customers.

Not an argument representative of its performances. We have seen guys like you before they have too little to say to make an impression.;)

Rich And you call the F-35 a disaster?

You want a resume of L-M design FCUK-UPs?

jaffo4011

May 16th, 2007, 01:17 PM

lets keep it civil bkno,by getting personal you stand to lose your arguments,most of which have obviously been researched well.

ill cheer you up by stating that i think the rafale would have been ideal for our new carriers but unfortunately i dont believe that the french would have been interested in a true manufacturing partnership with bae and the british would have been caught at cross purposes being already heavily involved with joint marketing of the saab gripen and the typhoon.then again it was the french who opted out of the typhoon so perhaps theres a lesson there.

danish

May 16th, 2007, 02:43 PM

EuroFighter Typhoon is a good aircraft i think jointly developing leads a good product Always :smokie

Rich

May 16th, 2007, 04:32 PM

I think you should consider trying making some points here, you havent so far writen anything that made the grade.

Quote:
Rich Well I dont read French.

Ignorance is blessed.

I did make a point. That the Rafale is so unexceptional that nobody has bought the thing. And how do you respond to that? You post some link of a French newspaper that's a year old about a rumor that the vaunted Libyan AF was going to buy a dozen Rafales.

You thought you'd slip that by me and that I wouldn't be able to read the date, which was May 2006. Then you seem to think I wouldn't be aware that both Govt.'s, since then, have denied the sale. Thus putting the Rafale back in the remarkable position of being the only fighter that never sold a copy on the INTL market.

Can anyone else name a fighter that never sold to anyone?

So now I have to ask myself exactly what are the French lieing about on this aircraft? The first thing that comes to mind is the RCS. Next is the overall performance. I mean we have 30 yo aircraft that outranges it and outspeeds it.

Put an AESA on the thing and then we'll talk. Until then its going to be at a ATA disadvantage, "exactly why did you never put AESA on it to begin with"? So until you put a better radar on it, make it faster and longer range, AND finally sell the thing to someone else, I'm afraid I'm going to have to refer to the Rafale here as The Flying Rat!

I got a feeling your not going to last long here however BKNO because you are an excitiable/obsessive little guy. I had no intention of turning this into a Rat vs F-??? thread. I actually have been fairly positive towards the rat and have always had a fair amount of respect for the French aviation industry, which historically has been very accomplished.

The history of the Mirage has been a history of "how to develop an excellent warplane". Indeed there have been several times in this forum Ive said very positive things about the French Military/Industrial complex.

Pity about The Flying Rat however. And a pity that BKNO is the best the French can drum up for this forum.

BTW we always get a kick out of how we always get beat in exercises. "In exercies"?:onfloorl: "EXERCISES"?:onfloorl:

rjmaz1

May 17th, 2007, 12:02 AM

Aussie Digger

May 17th, 2007, 04:35 AM

Most countries want a strike aircraft with great air defence capabilities.

The F-35 beats out the Rafale by quite a margin in this regard.

On internal fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.
On external fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.
The F-35 can detect enemy targets further away than the Rafale, this increases the F-35's survivability.
The Rafale can be detected much further away by enemy ground forces, this drecreases the Rafales survivability..
To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM and 3 tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM and no tanks.
In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.
In this configuration the Rafale does not have better agility than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and/or bombs.
F-35's sensor fusion is a step ahead of the Rafale, this is open to intepretation.
Based on this increased range and survivability the F-35 is definitely worth the extra money
What i dont understand though is compared to the Eurofighter there is very little difference between the two aircraft.

Compared to the F-16 and Gripen the Rafale is better all round. But is it good enough to warrant the extra price tag.

Compared to the Super Hornet the Rafale has alot of advantages and few disadvantages. The only reason Australia bought the Super Hornet as we can get them straight away and we are very familiar with the Hornet. This probably applies to the F-16 as well, alot of countries buy the F-16 simply because they already have older F-16's in service.

No, no. no you don't understand. Dassault has told everyone that apparently drag is not an issue for the Rafale, despite it's "dirty" airframe when carrying external stores, especially the large external fuel tanks and SCALP SOW's it needs to strike at 1000nm it STILL outperforms an otherwise clean F-35, except no-one can honestly state what the performance of an F-35 is, because a representative production model aircraft has yet to be built.

But Dassault of course is fully briefed on the project and knows ALL about it.

One of course then wonders why L-M is bothering to have a flight testing program. Why not simply get all their performance data from Dassault? Since apparently they KNOW ALL anyway...

The Rafale would have been an excellent fighter in the 90's. Unfortunately it'll be about 20 years out of date, by the time it possesses the level of technology (apart from LO, which of course it will never reach) of the F-35., if in fact it ever does...

swerve

May 17th, 2007, 04:38 AM

...
Can anyone else name a fighter that never sold to anyone?
...

Rich, I'm surprised at you. The list is too long to type out.

BKNO

May 17th, 2007, 05:45 AM

Rich BTW we always get a kick out of how we always get beat in exercises. "In exercies"? "EXERCISES"?

As i said previously, this is pure trolling and NO substance whatsoever, you not only make NO point you have NONE to make, please dont waste my time.

rjmaz1 Most countries want a strike aircraft with great air defence capabilities.

They're not going to get them from an SLOW mudmover limited to 9.0Gs- with no supercruise capabilties and only limited frontal L.O..

rjmaz1 The F-35 beats out the Rafale by quite a margin in this regard.

You're MORE than welcome to SHOW us how if you have what it takes to elaborate with some proper argumentation...

rjmaz1 On internal fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

YOU wish, it's actually 300 nm SHORTER while flying a Hi-Hi-Hi missions when the Rafale does its trike Hi-Lo-Hi.

In the same mission profile it's a full 350 nm or so are you kidding???

On external fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

Really? Still not been published i think you really are taking the piss here no>

The above strike configuration ONLY includes 3 X 2.000 L NOT the 1.150 L CFTs.

rjmaz1 The F-35 can detect enemy targets further away than the Rafale, this increases the F-35's survivability.

Not passively NO. OSF detects at a far longer range in A2A thanEOTS and is a lot less VMC limited using different wavelength.

As for radar range, evem LPI radars are detectable...

rjmaz1 The Rafale can be detected much further away by enemy ground forces, this drecreases the Rafales survivability..

Probabilly but again it is not designed for the sort of Jobs F-35 was deisgned for and is WAY more performant overal.

To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM and 3 tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM and no tanks.

True but it will be able to fly at the same cruising speed in this configuration, at the F-35 MACH Max with three tanks and 4 AAMs, and 0.4 Mach faster with its AAMs only. And BTW all of this 300 nm further away from base.

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.

Red limit is M 0.95. Try to get the F-35 to stay in dry power at this speed...

M 0.82 in typical cruising speed. Where have you guys been living the past 30 years???

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not have better agility than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and/or bombs.

G limits are imposed by the warload.

It remains to be SEEN weither L-M will clear F-35 fopr more than 5.5 G with its internal A2G ordonance...

rjmaz1 F-35's sensor fusion is a step ahead of the Rafale, this is open to intepretation.

W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.

The F2 have rthe same generation of avionics, F3 will have newer post F3 even newer...

[/QUOTE] Based on this increased range and survivability the F-35 is definitely worth the extra money
What i dont understand though is compared to the Eurofighter there is very little difference between the two aircraft.[/QUOTE]

!) it's a POW based on a serie of totally misinforned and WRONG assumtions.

2) In this case you ALSO can understand that it will make a cold meal of F-35 in A2A...

Aussie Digger No, no. no you don't understand. Dassault has told everyone that apparently drag is not an issue for the Rafale,

I skip the rest, but really you have so little argumentation it's becoming hilarious.

What is more and more apperent is that the F-35 "community" is clearly pissed-off and will not accept fact as they are.

Next time you'll ask Dassault what they have for sale before jumping into the US commercial wagon. You might be surprised...

BKNO

May 17th, 2007, 05:51 AM

Rich BTW we always get a kick out of how we always get beat in exercises. "In exercies"? "EXERCISES"?

As i said previously, this is pure trolling and NO substance whatsoever, you not only make NO point you have NONE to make, please dont waste my time.

rjmaz1 Most countries want a strike aircraft with great air defence capabilities.

They're not going to get them from an SLOW mudmover limited to 9.0Gs- with no supercruise capabilties and only limited frontal L.O..

rjmaz1 The F-35 beats out the Rafale by quite a margin in this regard.

You're MORE than welcome to SHOW us how if you have what it takes to elaborate with some proper argumentation, for the time being, supercruise, Max Mach and maneuvrability are not in F-35 favour...

rjmaz1 On internal fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

YOU wish, it's actually 300 nm SHORTER while flying a Hi-Hi-Hi missions when the Rafale does its strike Hi-Lo-Hi.

In the same mission profile it's a full 350 nm or so are you kidding???

On external fuel the F-35's range is considerably higher than the Rafale.

Really? Still not been published i think you really are taking the piss here no?

The above strike configuration ONLY includes 3 X 2.000 L NOT the 1.150 L CFTs and they are only limited to M 1.6/5.5 G.

rjmaz1 The F-35 can detect enemy targets further away than the Rafale, this increases the F-35's survivability.

Not passively NO. OSF detects at a far longer range in A2A than EOTS and is a lot less VMC limited, using a different wavelength.

As for radar range, even LPI radars are detectable...

rjmaz1 The Rafale can be detected much further away by enemy ground forces, this drecreases the Rafales survivability..

Probabilly but again it is not designed for the sort of Jobs F-35 was designed for (FIRST DAY STRIKE) can use stand-off weapons and is WAY more performant overal.

To perform the same strike mission the Rafale must carry 2 bombs, 2 AAM and 3 tanks to match the F-35's 2 bombs, 2 AAM and no tanks.

True but it will be able to fly at the same cruising speed in this configuration, at the F-35 MACH Max with three tanks and 4 AAMs, and 0.4 Mach faster with its AAMs only. And BTW all of this 300 nm further away from base.

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not travel quicker than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks or uses afterburners which it cannot sustain.

Red limit is M 0.95. Try to get the F-35 to stay in dry power at this speed...

M 0.82 in typical cruising speed. Where have you guys been living the past 30 years???

rjmaz1 In this configuration the Rafale does not have better agility than the F-35 unless it drops its tanks and/or bombs.

G limits are imposed by the warload.

It remains to be SEEN weither L-M will clear F-35 for more than 5.5 G with its internal A2G ordonance...

rjmaz1 F-35's sensor fusion is a step ahead of the Rafale, this is open to intepretation.

W.H.A.T.E.V.E.R.

The F2 have the same generation of avionics, F3 will have newer post F3 even newer...

[/QUOTE] Based on this increased range and survivability the F-35 is definitely worth the extra money
What i dont understand though is compared to the Eurofighter there is very little difference between the two aircraft.[/QUOTE]

!) It's a POW based on a serie of totally misinforned and WRONG assumtions.

2) In this case you ALSO can understand that Rafale will make a cold meal of F-35 in A2A...

Aussie Digger No, no. no you don't understand. Dassault has told everyone that apparently drag is not an issue for the Rafale,

I skip the rest, but really you have so little argumentation it's becoming hilarious.

What is more and more apperent is that the F-35 "community" is clearly pissed-off and will not accept fact as they are.

Next time you'll ask Dassault what they have for sale before jumping into the US commercial wagon. You might be surprised...
:cool:

Aussie Digger

May 17th, 2007, 06:04 AM

Next time you'll ask Dassault what they have for sale before jumping into the US commercial wagon. You might be surprised...
:cool:

Actually France hasn't had ANYTHING since the Mirage III that has interested Australia in fighter jets and we've evaluated them all... :cool:

BKNO

May 17th, 2007, 06:18 AM

Aussie Digger

May 17th, 2007, 06:34 AM

Who care? You think we do?

What matter to US is that OUR pilots have the BEST there is available to US and it is NOT F-35.

This BTW is somethnig you guys seems to be totally unaware of.

SAME for the Eurofighter nations, they only will use it in the A2G role and there is a very good reason for that.
http://img407.imageshack.us/img407/8385/mirgsit1bi6.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

As for WHAT our inferior aircrafts can do, you're not only ungratefull you are short in memory too, so go on keep feeding fat burger and co...

Fat burger and co? You are one strange individual my friend.

Nice pic of those 77 Sqn "kills" though. I did actually state SINCE the Mirage III, if you'd care to READ what I said, rather than froth at the mouth at anyone who DARES suggest that someone besides France might actually be building a decent fighter...

Strange how suddenly RAAF has lost it's edge and doesn't recognise a good aircraft when they see one isn't it?

merocaine

May 17th, 2007, 08:58 AM

@BKNO

take it easy pal, althought its nice to hear a different opinion on the Raf and the F-35 there no need to fly off the handle in your responces, otherwise this is an excellent debate, Vive Le Difference!

rjmaz1

May 17th, 2007, 09:58 PM

YOU wish, it's actually 300 nm SHORTER while flying a Hi-Hi-Hi missions when the Rafale does its trike Hi-Lo-Hi.

In the same mission profile it's a full 350 nm or so are you kidding???
That mission profile you gave is the same one it did a few pages back, that included 3 external fuel tanks. I said INTERNAL FUEL!!!! Both aircraft on internal fuel the F-35 flies further.

Both aircraft with max external fuel the F-35 flies further. Stop arguing and using the comparison of the Rafale with max external fuel against an internal fuel F-35.

Punch in the numbers...

Empty weight
Rafale = 9,750kg
F-35A = 13,500kg

Internal fuel
Rafale = 4,250kg
F-35A = 8,300kg

Fuel fraction
Rafale = 0.3
F-35 = 0.38

The Rafale cannot possibly travel further on internal fuel, even if both aircraft are clean. If you then put weapons on the Rafale its range drops where as the F-35's range doesn't drop much at all because no extra drag is created. Fuel fraction is one of the main ways to predict the realistic range of an aircraft.

On external fuel the F-35 maintains the lead. In fact the Rafale with external fuel still doesn't have the fuel fraction of the F-35 with internal fuel.

Also the more weapons you add the Rafales range would be reduced at a greater rate due to the increased drag.

Red limit is M 0.95. Try to get the F-35 to stay in dry power at this speed...

M 0.82 in typical cruising speed. Where have you guys been living the past 30 years???
The F-35A with no external stores is planned to not only reach Mach 0.95 with dry thrust but exceed it. Mach 0.82 was at lower altitudes and not maxiumum thrust as it was a test flight. So the F-35 with two bombs and two missiles and no tanks will travel at a similar speed to a Rafale with two bombs two missiles and 3 external tanks. The Rafale needs the 3 external tanks to have the same combat radius as the F-35 so they must be used in the comparison.

G limits are imposed by the warload.

It remains to be SEEN weither L-M will clear F-35 fopr more than 5.5 G with its internal A2G ordonance...
Just because you dont have an article on the internet, doesn't mean that it will not be cleared for 5.5G.

BKNO

May 18th, 2007, 05:51 AM

That mission profile you gave is the same one it did a few pages back, that included 3 external fuel tanks. I said INTERNAL FUEL!!!! Both aircraft on internal fuel the F-35 flies further.

YOU dont make the RULES of engagement in ANY Air Forces, compare what is comparible in the SAME configuration and similar strike mission profiles.

In F-35 case it is NOT with external tanks but in L.O configuration.

Both aircraft with max external fuel the F-35 flies further. Stop arguing and using the comparison of the Rafale with max external fuel against an internal fuel F-35.

1) "Stop arguing and using the comparison??? NO i WONT:

a) because L-M designed F-35 to being able to do it in internal only.

b) because it is what is called a STRIKE configuration or mission performance at L-M.

2) CAN YOU READ DIDN'T INCLUDE 2 X 1.150 L CFS???

F-35 deficit without its external tanks is 300 nm.

What difference 2 X external tanks will make if external tanks are fitted to F-35 if Rafale is fittd with 2 X CFTs on top of everything???
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/Int_Ext.jpg

For YOUR info this congiuration WAS validated TOO.

PLUS: F-35 range with external tanks it STILL have to be not only tested, validated but ALSO DISCLOSED by L-M.

rjmaz1 Fuel fraction
Rafale = 0.3
F-35 = 0.38 Punch in the numbers... etc... The Rafale cannot possibly travel further on internal fuel, even if both aircraft are clean.

LOL!!! :onfloorl: Reminds me of Blair's Iraq WMD dossier, sorry...

They SURE know something at Dassault that BOTH yourself and L-M still aren't aware of, like Using CATIA to the FULL with no problems computing drag coefiscients and weight targets perhaps??????

rjmaz1 etc On external fuel the F-35 maintains the lead.

Really? And HOW exactly would YOU know that (SEE BOTTOM)???

rjmaz1 In fact the Rafale with external fuel still doesn't have the fuel fraction of the F-35 with internal fuel.

Well apparently it woudln't NEED it, it STILL does 1.000 nm with 600 kg more A2G ordonance and TWO more AAMs and that's NOT theoricals, it's actually PROVEN even in COMBAT missions...

rjmaz1 etc Also the more weapons you add the Rafales range would be reduced at a greater rate due to the increased drag.

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/Int_Ext.jpg

Typical configuration = 2 X 1.300 kg SCALPS 4 MICAS 3 X 2.000L, SAME with 6 X 320 kg AASMs and 4 X MICAs. = 1.000 nm+.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/DeepStrike.jpg
2 X 1.150 L (303 Gal) CFTS would add NO drag to Rafale.

NOW: how much drag would 2 X 426 Gal add to F-35???.

F-35 is designed for internal loads and OPTIMISED FOR THIS CONFIGURATION.

Rafale was NOT as for your figures SAME here they are not only distorted but for some also unprovable because NON-validated by the manufaturer.

Since WHEN was Rafale designed to carry all its fuel internally???

YOU are simply out of arguments...;)

rjmaz1 The F-35A with no external stores is planned to not only reach Mach 0.95 with dry thrust but exceed it.

SHOW US the L-M opfficial staments saying THIS!!!

I can direct YOU to is a stament saying it won't be supercruising in ANY configuration from a L-M FAQs webpage as a matter of FACT.

NOT with extarnal or internal, a PERMANENT speed deficit...

rjmaz1 Mach 0.82 was at lower altitudes and not maxiumum thrust as it was a test flight.

Another Didneylandish story??? = "not maxiumum thrust " = PROVE it.

During flight testing they explored ALL power settings from iddle to FULL BURNER and M 0.80 seems to be the best bet for Full DRY power so far, when they'll do better we will know for sure.

"Over its first seven flights, each lasting around an hour, the F-35 reached Mach 0.8, 23,000ft and 16º angle-of-attack. "

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/14/212602/picture-lockheed-martins-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-soars-on-first-afterburner.html

No further news about performances since.

What i find funny is that many other aircrafts reaches a Mach superior to 1.0 during their FIRST flights, i.e. Rafale C and now even the Tejas light combat aircraft (India) weither F-35 still have to go supersonic.

Wouldn't it be because it is optimised for subsonic speeds???

F-35 mission profiles are lower than that of F-16/18 with typical operational crusing speed between 33.000 and 40.400 ft.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/f35rangeoh3-1.jpg
Rafale operational ceilling is 45.000 ft BTW.

rjmaz1 So the F-35 with two bombs and two missiles and no tanks will travel at a similar speed to a Rafale with two bombs two missiles and 3 external tanks.

What a progress, lucky it have limited L.O.....

rjmaz1 The Rafale needs the 3 external tanks to have the same combat radius as the F-35 so they must be used in the comparison.

You only can repeat exactly what i was saying.

rjmaz1 Just because you dont have an article on the internet, doesn't mean that it will not be cleared for 5.5G.

What's the weight of a 2.000 lb weapon at 6.0 G again???

Gs limit are imposed by the weapon load long before they reaches that of the structure and as a matter of FACT a 2.000 lb will more likely limit its G load to 5.5 Gs like the rest.

Unless they design it like an iron that is...

Let me guess that's the reason for F-35 weight increase no?

So, let's compare the comparible, single seaters in STRIKE configuration.

According to Dassault:

Internal fuel for the C/M WAS: 5.750 l (1.519 USG).

This represent 4600 kg of internal fuel.

It have been increased to 4.700 kg on production aircrafts.

For an aircraft empty weight of 9.500 kg/10.150 kg.

Fuel fraction is 0.4947 for the C 0.4609 for the M.

BOTH types are capable of carrying 3 X 2.000 l external tanks 3.860 kg = 8.560 kg total.

+ 2 X 1.150 l CFTs, 1.840 kg.

Deep STRIKE configuration = 2 X APACHEs + 4 MICAS + FUEL as above. TESTED in April 2001.

TOTAL FUEL = 1.4050 l = 1.1240 kg.

Fuel fraction is: 1.1831 C 1.1073 M.

DeepStrike.jpg.

Considering that this is NOT the "typical" strike configuration but a "longer raged one".

F-35 being short of 300 nm in STRIKE (internal) configuration but been able to carry two 426 USG (1.621 l/1.296 kg = 2.592 kg) external tanks.

What would be the difference between the two in both configuration?

F-35C 600 nm 2 X 2K JDAMs 2 X AIM-120.

F-35CV 650 nm 2 X 2K JDAMs 2 X AIM-120.

Rafale 1.000 nm 2 X 2 K+ APACHES 4 X AAMs.

300 nm, with external/CFTs fuel difference = 752 kg.

Good luck beating Rafale range in BOTH configurations considering that you'll have to cover the last 300 nm (most of which at low level) with only 376 kg of fuel .

Something else. CFTS does NOT increase drag and have a very limited impact on handling (NO G/Speed limits).

Adding 2 X external tanks on F-35 will increase DRAG to a level above that known to the Rafale, will reduce its cruising speed and LOOSE its stealth characteristics.

In a word: There is NO substitute for a good design and Rafale can acrry more than 1.5 its own weight. the yhave plans to clear it at 27.000 kg Max TOW....

Rich

May 18th, 2007, 08:45 AM

Rich, I'm surprised at you. The list is too long to type out.

Do remind me then. A Jet "fighter airplane" manufactured by a major exporter, that's available/was available for export, that couldn't sell? Certainly nothing in recent years.

Besides the flying rat that is.

Well apparently it woudln't NEED it, it STILL does 1.000 nm with 600 kg more A2G ordonance and TWO more AAMs and that's NOT theoricals, it's actually PROVEN even in COMBAT missions...

HaHa, thats a good one. With the rat showing all zeros in exports the French Govt. gets all anti-terror and sends 1/2 a Dozen down to Afghanistan to face off against the Taliban air force.:rolleyes: Now all of a sudden "Das Rat" is "a proven combat airplane".:onfloorl:

Did the rat beat the pants off the Taliban air force in exercises too BKNO?:lol2

BKNO

May 18th, 2007, 08:58 AM

Rich
HaHa, thats a good one.

What's good (or should i say rich like the British???) is that you keep displaying your usual trolling habbit beside a total ignorance of the subject doubled with the absence of technical arguments and comminication skills. No better admition of failure. :onfloorl:

Get yourself a break, you earned it, fully.

alexsa

May 18th, 2007, 09:23 AM

thanks BKNO

Well we have all been warned, if we doubt the capability of the Rafale we are trolls and ignorant. I don't profess to be and expert but don't buy everything you are sprouting because I doubt you are in a positon to judge the capabilites of the JSF. While I have to admire your zest for national pride I suspect you are blinded by it .....

Why does nobody what Rafale considering Grippen has been an export success.

BKNO

May 18th, 2007, 09:28 AM

alexsa

Sorry mate. You're welcome to PROVE different than what i posted.

The rest is trolling a nd YOUR comments are only YOURS, dont make them mine....

rjmaz1

May 18th, 2007, 09:32 AM

TOTAL FUEL = 1.4050 l = 1.1240 kg.

Fuel fraction is: 1.1831 C 1.1073 M.
Oh dear... BKNO tried to calculate the fuel fraction and got an answer greater than 100%

Fuel fraction = Fuel / (Fuel + Weight)

Say you have 5,000kg of fuel and the aircraft weight is 10,000kg then you have a fuel fraction of 0.33

If you had 10,000kg of fuel and the aircraft weight is 10,000kg then you have a fuel fraction of 0.5

Also this is how you reference.. instead of posting a random photo which proves nothing i will now demonstrate that the above information is correct.

Source for fuel fraction (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_fraction)

Now thats more evidence than u've posted the entire time on the forums :p:

I can direct YOU to is a stament saying it won't be supercruising in ANY configuration from a L-M FAQs webpage as a matter of FACT.We have been through this before and multiple other members pointed this out to you.

I will try and make it simpler for you to understand.

L-M believes that "Supercruising" is when the aircraft breaks the transonic region, that is between Mach 1.2 and Mach 1.4 depending on the aircraft. Using Lockheeds own definition the F-35 cannot supercruise as it has no chance in hell of reaching Mach 1.2 let alone Mach 1.4 with dry thrust. So the F-35 could cruise at mach 1.1 and the lockheed martin FAQ would still be correct in stating that it does not supercruise.

Some people however believe that supercruising is when an aircraft reachs Mach 1. By this definition the F-35 could supercruise. If L-M used this definition then its FAQ would say that the F-35 is designed to supercruise. However it believes Mach 1.2-1.4 is when an aircraft supercruises, so its FAQ says the F-35 will not supercruise.

Can you understand now?

I still have my doubts that the F-35 will hit Mach 1 at dry thrust, but the correct information wontl be officially released for years. Someone high up told me that Mach 1 is the design goal so they will probably reach it.

I dont see why people think its so unrealistic for the F-35 to cruise at Mach 1, REMEMBER THIS IS NOT SUPERCRUISING!! Dozens of other aircraft have been able to hit Mach 1 without afterburners.

Another Didneylandish story??? = "not maxiumum thrust " = PROVE it.

During flight testing they explored ALL power settings from iddle to FULL BURNER and M 0.80 seems to be the best bet for Full DRY power so far, when they'll do better we will know for sure.

"Over its first seven flights, each lasting around an hour, the F-35 reached Mach 0.8, 23,000ft and 16º angle-of-attack. "
Why dont you prove that when the F-35 was traveling at Mach 0.8 it had 100% dry thrust. Thats right you cant prove that ;)

If they used "FULL BURNER" why did they only reach Mach 0.8? I can tell you why because they used the afterburner to accelerate and throttled back once they got up to speed.

Why dont you go one step further and say that the F-35's top speed with full afterburner is only Mach 0.8?

Fact 1: F-35 used full afterburner in test flight
Fact 2: Maxiumum speed reached was Mach 0.8
BKNO's conclusion: Maximum speed in full burner is only Mach 0.8
Rjmaz1's conclusion: Afterburner was used for acceleration and they throttled back once they reached Mach 0.8

This is the difference between you and some people here, you misread facts and make an incorrect conclusion. We cannot prove you wrong when the facts we give you then misinterpret.

alexsa

May 18th, 2007, 09:35 AM

alexsa

Sorry mate. You're welcome to PROVE different than what i posted.

The rest is trolling a nd YOUR comments are only YOURS, dont make them mine....

If it is as goods as you claim why will air forces buy Grippen and not Rafale?

Ryttare

May 18th, 2007, 11:15 AM

If it is as goods as you claim why will air forces buy Grippen and not Rafale?

Well, you can ask the same question about many other fighters. Actually I think Gripen has been a better success on the export market than any other fighter of the new generation so far.

Dave H

May 18th, 2007, 11:17 AM

Rich

May 18th, 2007, 01:15 PM

I cant think of many non sellers either Rich,

Im not sure if the US Delta interceptor things of the 1950's era sold or the Vietnam Thunderchief?? Even the Crusador was flogged to the French (purcased through gritted teeth no doubt). The F14 to Iran only but it still sold. Yes to the Starfighter, F15,16,18.

The Viggen?? Was that exported as the Drakken was to some euro countries?

Us Brits even manage to shift a few Tornado ADV to the saudis, before that the Lightning. Im not sure about such beasts as the Sea Vixen but thats going back a bit and it was a carrier fighter.

The Russian jets all sold, though the Harrier equivalents in not sure about.

And didnt Mitsubishi build an indigenous fighter for the Japanese airforce...export nil.

So at least the rafale is in good company....or not as the case may be.

I wouldn't include Sweden as a major exporter. Tho if I remember right the Draken was fairly successful as an export to Denmark, Finland, Austria, and a few others if I remember right.

I know the Thai's flew the F-105 and I thought other NATO countries did too. The reason the F-14 didn't sell more was because we really didn't want to sell it. Not because it couldn't "sell". That, and it was specifically a carrier aircraft. The best carrier fighter of its day, and possibly the best ever.

So I'll have to research it more, and I will when I have time, but its very possible The Flying Rat is the only modern dual mission fighter to have never sold to anyone.

That's "0" BTW. As in "none"!

And for a airplane that had so many national resources poured into its development and deployment it is a complete disaster for French aviation.
The rat is going to be the last combat airplane made by the French.

And when you add up that boondoggle to the one with The Flying Tomato, "the A-380 super jumbo"?? Well you see just how big a disaster is looming for the French.

We Yanks may make pieces of junk but at least we look to see if there is a market for the thing before we spend countless billions of $$ in building it. <smirk>

swerve

May 18th, 2007, 02:39 PM

...
I know the Thai's flew the F-105 and I thought other NATO countries did too. ...

I'm afraid you know wrong.

Others never exported (western types only) -
F-89
F-94
F-106
F3D (F-10)
F4D (F-6)
F11F (F-11)
F2H (F-2)
F3H (F-3)
F7U
CF-100
Scimitar
Swift
Javelin
Sea Vixen
Mystere II
Etendard IV
J32 Lansen
Viggen
Marut

F9F was operated by Argentina. I don't know if they were free.
F-100 was given away secondhand, & new-built aircraft were gifted under MAP. AFAIK, none were sold abroad.
F-101 was given to Canada, not sold. No other export customers.
F-102 was given to Greece & Turkey, but AFAIK never sold abroad.
J29 Tunnan was only exported secondhand.

There may be others

I've not counted Japanese types, because they're banned from being exported. The F-106 may also have been restricted, & Swedens strict export rules may have cost Tunnan, Lansen & Viggen exports.

Soviet aircraft - well, many were given away, & some not allowed to foreigners.

Aussie Digger

May 18th, 2007, 02:57 PM

Well apparently it woudln't NEED it, it STILL does 1.000 nm with 600 kg more A2G ordonance and TWO more AAMs and that's NOT theoricals, it's actually PROVEN even in COMBAT missions...

Wow. F-35A is designed to fly 1200nm on internal fuel, with a "standard" operational warload of 2x AAM's and 2x 2000lbs class weapons, carried INTERNALLY.

See here:

http://www.lockheedmartin.com/data/assets/12792.zip

You are so correct. The range of the Rafale is pretty special isn't it? 1000nm with 3x HUGE drop tanks attached. Wow. Viva la FRANCE!!!

Typical configuration = 2 X 1.300 kg SCALPS 4 MICAS 3 X 2.000L, SAME with 6 X 320 kg AASMs and 4 X MICAs. = 1.000 nm+.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/DeepStrike.jpg
2 X 1.150 L (303 Gal) CFTS would add NO drag to Rafale.

NO drag? Dassault in your OWN link claims the effect of the CFT's are "minimal". Minimal according to my dictionary is STILL more than zero...

Tell me, what exactly is the G limit on the Rafale with 2x 1300kg SCALP cruise missiles attached?

Can it pull the 13G you claim with them attached?

NOW: how much drag would 2 X 426 Gal add to F-35???.

As much as 3x external 2000l tanks to get the Rafale to 1000nm? I don't think so...

F-35 is designed for internal loads and OPTIMISED FOR THIS CONFIGURATION.

On of the MANY features that gives an advantage to the F-35. Glad to see you accept this.

Since WHEN was Rafale designed to carry all its fuel internally???

YOU are simply out of arguments...;)

When did ANYONE say Rafale had a large internal fuel capacity?

During flight testing they explored ALL power settings from iddle to FULL BURNER and M 0.80 seems to be the best bet for Full DRY power so far, when they'll do better we will know for sure.

"Over its first seven flights, each lasting around an hour, the F-35 reached Mach 0.8, 23,000ft and 16º angle-of-attack. "

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2007/03/14/212602/picture-lockheed-martins-f-35-joint-strike-fighter-soars-on-first-afterburner.html

No further news about performances since.

No, there was a problem with the test aircraft with a hydraulic leak and all flight testing was stopped, until around about the end of May.

Where does it say in that in article that AA-1 was on FULL dry power for any length of time?

What i find funny is that many other aircrafts reaches a Mach superior to 1.0 during their FIRST flights, i.e. Rafale C and now even the Tejas light combat aircraft (India) weither F-35 still have to go supersonic.

Wouldn't it be because it is optimised for subsonic speeds???

Or perhaps a need to try and justify an underperforming aircraft?

What a progress, lucky it have limited L.O.....

Compared to a Rafale perhaps? I am quite comfortable with the LO characteristics of the F-35 in that case...

What's the weight of a 2.000 lb weapon at 6.0 G again???

Quite heavy I'd imagine. What is the exact weight of a 1300kg weapon at 6.0 G again?

Gs limit are imposed by the weapon load long before they reaches that of the structure and as a matter of FACT a 2.000 lb will more likely limit its G load to 5.5 Gs like the rest.

Somewhat like a 1300kg weapon perhaps?

Gee, lucky Rafale's got that sustained 9G+ turning capability then.

So, let's compare the comparible, single seaters in STRIKE configuration.

According to Dassault:

Internal fuel for the C/M WAS: 5.750 l (1.519 USG).

This represent 4600 kg of internal fuel.

It have been increased to 4.700 kg on production aircrafts.

For an aircraft empty weight of 9.500 kg/10.150 kg.

Fuel fraction is 0.4947 for the C 0.4609 for the M.

BOTH types are capable of carrying 3 X 2.000 l external tanks 3.860 kg = 8.560 kg total.

+ 2 X 1.150 l CFTs, 1.840 kg.

Deep STRIKE configuration = 2 X APACHEs + 4 MICAS + FUEL as above. TESTED in April 2001.

TOTAL FUEL = 1.4050 l = 1.1240 kg.

Fuel fraction is: 1.1831 C 1.1073 M.

DeepStrike.jpg.

Considering that this is NOT the "typical" strike configuration but a "longer raged one".

F-35 being short of 300 nm in STRIKE (internal) configuration but been able to carry two 426 USG (1.621 l/1.296 kg = 2.592 kg) external tanks.

What would be the difference between the two in both configuration?

F-35C 600 nm 2 X 2K JDAMs 2 X AIM-120.

F-35CV 650 nm 2 X 2K JDAMs 2 X AIM-120.

Rafale 1.000 nm 2 X 2 K+ APACHES 4 X AAMs.

300 nm, with external/CFTs fuel difference = 752 kg.

Good luck beating Rafale range in BOTH configurations considering that you'll have to cover the last 300 nm (most of which at low level) with only 376 kg of fuel .

Something else. CFTS does NOT increase drag and have a very limited impact on handling (NO G/Speed limits).

Adding 2 X external tanks on F-35 will increase DRAG to a level above that known to the Rafale, will reduce its cruising speed and LOOSE its stealth characteristics.

In a word: There is NO substitute for a good design and Rafale can acrry more than 1.5 its own weight. the yhave plans to clear it at 27.000 kg Max TOW....

Hang on, according to L-M the F-35A's range is 1200nm. Are you suggesting the Rafale has a RADIUS of 1000nm? Goddamn, it's an F-111 beater too...

All in such a tiny little airframe too. Now I know where Dr Who had the Tardis built. Dassault obviously built it for him...

BTW when will those CFT's be operational exactly? 2010, 2012 when? How many aircraft does France have to sacrifice to get them too?

BKNO

May 18th, 2007, 03:33 PM

NOTHING to hang on to mate, it's the ejection seat handle you should reach for, spining is not going to bail you out.:D

MEANING: I'm not bothered, get yourself properly informed please.

Techological progresses are made forward in France even if we live in the other side of the planet and not everyone have an accute taste for design overshots and their weighty conscequences....

We have high standards over here...:nutkick

So we had the sarcams (!), the desinformation, the denials, the sceptiscism, but so far NO real counter-point made.

I think the reason is simple: There are no point to make.

If i was as alleged taking you for a bunch of idiots i would post forum legends, these are REAL, GENUINE datas and INFOS.

You might consider the aircraft as being "old fashioned" it still boost performances to beat and for a fact, the delays in its service entry have been a godsend for us (NOT only phylosophicaly speaking).

The basic Rafale was thrown into service (from 2000) in a hurry, with baseline Mirage 2000-5F MDPUs, basic radar software, no gun software (for a little while) and skeleton-like EW.

The reason was that MN F-8-Fs were literally falling into pieces and needed urgent replacement, but there are only 13 of them.

Even so it will ONLY be what it was planned to be in the F-3 standard in 2008, the advances made in technology and the will to keep it level pegging with the competition have made sure that its sytems are of the same generation than that of the F-35 NOW.

To say it as it is we already had the airframe but there is MORE to come in terms of systems and weapons (Scheduled for <> 2012).

The DGA have notified a clear upgrade path to the industrials called "Roadmap" and these guys came up with a few technologic world FIRST for the same money.

WHY? Because WE can afford it with only a FEW airframes to upgrade, so those sarcasms about the "NO SALES" issues make us wet our pants silly!!! Please!!! Do it again, it's so funny!!!

This includes complements to the SPECTRA EW system which are still R&D today = NEW generation OSF = NEW missile launch detector + a NEW generation AESA (GaN is developed collateraly to GaAs), METEOR AAM and a DGA co-funded 90 kN M-88 ECO (same weight/volume).

BTW for those who thought that Distributed Aperture System was so hot, just imagine the same with bolométric technology, a much lower MTO dependency and a 45 bits processor per pixel: (Projet Caladiom).

While some guys are getting all agitated at the view of the latest US technolgies we just wonder what the big fuss is all about, we got better at home and even better on the pipeline!!!

Since the airframe design already allows for a higher degree of overal performances and the technologies now in developement are mainly aimed at detecting L.O and threats at much longer range (passively), it doesn't take a rocket scientist to SEE what the target will be comes 2015.

Of course i have made some mystakes in my quotes, (I'm not god-himself@superior.com) but it's easier to be sarky than to do one home work and say:

a) "He i thought the M was limited to 1.250 l in the central H-P"??

Or:

b) "Is that not as little much for a 9.500 kg aircraft"???

Answers:

a) Yes true, i quoted the M external fuel load as equal to the C by mystake, the difference would be 750 l due to the size of the front landing gear no 2000 l can be fited to the M.

Max TOW remains 24.500 kg.

b) At 24.500 kg MTOW it's just good enough for all the goodies i quoted including CFTs, 4 AAMs, 2 X SCALPs 3 X 2000 l (C/B).

So please allow ME to remind you of some; performances results from two factors; a given technology and requierements.

Dassault INVENTED CATIA and have a full deceny of design advance over L-M including CG-aerodynamics, like it or NOT.

You guys EXPECT F-35 to exceed its requierements because L-M says it does, what you forget to say is that its requierments have been lowered because of design issues (Weight+/G load) and never were for supercruise or superior turning performances to a F-16 in the A2A role (A2G MATES!!!).

F-35 was designed as a strike fighter and OPTIMISED for the role,
subsonic speed, lower Operational ceilling etc.

Rafale was designed and OPTIMISED for A2A as well as A2G from the design board and there were NO such things as design overshots.

For those who wants to know which design features make for these optimisations i'll explain.

Enuff said methink, if you get any news on F-35 breaking its performances barrier by 20% let us know, we'll take notice and i think GIE will ENDLY convince AdA/MN they need ECO to compete.

From Dassault, France (with love).

Dimensions :

Envergure................................10,80 m (35.4ft)
Surface alaire...........................45,70 m² (492 sq ft)
Longueur.................................15,27 m (33.8 ft)
Hauteur..................................5,34 m (17,4 ft)

Poids :

A vide De la classe......................10 tonnes
Max......................................24.500 kg (54,000 lb)
Carburant (interne)......................4.700 kg (10,300 lb)
Carburant (externe)......................6.800 kg (15,000 lb)
Capacité maximale d'emports externes.....9.500 kg (20,950 lb)

Points d'emport externes.................14
Points d'emports pour charges lourdes et carburant.....5

Facteurs de charge........................+9g/-3.2g
Vitesse max...............................M 1.8+/750 kts
Vitesse d'approche........................120 kts
Distance de roulement à l'atterrissage....450 m (1,475 ft)
Taux de montée............................plus de 1,000 ft/sec
Plafond opérationnel......................plus de 55,000 ft
Rayon d'action en mission de pénétration..plus de 1.000 NM
Temps de patrouille en défense aérienne...plus de trois heures

http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/5696/rafaledelarmeedelairafgqa8.jpg
AND actually operational in Afganistan... (above)

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/9715/backgroundimagejanvier2pm6.jpg
1000 nm.

http://img402.imageshack.us/img402/2996/1000nmdi2.gif
SAME HERE.

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/8307/scierafaledg9.jpg
L.O Features...

http://img119.imageshack.us/img119/6729/raflow1om2.jpg
MORE than 45* AoA, any other aircraft would have been a splatch and if you want to know WHY I'll be more than happy to elaborate...

http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/5181/backgroundimagejanvier2sj4.jpg
My present to you, no hard feelings, if you have questions i'll be please to answer and DEBATE.

That's ME done here.;)

Rich

May 18th, 2007, 03:48 PM

First off thanks for doing the research. The Delta Dart wasn't a dual role aircraft. It was a rocket ship with a pilot strapped on, and nuclear ATA missiles, and was made specifically for NORAD and NASA. I dont even know if it was offered for sale, or allowed, but it was about as multi-role as the SR-71.

The F-89? When was that? The late 40's? That was like our first North America air defense fighter and it wasn't dual role either. I guess technically your right, even If I did say "modern era", but there really wasn't an export market in the first place when the F-89 made its appearance. Certainly not for an aircraft of its type.

The other fighters you mention? OK technically your right with some of them, even If I never heard of some "which is an indication of their importance". Let me change the criteria to, "which dual role Yank fighter, on the modern era, and available for export, did not sell at all"?

Truth is almost all Yank airplanes have sold extremely well. Most of all the modern dual role jets like the F-104,F-5, F-4, F-15, F-16, and even the F-102 was thought very highly of by both the Greeks and the Turks. I know because I was in both countries and talked to the pilots who flew them.

In our aviation history we've had nothing like the boondoggle like the French are having with the rat. An equivalent would be of we Yanks building the F-4 Phantom and nobody buying it. Or the F-16! The MIG-15, MIG-23, Mirage-5...ect. Imagine design borough like MIG, Boeing, LM, SU, pouring so much into a design, like Dassault did with the rat, and the bloody thing not even selling one plane on the export market?

I cant think of one modern era, dual role fighter bomber, with so many national resources poured into it, and geared so heavily towards the export market, not selling. Most of all with such a large and established market already in existence, "the Mirage market".

Really, a wretched performance. BKNO what do you have to say about that? Comments please.

I'm afraid you know wrong.

Others never exported (western types only) -
F-89
F-94
F-106
F3D (F-10)
F4D (F-6)
F11F (F-11)
F2H (F-2)
F3H (F-3)
F7U
CF-100
Scimitar
Swift
Javelin
Sea Vixen
Mystere II
Etendard IV
J32 Lansen
Viggen
Marut

F9F was operated by Argentina. I don't know if they were free.
F-100 was given away secondhand, & new-built aircraft were gifted under MAP. AFAIK, none were sold abroad.
F-101 was given to Canada, not sold. No other export customers.
F-102 was given to Greece & Turkey, but AFAIK never sold abroad.
J29 Tunnan was only exported secondhand.

There may be others

I've not counted Japanese types, because they're banned from being exported. The F-106 may also have been restricted, & Swedens strict export rules may have cost Tunnan, Lansen & Viggen exports.

Soviet aircraft - well, many were given away, & some not allowed to foreigners.

BKNO

May 18th, 2007, 03:55 PM

More highly technical and informed argujment we see???:onfloorl:

Keep amusing US.
http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=2767364&C=europe

Tasman

May 18th, 2007, 06:32 PM

I'm afraid you know wrong.

Others never exported (western types only) -
CF-100

Minor correction - the CF100 was sold to Belgium. Of course this doesn't alter the point you have made. :)

The other comment I would make re this list is that a number of the aircraft concerned were designed for carrier operations and outside USA, UK and France no country had carriers large enought to operate them. For example the RAN would have loved the Sea Vixen to replace its Sea Venoms but operating these from the small carrier Melbourne would have been out of the question.

Cheers

BKNO

May 19th, 2007, 06:57 AM

:D
rjmaz1 Oh dear... BKNO tried to calculate the fuel fraction and got an answer greater than 100%"

With all the tanks and CFCs; i admit i didn't include the tanks and pylons weight but since you keep making bogus comparisons like trying to compare Rafale to F-35 in TWO different mission profiles.

rjmaz1 "Fuel fraction = Fuel / (Fuel + Weight)"

Did you just figure that one out???

rjmaz1 "I will try and make it simpler for you to understand."

I think rewriting the industry standards would be a much better description of this exercice...

rjmaz1 "L-M believes that "Supercruising" is when the aircraft breaks the transonic region, that is between Mach 1.2 and Mach 1.4 depending on the aircraft."

L-M might believe what they want they and yourself don't write the standards for a starter.

FIRST: Definiton of supercruise is: DRY power ABOVE Mach 1.0 regardless of what "beliefs" and this time you're invited to SHOW us this L-M version of this international standard promtly, enough with the Punch and Juddy show; PLEASE.

SECOND: The transonic region is between M 0.75 and M 1.2 but a speed above M 1.0 is technicaly supersonic for the quiet OBVIOUS reasons that Mach value depends on the speed of sound not aircraft design.

THIRD: Cruising right at the pick of the transonic dragwave is NOT a very good proposition, there are reasons for red lines to exist.

It have been done accidentaly on supersonic designs of the previous generation but by optimisation NO, particularly on lower swepback angles mainly for reasons of compressibility effects.

In the cases of the few recent aircrafts i can think of, the engines were far better suited to the task than F-135/F136 being optimised for a higher Mach.

FOURTH: The SIZE of the so called transonic region is directly dependent on airframe optimisation (but designs are optimised for speed under or above preferably) and is called so to help figuring where the effects of compressiblity are likely to be occuring.

rjmaz1 "Using Lockheeds own definition the F-35 cannot supercruise as it has no chance in hell of reaching Mach 1.2 let alone Mach 1.4 with dry thrust. So the F-35 could cruise at mach 1.1 and the lockheed martin FAQ would still be correct in stating that it does not supercruise."

There is NO such things such a "Lockheeds own definition" only YOUR interpretation of known aeronautic FACTS and standards and your version is utter rubish for all it's worth.

1) Mach value depends on temperatures for a start and is a variable even so there is an athmospheric STANDARD for convenience.

2) To summerise it is more about at which airspeed will the effects of compressibility start to show and WHERE on the airframe.

= CRITICAL MACH NUMBER.

Then which part of the airframe will STAY subsonic at an airspeed above M 1.0 and for HOW LONG.

= MAX DRAG WAVES. Where there is a fall in velocity of the airflow on the surface of the wing among other areas.

On THE WINGS, When BOTH BOW and TAIL waves are above M 1.0 the airflow is said to be "FULLY" supersonic and wave coefiscient is going down to stabelise around M 2.0.

3) This depends on design AND only a design optimised for supersonic is really suited for supercruise, by virtue of a lower drag coefiscient, this zone being the part where it picks.

4) This is primaryly determined by the wingswep angle and results on a specific CRITICAL MACH.

5) Thickness/chord ratio also play a role, for the same ratio, wave drag is lower on higher swept wings, comparatively LOW on DELTA wingplans due to a lower thickness/chord ratio.

6) There are design features to reduce transonic wave drag; i'm sure you know them all and will quickly elaborate for our education before allowing yourself to ask ME again the question below or take the other posters for stoopid.

7) For your info: When L-M talk about not being designed for supercruise they speak about the engine which doesn't give a four X about the transonic region as the airflow in the intake will have its own (designed) agenda anyway with specific pressure recovery limits.

What they meant by this is that it is optimised for lower altitudes and subsonic speed and that in DRY power with the airflow and airflow speed available, sustaining M 1.0+ is a no go.

Compare to F-119 and you'll have a clue.

rjmaz1 "Can you understand now?"

What i CLEARLY UNDERSTAND is that you THINK you know about these particular issues and try to pull stunts on us believing we don't.

I find it extremly insulting that YOU can pretend that aircrfaft manufacturers can have their own standards just to make your point which is visibly a FALSE one even for a 16 years old A-F Cadet or Airfix kits collector.

F-35 have all the features for an optimisation for subsonic flight including swepback angle, engine intakes and engine bypass ratio, not including frontal area which is quiet large too.

There is ALSO the little matter of F-135 frontal thrust inferior to that of F-110 GE-132, F-414-GE400, M88-2E4 or EJ-200 both in DRY and Max power settings, you need the right airflow (volume/velocity) for this you DONT have it with F-135/136 at this speed...

F-35 critical mach should be BELOW M 0.80 and that's a (quiet) generous estimate, meaning red-lined at M 0.95 DRY simply because the drag coefiscient nearly doubles between M 0.8 and M 1.0 and is <> equal at M 0.9 and 1.35 and that the engine doesn't have the poke to maintain it further up the Mach scale, hence L-M stament...

If your airframe is not optimised for speeds above M 1.35 you can forget about maintaining M 1.0+ in DRY power too and THIS brings you back your designed CRITICAL MACH and engine optimisation.

The guys that writes standards are NASA/DRYDEN/ONERA clearly not YOU nor L-M nor Dassault and i know a FEW of these having been thaught the basics by a *** AdA General, head of the Bretigny flight test center and this, a LONG time ago, SAVY?

F-35 critical Mach and engine optimisation is what would eventually determine its ability to go through M 1.0 DRY and/or stay there at cruising speed, not your missinterpretation of aerodynamic standards and manufacturers datas.

As a matter of FACT, F-135 is optimised for STVOL operations with maximum output possible in DRY power at SEA LEVEL, NOT 35.000 ft so are F-35 intakes BTW.

Now, if ever you manage to comprehend what all of this implies and figure it designwise like in term of performances, you're more than welcome to come back to me with some proper aerodynamics arguments.
PS Please; stop writing about DRAG as if you knew enouhg about it to figure the difference between internal and external loads drag coefiscients.

We LEARN these before getting to come anywhere close to an aircraft in any serious A-F but clearly you have no idea, sorry.

rjmaz1

May 19th, 2007, 11:22 AM

F-35 critical mach should be BELOW M 0.80 and that's a (quiet) generous estimate, meaning red-lined at M 0.95 DRY simply because the drag coefiscient nearly doubles between M 0.8 and M 1.0 and is <> equal at M 0.9 and 1.35 and that the engine doesn't have the poke to maintain it further up the Mach scale, hence L-M stament..
Notice how you said the drag co-effecient is equal at Mach 0.9 and Mach 1.35. To cruise at mach 1.1 would actually be consuming more fuel per minute than at mach 1.3. So at Mach 1.3 the aircraft will travel quicker using less fuel resulting in a longer range in a shorter period of time.

This is why Lockheed Martin's definition of supercruise is above Mach 1.2-1.4 as this is the speed at which the drag co-effecient has come back down again. The transonic region is not an effecient speed to cruise at, that is why Lockheed martin defines supercruise as being able to fly faster than the transonic region with dry thrust.

Based on this definition the F-35 will definitely not supercruise at mach 1.2-1.4. Lockheed martin not once has said the F-35 will not be able to reach Mach 1 with dry thrust.

Will it be able to hit Mach 1 at dry thrust? You think it will stop at mach 0.95, i think it will hit mach 1. Neither of us have evidence to back up our estimates.

Even the almighty F-22 doesn't supercruise above the transonic region during its mission. It simply doesn't have the fuel fraction to sustain it, not to mention it has to slow down to subsonic speeds to refuel. Some fans of the F-22 believe that it travels at Mach 1.6 for the entire mission so it can have a higher sortie rate. The USAF experience so far shows to get the longest range out of the F-22 its best to cruise at subsonic speeds and this is what they will be doing for the majority of the missions.

As the Eurofighter and Rafale are slower than the F-22 its even more likely that they will cruise at subsonic speeds. With a strike warload it will be difficult for both the Eurofighter and Rafale to pass the high drag transonic region, so it will be much more effecient to just cruise at subsonically.

The F-35 may end up hitting Mach 1 at 100% dry power though this will be entering high drag territory so in real life they will cruise at subsonic speeds. By flying a bit slower they gain alot of extra fuel effeciency. If the F-22 cruises below Mach 1 then the F-35 definitely will. The difference is the F-22 cruises at subsonic speeds with the throttles way back. With the F-35 they will be slightly back.

If the F-35 enters an aerial engagement it can simply go full afterburner and it will rapidly pass the transonic region up above Mach 1.3. Once the draggy transonic region has been passed the F-35 can then throttle back a little to save fuel. It will then be able to sustain its speed above the transonic region. As the aircraft has multiple afterburner settings it will be able to use a light afterburner setting to keep above the transonic region. The F-35's large internal fuel capacity and high fuel fraction gives it the luxury of being able to use the afterburners more often. In a defensive air to air role the F-35's will have the fuel capacity to use afterburners extensively allowing the F-35 to outpace even the latest Suhkoi's. This is why Australia doesn't need the F-22.

The Rafale offers minimal advantages over the F-35, yet has alot of disadvantages. The only advantages are speed when in clean A2A config and possibly agility. The F-35 has many advantages, stealth, range, AESA etc.

swerve

May 19th, 2007, 07:12 PM

Minor correction - the CF100 was sold to Belgium. Of course this doesn't alter the point you have made. :)

The other comment I would make re this list is that a number of the aircraft concerned were designed for carrier operations and outside USA, UK and France no country had carriers large enought to operate them. For example the RAN would have loved the Sea Vixen to replace its Sea Venoms but operating these from the small carrier Melbourne would have been out of the question.

Cheers

Ah yes. My mistake. The Belgian CF-100s were ex-RCAF, not, new, but a real cash sale, like the exported secondhand J29. I've also found that there was an export contract for the Mystere II (to Israel), but it was changed to Mystere IV before delivery.

Good point about the carrier aircraft. It's true that very few aircraft designed for carrier operations were exported.

On checking, I've found that the F-102s provided to Greece & Turkey were ex-USAF, & donated.

AegisFC

May 20th, 2007, 06:39 AM

Good point about the carrier aircraft. It's true that very few aircraft designed for carrier operations were exported.

But those that were usually sell pretty good, the F-4 and F-18 come to mind.
Isn't the F-4 the best selling modern Western aircraft?

merocaine

May 20th, 2007, 01:37 PM

just something to note, it was 62/63 with the advent of Mc Namara that the decision was made to try to use forigen exports to finance domestic R&D and production. Until then there was no concerted effort to sell american (or anyone else's for that matter) weaponary abroad in a peace time situation.
Since then the US has been singularly successful in generating weapons sales,
no one has come close.

But then I find the whole idea of selling weapons in an attempt to make a profit morally repulsive, and a hugh ethical blind spot in the west.
As for chest beating in relation to arms sales by americans and french people,
grow up!

swerve

May 20th, 2007, 02:28 PM

But those that were usually sell pretty good, the F-4 and F-18 come to mind.
Isn't the F-4 the best selling modern Western aircraft?

The F-4 was the first carrier fighter to sell well. The F-18 & Sea Hawk are the the only others to have more than one export customer, AFAIK.

The F-4 sold just over 5000, including a bit over 1000 for export (plus ca 500 secondhand exports, mostly donated), so export sales were about 100 more than the Mirage III/V. Deduct the subsidised & free exports, & the Mirage III/V was probably a little ahead in exports, though far behind in total production.

Total production of F-16 is a bit behind the F-4, but over twice as many have been sold abroad. Adjusting for exports paid for by the USA doesn't change that ratio much.

A lot more F-86 were built.

Tasman

May 20th, 2007, 06:46 PM

The F-4 was the first carrier fighter to sell well. The F-18 & Sea Hawk are the the only others to have more than one export customer, AFAIK.

The F-4 sold just over 5000, including a bit over 1000 for export (plus ca 500 secondhand exports, mostly donated), so export sales were about 100 more than the Mirage III/V. Deduct the subsidised & free exports, & the Mirage III/V was probably a little ahead in exports, though far behind in total production.

Total production of F-16 is a bit behind the F-4, but over twice as many have been sold abroad. Adjusting for exports paid for by the USA doesn't change that ratio much.

A lot more F-86 were built.

The UK was the only country, other than the USA, to use the F-4 from a carrier. The USA developed the F-4 for land based operations with the USAF. The USMC, of course, used the carrier version.

In the case of the FA-18, a lightened land based version, the F-18L, was projected but although it offered improved performance, it was not put into production. I think this was partly because potential customers didn't want to end up with an orphan aircraft and partly because the carrier capable FA-18A, as used by the USN and USMC, met the needs of its early customers, Spain, Canada and Australia.

The Sea Hawk was interesting because it was used as a land based aircraft by the German navy.

It is a pity for the Rafale that the RN has not opted for a catapult equipped carrier as I believe it could have been a competitive contender for a RN order.

Cheers

Rich

May 20th, 2007, 09:04 PM

But then I find the whole idea of selling weapons in an attempt to make a profit morally repulsive, and a hugh ethical blind spot in the west.
As for chest beating in relation to arms sales by americans and french people,
grow up!

This is a strange place for someone with your ethical principles to be hanging out at. Or did you think the world would hold hands at the equator and sing "give peace a chance" if we in the west stopped selling arms?

The French have actually been very successful in military sales until fairly recently. Their arms production have always been geared towards exports and have had quite a bit of success with the Mirage series of warplanes. And then they produced the rat. As superfluous a piece of technology as has ever been put together.

It wouldn't be a problem if they weren't so dependant on exporting it, and needed to do so so much. The plane actually fits in quite nicely in the French air forces and I'll bet it has an excellent service life with them. The rat has its strengths and its been constructed by a very accomplished aviation industry. An industry going under, but still, the French have designed many a fine airplane.

I think the Rafale, "aka the rat", will shine as a carrier strike fighter within the parameters of the French navy. All kidding aside it is a pretty good strike fighter. The airplane has strengths, lets face it. But if the Brits were going to go with a standard carrier deck, and as far as I know they still eventually might, they would buy the naval F-35.

The F-35 is a far stealthier platform. And on the one hand the French try to play down the F-35s stealth advantage, or like our little friend here insult the aircraft while hinting at his little fantasy after action pilot reports, and on the other hand the French are whittling their airplane down to make it as LO as possible.

The rat might be a bit more agile but what good is that when the BVR AAM that's coming at you is 3 to 7X more agile then any fighter? That's why after a certain level "agility" becomes redundant and mostly only good for airshows and goofy peacetime exercises.

What good does agility do you when a highly stealth fighter, with an excellent AESA, sees you long before you see him, and then figure in the capability and lethality of the AIM-120D The F-35 will be firing. Or for that matter the excellent MBDA Meteor.

As for French military sales?? There are a lot of factors involved, one of which was the end of the cold war and the inevitable re-alignment of markets. Another factor was the Wars America was involved with in the middle east, as well as Israel, and the total domination of Yank made systems in those conflicts. Most of all aircraft. Nothing sells like "success" and on top of that list was our stealth aircraft which had incredibly successful operational histories. Thus, a lot of nations want to jump on that bandwagon.

First Ive ever heard of this.

just something to note, it was 62/63 with the advent of Mc Namara that the decision was made to try to use forigen exports to finance domestic R&D and production. Until then there was no concerted effort to sell american (or anyone else's for that matter) weaponary abroad in a peace time situation.

I think the real engine for the great arms complexes developing was the cold war.

merocaine

May 21st, 2007, 03:48 AM

This is a strange place for someone with your ethical principles to be hanging out at.

ah the duality of man....

I think the real engine for the great arms complexes developing was the cold war.

It provided one of the reasons to change how arms were produced, but it came down Mc Namara deciding that weapons should be treated like any other good, ie large production runs with the surplus being sold to american allies(export) to finanace domestic re-equiping. The problem was the other western powers, the larger ones at first, britian, france, germany, Italy, all followed suit, selling to all and sundry. And Russia, wow, a study in amorality.

So war as a human enterprise is what really interests me, war as a means to generate a few bucks doesent. This deserves its own thread, but I think I'd be the only guy posting on it!

All the same its is good to see someone sticking up for the Raf (why Rat?) its been pretty much ignored on this forum compared to the euro fighter and the F's

swerve

May 21st, 2007, 05:19 AM

...The Sea Hawk was interesting because it was used as a land based aircraft by the German navy....Cheers

And the Dutch. Pakistan bought some Supermarine Attackers, & the A-4 has been widely used as a land-based strike aircraft, though most exports were ex-USN/USMC aircraft. A-7 sold a few abroad for land-based strike, as did the Buccaneer.

BKNO

May 21st, 2007, 05:37 AM

So at Mach 1.3 the aircraft will travel quicker using less fuel resulting in a longer range in a shorter period of time.

Sure appart for the FACT that its wing profile is not optimised for this speed but M 0.9 and that L-M specifically denies any supercrusie capabilties..

rjmaz1 This is why Lockheed Martin's definition of supercruise is above Mach 1.2-1.4

AGAIN, you're MORE than welcome to SHOW us ANY link to this so called "L-M" standard.

For all it's worth it's YOUR invention and it's worth nothing.

As for my side of the argument:

Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.
http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

NOW Your turn to put your money where your keyboard is please...

rjmaz1 Lockheed martin not once has said the F-35 will not be able to reach Mach 1 with dry thrust.

You should interess yourself to more advanced aerodynamics and loose the Mythology bit...

rjmaz1 Neither of us have evidence to back up our estimates.

YOU meant YOU dont, fopr the rest you keep assuming, a lot.

rjmaz1 The Rafale offers minimal advantages over the F-35, yet has alot of disadvantages.

You clearly have little clue about it; when it comes to it, sorry but the advantages valid for F-22 are aslo valid for Rafale, supercruise, a much higher Mach limit and maneuvrability for a starter...

I will come back to the rest of your post later on...

>>>>>

On supercruise and design features:

Sweepback increases critical Mach, reduces the rate at which the drag coefficient rises and lowers its pick.

Here is the 40* sweepback wingplan of NASA supercritical F-8 aircraft compared to F-35.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1574&stc=1&d=1179740102

This means that F-35 is likely to have a comparatively much lower critical Mach than F-16 (40*), than F-16 compared to F-22 (42*).

They all have a supercritical wing profile and this critical mach estimate/comparison is only assuming that they also have similar tickness ratio, which is of course NOT the case.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1575&stc=1&d=1179740102

This official L-M drawing is called: f35_variant_ctol_drag-Lift...

F-35 main landing gear are retracting not inside the wing profile or the fuselage but in a proeminent steamelined fairing.

This increases its t/c ratio which works on deltas, reducing wave drag when mixed with a carefuly blended area rule design, due to their low aspect ratios.

This does not work on straighter sweept wings where the drag ratio is higher at transonic and supersonic regimes.

It is de-facto a feature better suited for subsonic flights and is a feature used on subsonic airliners.

F-35 is designed to spend more time at lower altitudes and thus requiers a stronger wing structure; this implies the need for a thicker wing profile or lower speed/G-load limit at low levels.

NOTE: F-35 A wings were strenghtened to meet 9 G requierements...

F-22 sweepback is only 6* short of that of Rafale for example, 42 vs 48*, that of F-16 is 40*, that of F-35 around 35*.

According to Dryden, F-22/F-35 superctitical profiles are optimised for at up to M = 0.90, above this, lift and drag coefficient diverges and that's very much a best case scenario.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1576&stc=1&d=1179740102

Another aspect of the drag and critical Mach issue, compared to a more conventional design, the DRAG rise of a supercritical profile Mach number is about 0.11 higher, increase proportionaly faster to M 1.0.

This mean that in effect if an aircraft is equiped with a similar (T/C, Sweepback) supercritical wing, it will requier an equivalent increase in thrust for the same supersonic speed.

So the difference is made in thickness/Chord ratios and sweepback.

With their F-8 FCW, in order to get the drag rise for the wing up to M = 1.0 NASA solution was to increase the sweepback to 42* and extend the leading edge of the inboard section of the wing.

F-8 was already a supersonic design capable of speeds in eccess of M 1.7, NASA F-8 FCW studies focused on the subsonic and transonic regime, with a total of 54 flights, 55 hours flight time in an envelope opened to M 1.2, 40 k ft and 6G.

Large LEX have the secondary effect of decreasing the supersonic surface of a wing leading edge by creating their own Mach line in front of it (It is created at the LEX root)

Their presence have the effect of "smoothing" the the wing own shock waves, making speeds above Mach 1.0 possible with much lower power outputs by reducing overal wave drag.

Dassault combines the higher lift coefficient of a more moderate 48* sweept delta with a very high sweept 70* LEX on Rafale for example...

This is one primary characteristic for the transonic and supersonic drag ratio of straight, Ghotic and Crancked delta wings, to achieve this, LEX roots have to be well ahead of the wing roots.

These two features are present on F-16 and F-22, (40 and 42* sweepback and large LEXs) NONE on F-35 (Small LEX, F-35A, F-35B).

To optimise them for high SUBSONIC speeds, supercritical airfoils have also a characteristic of high spanwise variations of thichness and twist.

This is partly due to the characteristics of higher aspect ratios and sweepback without twist with marked lift loss at specific speed regimes and AoA.

To finish, F-22 requierements: AREA RULE SHOULD BE OPTIMISED AT LOW LIFT TO ACHIEVE SUPERCRUISE. (Fuselage).
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1577&stc=1&d=1179740102

Now look at these features individually:

(+) Higher sweepback: = High Critical Mach. = F-22 (F-16).

(+) Higly developed LEXs: = Higher subsonic cruise. = F-22 (F-16).

(-) Higher Aspect ratio: = Lower Max Mach. = F-35 (F-16).

(-) Highly developed twist: = Subsonic Optimisation. = F-35 = F-22.

(-) Higher tickness ratio: = Lower Max Mach. = F-35.

(-) NON Optimised AREA RULE: = Higher Supersonic drag. = F-35.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1575&stc=1&d=1179740102

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1578&stc=1&d=1179740102

Now, a non-scaled photoshoped comparison of the frontal area......

Grand Danois

May 21st, 2007, 06:24 AM

BKNO,

Can you explain how supercruise at M1.0 could be useful in real world operational terms? You will be going marginally faster than subsonic, but at a dramatically increaed fuel consumption.

The CD bump will make fuel comsumption prohibitively large, and if you cannot get past the transonic "hump" then it is an arbitrary paper statistic. This would be a real world, useful, meaningful supercruise definition.

Getting past M1.0 on dry thrust alone, is for record books, but not for much else.

And no one is argueing that the F-35 will supercruise. Quit that strawman.

Falstaff

May 21st, 2007, 06:51 AM

Grand Danois

May 21st, 2007, 07:21 AM

The "hump" depends on the shape of the aircraft to a large degree. An aircraft with an optimised shape will get past the sound barrier and the "hump" much easier and smoother than one that's optimised for subsonic cruising. So much for humps...
That's why rimjaz high school equations don't work in real life.
And it's a commonplace that an engine's fuel consumption "explodes" on afterburner.

The German air force is very pleased with it's Eurofighters because once they are in the air they accelerate very fast beyond M1 and fly sustained supersonic speeds without ABs (=supercruise, dear rimjaz) to their operational area with a significant A2A weapon load (4x AMRAAM and 2x AIM-9 or Iris-T). The sonic boom is much quieter as well.
They say that the supercruise abilities give them unknown tactical flexibility (along with the supersonic maneuverability) and much better air defense coverage than with the previous F-4Gs or MIG-29s.
This somehow points towards a rather reasonable fuel consumption. And our air force is not exactly known for boasting.

I really don't want to hear that M1.2-1.4 b******* again, please! :lul

It's not that I disagree with above description. And I'm not arguing that EF or Rafale does not supercruise. However, they also go past transonic right? See underlined btw, and they accelerate past M1.0 quickly... (?)

Do you know if the German EF go M10.0 or M1.2+ when they supercruise? That could provide some insight...

Size of "hump" and when the transonic regime is left behind is exactly a function of design - as you say. And this would decide if it is favourable to be in that regime or get past it.

Falstaff

May 21st, 2007, 07:41 AM

It's not that I disagree with above description. And I'm not arguing that EF or Rafale does not supercruise. However, they also go past transonic right? See underlined btw, and they accelerate past M1.0 quickly... (?)

Do you know if the German EF go M10.0 or M1.2+ when they supercruise? That could provide some insight...

Mmm... I wasn't able to find the exact M-number right now. I'll try to find out and post it. The statement didn't contain a specific number, it just said supersonic.

Grand Danois

May 21st, 2007, 07:52 AM

Edit of my previous post. Typos + comprehension.

It's not that I disagree with above description. And I'm not arguing that EF or Rafale does not supercruise. However, they also go past transonic, right? See underlined btw, and they accelerate past M1.0 quickly... That could indicate that they do not wish to stay transonic. (?)

Do you know if the German EF go M1.0 or M1.2+ when they supercruise? That could provide some insight...

BKNO

May 21st, 2007, 08:21 AM

Grand Danois Size of "hump" and when the transonic regime is left behind is exactly a function of design - as you say. And this would decide if it is favourable to be in that regime or get past it.

That's precisely the point, NONE of F-35 design features are optimised for supersonic cruise.

Supercruise means NO military power above M 1.0 regardless of the aircraft aerodynamics and resulting transonic characteristics.

A F-16 supercruises at M 1.1 so does the Mirage 2000...

So when L-M says not designed to supercruise about the TWO engines it means SUBSONIC.

I got MORE in the pipeline to make my point stick anyway and none it being anything else than real world, useful, meaningful...

Grand Danois Can you explain how supercruise at M1.0 could be useful in real world operational terms? You will be going marginally faster than subsonic, but at a dramatically increaed fuel consumption.

WE make the SAME point it is NOT really effiscient but on older types this is still useful.

Grand Danois This would be a real world, useful, meaningful supercruise definition.

But greatly depends on the aircraft Critical Mach as well, READ my previous post.

Grand Danois Getting past M1.0 on dry thrust alone, is for record books, but not for much else.

It makes MORE sense Operationaly for our pilots than for you perhaps but they are quiet pleased with the capability since it reduces their IR signature no end in A2A configuration...

Grand Danois And no one is argueing that the F-35 will supercruise. Quit that strawman.

Im puting dots on points of some guys Is here with some proper argumentation too in case you haven't noticed yet...

rjmaz1 So at Mach 1.3 the aircraft will travel quicker using less fuel resulting in a longer range in a shorter period of time.

Not NEARLY as closed to be as simple as that.

1) This graph assumed a thickness ratio of 5% for a valid comparison, the F-35 T/C is well higher than that of F-16 or F-22, this mean de-facto a lower critical Mach.

2) This is only valid if the engines themself were optimised for M 1.2 or high spuersonic speeds which they aren't.

Does the F-35 supercruise?
No, neither the F135 or F136 engines were designed to supercruise.
http://www.jsf.mil/contact/con_faqs.htm

3) The airflow speed behind the engine inlet have to be reduced below supersonic speed for the compressor to stay below its pressure recovery limits.

If the inlet design is optimised for subsonic speed as in the case of F-35 (STVOL operations DRY at LOW-level) there is very little chances for this to happen.

F-35 Diverterless Supersonic Inlet Flight Tests validated the design and proved that there was NO gain at supersonic speeds but a total of <> 22% pressure recovery increase over the previous (Configuration 230) design.

This was consistent of L-M plan to recover "licking" airflow from the original engine glove design and recover lost static thrust.

4) Quote: "The new inlet showed slightly better subsonic specific excess power than a production inlet and that verified the overall system benefits of eliminating the diverter. Test pilots remarked that military power settings and thrust characteristics were very similar to standard production F-16 aircraft with the same General Electric F110-GE-129 engine"

F110-GE-129 frontal Thrust is equal in DRY power and slightly better of F-135 in Military power.

DRY: 116.2 vs 116.6.

Mil: 194.7 vs 175.5.

F110-GE-129 was optimised for speeds above M 2.0.

This means that if you were expecting a GAIN in DRY power over the F110-GE-129 equiped F-16 it only occurs at SUBSONIC flight regime.

Just a reminder here:

F-16 supercruises by accident at M 1.1, with 50% internal fuel and only two low-drag AIM-9s at <> 40.000.

It have a much smaller frontal area than F-35 in this configuration and is designed for a higher Mach and altitude too as is F110-GE-129.

To finish:

Since Cruising means 80/89% DRY thrust, there is NO argument possible for F-35 to "supercruise" whatever the "definition" of the word might be, neither the engine nor the airframe AND the inlets are designed for a SUSTAINED cruising speed above M 1.0.

I am still waiting for you to produce this L-M "Supercruise" standard definition.

Grand Danois

May 21st, 2007, 10:49 AM

That's precisely the point, NONE of F-35 design features are optimised for supersonic cruise.

Who said they were?

Supercruise means NO military power above M 1.0 regardless of the aircraft aerodynamics and resulting transonic characteristics.

A F-16 supercruises at M 1.1 so does the Mirage 2000...

Though our input and approach is the same, you insist on an arbitrary paper definition of supercruise.

Although every aircraft design is unique you insist on applying a M1.0 dry thrust definition, even though it tells you nothing of what the implications is are.

Your definition is void of applicable meaning. An empty definition.

So when L-M says not designed to supercruise about the TWO engines it means SUBSONIC.

I got MORE in the pipeline to make my point stick anyway and none it being anything else than real world, useful, meaningful...

Your strawman. ;) No one has said it will.

WE make the SAME point it is NOT really effiscient but on older types this is still useful.

But greatly depends on the aircraft Critical Mach as well, READ my previous post.

Yes, I didn't read it well enough. We agree on that point, that we are almost saying the same. As to definition:

Data->Information->Knowledge.

I have noticed that it is in the transition from information to knowledge where we typically tend to disagree. I f.i. would insist that a term should have meaning and application beyond the arbitrary.

It makes MORE sense Operationaly for our pilots than for you perhaps but they are quiet pleased with the capability since it reduces their IR signature no end in A2A configuration...

Isn't that function of improved dry thrust effiency applicable at all speed regimes, i.e. independent from this discussion?

Rich

May 21st, 2007, 04:15 PM

All the same its is good to see someone sticking up for the Raf (why Rat?) its been pretty much ignored on this forum compared to the euro fighter and the F's

I aint sticking up for it. I dont think the French should have built it in the first place.

At the same time I acknowledge the strengths of the aircraft and the accomplishments of the French Military/Industrial complex.

The airplane was a very expensive proposition. It didn't take genius to foretell it wasn't going to be a very successful export fighter, "tho I dont think anyone thought it would bomb this bad".

I wonder if it has a chance in India as it would be a wonderful carrier strike fighter for this AC they always talk about building. But even there it would be a small order, one carrier right? And the cost of the navalized SUs and MIGs are probably 1/2 that of the Rafale.

I think the French really needed the Singapore sale. The South Korean one probably wasn't such a surprise but the Singaporean one was.

merocaine

May 21st, 2007, 04:35 PM

I aint sticking up for it. I dont think the French should have built it in the first place.

I know your not sticking up for it, i was talking about BNKO.

Its a tough market out there, the americans did the smart thing by tying buyers into the R&D of the F35, now they got a ready made market out there, by buy american there subsidising there own armaments industrys.

After reading BNKO posts, as over blown as they were, I do wonder if the F35 will be as all singing, all dancing as I might have previously thought.
Since most of the posters on defencetalk are from countries that are going to buy the F35 you dont really hear anything negetive about it.

Grand Danois

May 21st, 2007, 04:47 PM

Since most of the posters on defencetalk are from countries that are going to buy the F35 you dont really hear anything negetive about it.

As far as I am concerned, being from a country that "is going to buy the F-35", I would say it really doesn't matter if we go F-35 or EF from a sheer capabilities/security aspect. I am, my apols to the Swedes, not a fan of a beefed-up Gripen.

Working together with our traditional partners, the F-35 seems to be a very good choice on that part as well, with a good likelihood of enabling the full potential of that fighter in actual warfighting.

I think the Tiffy, Raffy and Lightening II are all magnificent jets, each with their strengths an weaknesses. I do, however, perceive, what I think of as much unwarranted slagging of the F-35, just because it doesn't fit the traditional template of air-air fighters and does not have those virtues like highly swept wings (or the stealth of a B-2).

merocaine

May 21st, 2007, 05:07 PM

think the Tiffy, Raffy and Lightening II are all magnificent jets, each with their strengths an weaknesses. I do, however, perceive, what I think of as much unwarranted slagging of the F-35, just because it doesn't fit the traditional template of air-air fighters and does not have those virtues like highly swept wings (or the stealth of a B-2).

There does seem to be a tread towards swing role or multi role, with A2A fighters like the eurofighter trying to tack on a strike capability.
I wonder if this push towards developing all purpose jets will be short lived or if its future.
Is the F35 designed for a strike role? Or is it designed for A2A, I think thats where most of the criticisms come from, is it fish or fowl.

BKNO

May 22nd, 2007, 04:15 AM

Rich At the same time I acknowledge the strengths of the aircraft and the accomplishments of the French Military/Industrial complex.

LOL you couldn't tell the difference bewteen your mum ironing table and a swept wing.

You really should stick to traisnspoting. :onfloorl:

It's pretty OBVIOUS that you know too little about the subject an can only stick to pinky-up-the-the-saloon-conversations-about-the-mother-of-all-goships and livre in a permanent state of denial.

Literaly EVERY ONE of your points is EASLY proven WRONG with only comments from pilots from BOTH USAF F-22s and Rafales, my goldfish have more chances to be fluent in quantum mechanics than yourself to comprehend the effects of energy on Air Combat Maneuvres or come out of this technologic cave age you live in.

Rich "a bit more agile but what good is that when the BVR AAM that's coming at you is 3 to 7X more agile then any fighter?"

This statment proves one thing for sure, you understand ZILTH to the subject of ACMs for a starter and can only INVENT.

When BOTH Rafale and F-22 pilots mention maneuvrabiluty as assets you keep coming up with disneylandish stories, i guess it's all you can do because the real thing is WAY too complexe for you to comprehend.

Higher speed and sustain high-Gs performances shrinks an opponent engagement envelop, since you dont have the energy to comprehend the conceipt of energy it's only logical you hang on to whatever else.
http://img265.imageshack.us/img265/7527/advantagerafalejc5.jpg

Rich "What good does agility do you when a highly stealth fighter, with an excellent AESA, sees you long before you see him,"

Sure another plain example here, stealth stealth? LOL!!!
http://img256.imageshack.us/img256/7105/pirateshotfv8.gif
B-2 up close, in IR
That's what a Rafale pilot will SEE when using OSF in search mode and BVR with the capability to shoot F-35 without ANY radar emission.

1) As DID's AMRAAM FOCUS Article notes, Russian (AA-10) and French (MBDA's MICA) missile manufacturers are already pairing medium-range, datalinked missiles with high-performance infared seekers as an option instead of conventional radar seekers. This allows for passive infared targeting using long-range IRST sensors that give off no tell-tale emissions, and do not trigger their targets' radar warning receivers as the launched missile homes in.

2) the F-35 Lightning II, for instance, has very little infared stealth owing to an 40,000 pound thrust, single-engine design that lacks the shielding/dispersal measures of the F-22A Raptor, B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, et. al. Or see the above graphic of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, lifted from EADS Eurofighter's presentation to the Norwegian government as they touted their own aircraft's advanced IRST cueing sensor.

WE KNOW what it can do since 1999 but i guess you kept you head in the sand since, dont forget to breath some time.

3) "The FSO will provide all-weather air-to-air and air-to-ground surveillance and targeting and, says Thomson-CSF Optronique, is the first such system in the West to work on the 3-5 micron band as well as the usual 8-12 micron wavelength, the former providing "considerably improved detection in humid conditions".

4) "The FSO is slaved to the aircraft sensor system and can work either as a standalone sensor or in conjunction with any other sensor such as the radar, Spectra self-defence system, or missile seeker. It scans at the same angular speed and looks at the same area of sky or ground, according to the search/track mode set by the pilot."

Keep making us laugh... :onfloorl:

BKNO

May 22nd, 2007, 05:04 AM

Grand Danois Who said they were?

ANSWER IS: rjmaz1 If the F-35 enters an aerial engagement it can simply go full afterburner and it will rapidly pass the transonic region up above Mach 1.3. Once the draggy transonic region has been passed the F-35 can then throttle back a little to save fuel. It will then be able to sustain its speed above the transonic region.

Grand Danois Though our input and approach is the same, you insist on an arbitrary paper definition of supercruise.

There is NO arbitrasry here: This is the only definition applying to ALL aircraft designs.

Some are NOT designed for supersonic some are designed for M 3.3 and have a remarkably negligible transonic envelop as the laws applyable for the transonic regimes allows by design optimisation (F-22, Rafale).

Thus Transonic IS the arbitrary for design charactersistics NOT the constant based on speed of sound and use of military power, applicable to all.

Grand Danois Although every aircraft design is unique you insist on applying a M1.0 dry thrust definition, even though it tells you nothing of what the implications is are.

READ the above and YES i INSIST that supercruising is flying at more tham M 1.0 in DRY power regardless of one's transonic envelop.

The F-16/Mirage 2000 vs F-22 was the best example i could give to you but YOU chosed to ignore FACTS.

The ONLY constants here are the speed of sound and the use of DRY power only.

Grand Danois Your definition is void of applicable meaning. An empty definition.

REALLY? Funny, then SHOW us a definition which would apply to all aircrafts without having to compute their transonic envelops then...

Grand Danois Your strawman. No one has said it will.

ANSWER IS (AGAIN): rjmaz1 If the F-35 enters an aerial engagement it can simply go full afterburner and it will rapidly pass the transonic region up above Mach 1.3. Once the draggy transonic region has been passed the F-35 can then throttle back a little to save fuel. It will then be able to sustain its speed above the transonic region.

You better start taking notice of what people are writing.

Grand Danois Yes, I didn't read it well enough. We agree on that point, that we are almost saying the same. As to definition:

What else did you miss when reading NASA/Dryden essais on advanced aerodynamics???

Grand Danois Data->Information->Knowledge.

Starting with flying school basics, the stuff i post is writen in an atempt ot make more complexe subject accessible to all.

Grand Danois I have noticed that it is in the transition from information to knowledge where we typically tend to disagree. I f.i. would insist that a term should have meaning and application beyond the arbitrary.

Get technical and you'll figure that there is NO arbitrary only FACTUALS and LAWS which BTW are writen by those who researche the subject, not aircraft manufacturers.

Grand Danois Isn't that function of improved dry thrust effiency applicable at all speed regimes, i.e. independent from this discussion?

NO it aint. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you're NOT going to get the same thrust effiency with a one-shock inlet at all speeds/altitudes even NOT with a multi-shock inlet like that fitter to the Mirage 2000.

Neither will the 230-designed inlets give you the same pressure trecovery at low level than the Diverterless Supersonic Inlet.

These are proven FACT and untill you guys start taking onboard FACTS like this one: Requierements = Design = Optimisation = Flight Envelop; this forum will be feed with mythology not FACTS.

Aussie Digger

May 22nd, 2007, 08:06 AM

These are proven FACT and untill you guys start taking onboard FACTS like this one: Requierements = Design = Optimisation = Flight Envelop; this forum will be feed with mythology not FACTS.

Like the "fact" that the Rafale is "optimised" for the "omni-role" perhaps?

You tailor facts to suit your own personal POV, ie: "French industry is demonstrably superior to anything else on Earth".

Admit THAT and perhaps this discussion can go somewhere.

alexsa

May 22nd, 2007, 08:45 AM

2) the F-35 Lightning II, for instance, has very little infared stealth owing to an 40,000 pound thrust, single-engine design that lacks the shielding/dispersal measures of the F-22A Raptor, B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, et. al. Or see the above graphic of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, lifted from EADS Eurofighter's presentation to the Norwegian government as they touted their own aircraft's advanced IRST cueing sensor.

If you are going to use this then can you provide the detail of where, and in what context (conditions, range, circumstances), the IR shot was taken (link please as this was obviously in the public domain). Looking at the the attitued of the B-2 it could easily have been taken with the aircraft in the circuit or in a 'known' position which would make cueing the IR much simpler. (would EADS resort to such a marketing ploy to politicians... the answer would be yes I suggest)

If it was taken at BVR without any other cues it is a pretty remarkable image which demontrates a great potential (which could also be fitted to aircraft like JSF I would suggest). However, if the B-2 was in a known position then it lacks the impact.

Falstaff

May 22nd, 2007, 09:34 AM

The picture is included in the Eurofighter presentation for Norway that can be downloaded here (http://www.mil.no/multimedia/archive/00089/2_Eurofighter_capabi_89302a.pdf). 12MB! Very good read! It deals a lot with stealth and how the EF intends to counter it. On the main page here (http://www.mil.no/start/article.jhtml?articleID=134566) presentations regarding Gripen, F-35 and their industrial offsets for Norway can be found, too. Don't worry, the site is in Norwegian but the presentations are English!

BTW Eurofighter has released a very amusing video named In an uncertain world (http://www.eurofighter.com/medialibrary/media/Video/EF_640x160x512kbps.wmv) (20 MB). Very amusing! Enjoy!

swerve

May 22nd, 2007, 09:58 AM

If you are going to use this then can you provide the detail of where, and in what context (conditions, range, circumstances), the IR shot was taken (link please as this was obviously in the public domain). Looking at the the attitued of the B-2 it could easily have been taken with the aircraft in the circuit or in a 'known' position which would make cueing the IR much simpler. (would EADS resort to such a marketing ploy to politicians... the answer would be yes I suggest)

If it was taken at BVR without any other cues it is a pretty remarkable image which demontrates a great potential (which could also be fitted to aircraft like JSF I would suggest). However, if the B-2 was in a known position then it lacks the impact.

The B-2 image is not from PIRATE, & Eurofighter don't claim it is. It's been reported on another forum as being from the well-known incident at Farnborough in 1996 where a Rapier tracked a B-2.

BKNO

May 22nd, 2007, 10:46 AM

Aussie Digger Like the "fact" that the Rafale is "optimised" for the "omni-role" perhaps?

From a M 2.2 AMX design with revised aerodynamics taking into account the fact that 90% of the A2A engagements takes place between M 0.9 and M 1.2 and optimised for this flight regime.

NOT F-35 case is it???

Omnirole YES; optimised YES; for higher supersonic speeds as it is OBVIOUS in its design FEATURES and fully capable of conducting BOTH missions simultaneously as demonstrated during the TLP. (AASM/MICA).

Aussie Digger You tailor facts to suit your own personal POV, ie: "French industry is demonstrably superior to anything else on Earth".

NO sorry mate that's YOUR view of reality and YOUR habbit, we're not from the same promotion.

What I have clearly demonstrated are F-35 speed, maneuvrability and BVR engagement deficits over Rafale as well as RANGE despite all your spinning and twisting that is...

I, i bring FACTS and can make a CLEAR analysis of them based on aerodynamics and military knowledge you are clearly lacking like for example the stuff one learn while working as a specialist in an A-F.

If i have forgoten tons of it and if am not prepared to disclose the opther tons it doesn't change the facts that i understand the subject just that little bit more...

Aussie Digger Admit THAT and perhaps this discussion can go somewhere.

Even if i did admit something which is nothing else than a free allegation designed to dig you from where you burried yourself, it wouldn't take the turn you WANT because FACTS proves your PoV totally wrong.

Trying to make an air superiority fighter equal to Typhoon/Rafale of F-35 when even its name says it is a STRIKE-optimised one is taking the Myckey...

alexsa If you are going to use this then can you provide the detail of where, and in what context (conditions, range, circumstances), the IR shot was taken (link please as this was obviously in the public domain).

Considering the ranges already experienced even in adverse weather in the case of OSF, your request it slighlty irrelevant and i dont think EADS would agree with you that details were to be made available in the public domain.

This picture could have been taken WELL beyhond the 130 km range you wouldn't even know the difference.

Thales IRSTs are working exactly like does radars even in BVR.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51953/seeker-gets-on-track.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/05/05/50879/tests-begin-on-rafale-optronics.html

And dont get all exited on the ranges and laser ranging, this was before MICA IR was even tested...

Another advantage of MICA's innovative concept is its ability to be guided either by an active radar electromagnetic homing head (MICA RF) or by an infrared imaging homing head (MICA IR).
The IR homing head is unique for a missile with this range and its many features include excellent angular resolution (dual band imagery) and total stealth. The passive homing head enables completely "silent" interceptions when it is used with an OSF (Front Sector Optronics). The pilot can also use the MICA IR for discrete optronics monitoring, in addition to the active monitoring radar on his aircraft throughout the duration of the mission.

http://www.mbda.co.uk/

FACT is; EM stealth is FAR from being protected from these systems and if you didnt know it, over here it have been a known FACT for decades.

alexsa (would EADS resort to such a marketing ploy to politicians... the answer would be yes I suggest)

Better this than admiting that you might have to consider rethinking your understanding of ACMs. Problem for you they do just that in our Squadrons because THEY have to usde these new capabilties...

alexsa If it was taken at BVR without any other cues it is a pretty remarkable image which demontrates a great potential (which could also be fitted to aircraft like JSF I would suggest). However, if the B-2 was in a known position then it lacks the impact.

Why would it BE? I thought the whole exercise with B-2 was to make sure its position was unknown and as a matter of FACT they are finding targets in BVR without the use of the radar with Pirate or OSF, so stealth or NOT i makes NO differences to them...

I think you got a LONG way to go before you can fully comprehend the potential of such devices and the AAMs slaved to them, in the case of Pirate, it is ony AIM-132 ASRAAM, in the case of OSF, a 80 km MICA IR so passive BVR detection, tracking and intercepts are ALREADY a well know capability...

swerve The B-2 image is not from PIRATE, & Eurofighter don't claim it is. It's been reported on another forum as being from the well-known incident at Farnborough in 1996 where a Rapier tracked a B-2.

Your turn to prove what you say methink; forums are far from always being what i would call reliable sources particularly if they are as little informed as some guys are...

As for what the source says about it look for yourself and recoup with what Thales were saying about it as early as 1999...

Even "stealth" aircraft can be tracked this way - the F-35 Lightning II, for instance, has very little infared stealth owing to an 40,000 pound thrust, single-engine design that lacks the shielding/dispersal measures of the F-22A Raptor, B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, et. al. Or see the above graphic of a B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, lifted from EADS Eurofighter's presentation to the Norwegian government as they touted their own aircraft's advanced IRST cueing sensor.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/ncade-an-abm-amraam/index.php

The MICA IR version uses infared homing, like many short-range AAMs. This allows it to be used at close range, as well as providing no-warning interceptions at longer ranges if used with advanced IRST-type optronics. The MICA RF uses active radar guidance like AMRAAM, and is in service with France, Qatar and Taiwan.

http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/ext.php?ref=http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/2007/05/ncade-an-abm-amraam/index.php

BTW French DGA as well as IXARM gives it for 80 km...
Performances

· multicible / tirs multiples

· tir au rail et en éjection

· portée : < 500 m à > 80 km

· vitesse : mach 4

· facteur de charge supérieur à 50 G
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/votre_espace/presse/communiques/2005/le_mirage_2000_5_tire_son_premier_mica_infrarouge

click on:
Lien Interne : Le missile d'interception, de combat et d'autodéfense (MICA)

With a range of more than 80 km, it will replace both the Super 530D for intercept missions and the MAGIC 2 for close air combat.
http://www.ixarm.com/-Mica,9375-?var_recherche=MICA

Performance:
Multi target / multiple launch

Rail or ejector mount launch

Range:< 500 m to > 80 km

Speed: mach 4

Manoeuvring load factor: greater than 50 g
http://www.ixarm.com/Technical-card,11177

NOW: Anti-stealth according to Eurofighter...
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1295/typhoonpassiverd2.jpg

Falstaff

May 22nd, 2007, 02:23 PM

NOW: Anti-stealth according to Eurofighter...
http://img382.imageshack.us/img382/1...passiverd2.jpg

What I think is really interesting about the Gripen, Eurofighter and JSF capability presentations for Norway (can be found here (http://www.mil.no/start/article.jhtml?articleID=134566)) is the different reasoning and stressed points in them. I was very astonished how much emphasis Eurofighter lays on the issue of stealth in their presentation instead just avoiding it and claiming the EF was a stealth aircraft. Seems EF thinks a lot about it...

Although this isn't a EF or Norway fighter competition thread these thoughts about how to deal with stealth might be interesting for this one.

It's a pity the Rafale dropped out before these presentations were held, I'd love to see what Dassault would argue like and stress when presenting.

Dave H

May 22nd, 2007, 04:16 PM

BKNO , in terms of infrared detection and tracking the F35 has the EOTS fitted under its nose according to the Lockheed page. There is no data on the range of it but doesnt it mean that the F35 will be able to do what you claim the Rafaele can do to it?

Surely increased detection ranges via radar and IRST sensors are just a fact of improving technology, it should mean that missiles will need greater ranges eg meteor and therefore WVR turning or supercruise becomes less relevant? See first, shoot and run.

Im sure the french systems are top of the line but I imagine the US knows pretty much what the european manufacturers are doing particularly as companies tend to be multinational these days eg BAE. Are there any secrets anymore?

Waylander

May 22nd, 2007, 04:48 PM

There are defenitely secrets.
Just remember the outcry when the spanish company which builds the Leopard 2E in license was bought by GM shortly after the contract with Rheinmetall/KMW was signed.
Rheinmetall and KMW were very busy to save all their toys and secrets...

I cannot imagine why this should not be the case in the aviation industry.

Rich

May 22nd, 2007, 05:19 PM

Am I the only one here who has trouble getting thru all of BKNO's posts? Do you guys read them all? I'm a video editor so I'm in front of this system an awful lot, while editing on my dedicated system next to it, and at a lot of different times. Its seems no matter when I post the human attached to that BKNO name, somewheres in France, is able to not only respond within minutes, but blather on and on and on.

Back to the thread, does Even "stealth" aircraft can be tracked this way - the F-35 Lightning II, for instance, has very little infared stealth owing to an 40,000 pound thrust, single-engine design that lacks the shielding/dispersal measures of the F-22A Raptor, B-2 Spirit stealth bomber, et. al. mean 10x the stealth of the rat or 20x?

In 100 words or less. Just try it once. :p:

swerve

May 22nd, 2007, 05:26 PM

...
Back to the thread, does mean 10x the stealth of the rat or 20x?

...

Why do you call it the rat? Unlike some other derogatory names (e.g. Lawn Dart) I've never known anyone else use that, & can't see where it's derived from. Do you just like being deliberately offensive? Are you trying to get a rise out of people? Or is there some private joke in there?

Rich

May 22nd, 2007, 05:36 PM

Why do you call it the rat? Unlike some other derogatory names (e.g. Lawn Dart) I've never known anyone else use that, & can't see where it's derived from. Do you just like being deliberately offensive? Are you trying to get a rise out of people? Or is there some private joke in there?

Well, at least you keep it short.

I call it the "rat" because the entire Rafale program, "yes BKNOs wonder plane", is the biggest economic boondoggle in modern aviation production history.

But its also kinda private so mind your own business.

Again swerve, however, thanks for not making me waste 15 minutes reading another monologue. With you I only waste 30 seconds.

Grand Danois

May 22nd, 2007, 05:55 PM

There is NO arbitrasry here: This is the only definition applying to ALL aircraft designs.

It is extremely arbitrary. You confuse categorising absolute data with the process of deducing a meaningful definition.

Some are NOT designed for supersonic some are designed for M 3.3 and have a remarkably negligible transonic envelop as the laws applyable for the transonic regimes allows by design optimisation (F-22, Rafale).

Thus Transonic IS the arbitrary for design charactersistics NOT the constant based on speed of sound and use of military power, applicable to all.

Just to make sure we're talking about the same term, when using arbitrary:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arbitrary

READ the above and YES i INSIST that supercruising is flying at more tham M 1.0 in DRY power regardless of one's transonic envelop.

The F-16/Mirage 2000 vs F-22 was the best example i could give to you but YOU chosed to ignore FACTS.

The ONLY constants here are the speed of sound and the use of DRY power only.

So they are flying at M1.0+ at dry thrust. But is it meaningful to apply the term supercruise to this? No. You have absolutes, what you call facts (rather factoids), however you need to introduce relevant parameters that translate into meaningful content of a definition. Sheer going M1.0+ on dry thrust could be called "supersonic w/o AB." That would cover above perfectly well. Supercruise goes beyond that.

REALLY? Funny, then SHOW us a definition which would apply to all aircrafts without having to compute their transonic envelops then...

Precisely: You would have to know such data/info to determine if it supercruises. There are so many things you won't be able to determine without such. Though some things can be deduced from open sources.

ANSWER IS (AGAIN):

You better start taking notice of what people are writing.

What else did you miss when reading NASA/Dryden essais on advanced aerodynamics???

Well, re-reading it made more sense the second time, as you at this time had clarified what you meant.

Starting with flying school basics, the stuff i post is writen in an atempt ot make more complexe subject accessible to all.

Get technical and you'll figure that there is NO arbitrary only FACTUALS and LAWS which BTW are writen by those who researche the subject, not aircraft manufacturers.

Data->Information->Knowledge. It is not the "facts" themselves. It is the interpretation.

Kudos for making the effort to share your knowledge and perspectives with the rest of the board. ;)

NO it aint. It's pretty OBVIOUS that you're NOT going to get the same thrust effiency with a one-shock inlet at all speeds/altitudes even NOT with a multi-shock inlet like that fitter to the Mirage 2000.

Neither will the 230-designed inlets give you the same pressure trecovery at low level than the Diverterless Supersonic Inlet.

These are proven FACT and untill you guys start taking onboard FACTS like this one: Requierements = Design = Optimisation = Flight Envelop; this forum will be feed with mythology not FACTS.

I cannot figure if this is adressed to me as I was commenting on the lesser heat signature as a function of improved engine effiency. Some sort of disconnect?

Aussie Digger

May 23rd, 2007, 01:32 AM

Considering the ranges already experienced even in adverse weather in the case of OSF, your request it slighlty irrelevant and i dont think EADS would agree with you that details were to be made available in the public domain.

This picture could have been taken WELL beyhond the 130 km range you wouldn't even know the difference.

Thales IRSTs are working exactly like does radars even in BVR.

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/09/51953/seeker-gets-on-track.html

http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/05/05/50879/tests-begin-on-rafale-optronics.html

And dont get all exited on the ranges and laser ranging, this was before MICA IR was even tested...

Another advantage of MICA's innovative concept is its ability to be guided either by an active radar electromagnetic homing head (MICA RF) or by an infrared imaging homing head (MICA IR).
The IR homing head is unique for a missile with this range and its many features include excellent angular resolution (dual band imagery) and total stealth. The passive homing head enables completely "silent" interceptions when it is used with an OSF (Front Sector Optronics). The pilot can also use the MICA IR for discrete optronics monitoring, in addition to the active monitoring radar on his aircraft throughout the duration of the mission.

http://www.mbda.co.uk/

FACT is; EM stealth is FAR from being protected from these systems and if you didnt know it, over here it have been a known FACT for decades.

As long as the threat aircraft doesn't possess a laser warning receiver it is totally passive I'm sure you mean?

And as long as the pilot is good at "peering through a straw" I'm sure the OSF will provide excellent BVR detection capabilities...

T-95

May 23rd, 2007, 04:04 AM

Mod edit: Wouldn't be for off topic posting would it?

If you wish to remain posting here on the boards I'd suggest you take the opportunity to read the forum rules adn take heed of them.

Regards

AD

BKNO

May 23rd, 2007, 07:47 AM

Aussie Digger As long as the threat aircraft doesn't possess a laser warning receiver it is totally passive I'm sure you mean?

Proves you DONT understand what the laser rangefinder is for.

Simply put: Used to give range for A2A/A2G guns (and perhaps EM AASM) but totally unnecessary for MICA IR, plus already in used on Jaguars and Mirage F-1 CTs in the Air-to-Air/A2G gunery only.

Aussie Digger And as long as the pilot is good at "peering through a straw" I'm sure the OSF will provide excellent BVR detection capabilities...

Same here; it works like the radar no more no less.

Not everyone have been following this that close and believe me, they know tons more than you will ever do at MBDA and GIE...

The IR homing head is unique for a missile with this range and its many features include excellent angular resolution (dual band imagery) and total stealth. The passive homing head enables completely "silent" interceptions when it is used with an OSF (Front Sector Optronics). The pilot can also use the MICA IR for discrete optronics monitoring, in addition to the active monitoring radar on his aircraft throughout the duration of the mission.
http://www.mbda-systems.com/mbda/site/FO/scripts/siteFO_contenu.php?lang=EN&noeu_id=124

On the subject of optimisation:

Rafale is a descendent of the ACX programme (and not AMX as i previously typoed), there was a carrier-based version proposed as ACM.

This was predominently a (1983 discloded) M 2.2 design answering to AdA requierements for a high-speed interceptor with a high level of maneuvrability.

Basic design aims were for a highly maneuvrable aircraft under combat conditions and optimum low-speed performances for STOL.

These were previously difficult to combine and lead to the serie of the Mirage Gs sweep wing prototypes.
http://img509.imageshack.us/img509/8348/acf40bio7.jpg

With the event of digital FBW and delta-canard configuration, the 1970's solution was then considered as mechanically obsolescent. (weight, complexity, vulnerability, serviceability).

A full scale mock-up was displayed at Le Bourget Airshow in 1983 (I was there BTW) and it was dubbed "John Player Special" by the British press due to its black and gold painting scheme.
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6595/acxparis832hk5.jpg

Requierements for strike capabilites weren't planned to be anywhere near that of the actual Rafale i.e 3.500 kg of modern weapons at up to 350 nm from base, that's 1.500 kg less and 300 nm short of a serie Rafale.

Its combat weight was predicted to be around 14.000 kg with the same overal dimensions of the Rafale A.

The emphasis was in the A2A capabilties with rapid firing of at least 6 BVR AAMs in rapid succession being considered as essential by AdA.

From a design PoV the evolution is obvious and owns much to other Dassault experimental aircrafts such as the Mirage 4000 and the Mirage III NG.

AXC/ACM original wingplan was similar to that of the european EAP, a crancked delta.
http://img116.imageshack.us/img116/126/eapacxio6.jpg

From then on the design followed an evolution starting with the redimentioning of the two parts of the crancked wing.
http://img443.imageshack.us/img443/5138/acxacr9.jpg

Noticeable differences are the canards sweep angle and the shape of the bulge where they are rooted, the position of the inlets lips, the deletion of the "souris" and general sreamlining of the whole design.

The V-shape inlets and wingplans of the A were the results of Dassault experience with their prototypes Mirage 4000 and III NGs.
http://img50.imageshack.us/img50/4306/iiingat3.jpg

Rafale A and Mirage III NG had identical wingplans and FBW.

In the A design, Dassault started developing the pressure characteristics of the nose-to-inlets shape following their experience with the AREA-RULE-shaped nose cone of the 4000:
http://img501.imageshack.us/img501/9808/acfareaam6.jpg

The boundary layer is controled by the reccessed area, pressure reduced by expension and diffused evenly around the wings using expensive, then compressive and expensive waves to energise the airflow around them.

This was a very useful aircraft BTW, the 4000 redefined the whole conceipt of AREA rule and whe way to uses the characteristics of shock waves over the airframe in an optimum maneer. (LOW overal wave drag ratio).

Here you can SEE the evolution between the 2000 and 4000 and Rafale inlet designs.
http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/8923/evo02ls4.jpg

These design features allowed Rafale to demonstrate a SUSTAINED M 2.0 at 42.650 ft on 30 April 1987 with an airframe not yet fully optimised and less instaled power than the serie aircraft.

As a matter of FACT:

ONLY 121.2 kN (vs 150.0 kN today) were enough for it to reach M 2.0.

It was rolled out on 14 December 1985, exceeded Mach 1.3 during its FIRST flight on July 1986 and M 1.8 during its 6th flight.

At the time it was equiped with TWO F-404-GE-400 of 71.2 kN, the FIRST M88 wasn't instaled before mid-1989.

M88 flew FIRST on Rafale A on February 1990 and reached M 2.0 at close to 50.000 ft while staying in DRY power, only the F-404-GE-400 was used at full military power.
http://img108.imageshack.us/img108/6152/frommiragetorafale5lvqq8.jpg
Source: SNECMA.

Here a view of one of the preserie aircrafts features:
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4672/intakeleftarrangementyg6.jpg

A is the airscoop feeding the secondary airflow for engine IR reduction.

It aslo is a point where a compressive shock wave takes root.

Airflow velocity is reduced, pressure increases as well as temperature and air density.

B/E are the points where expensive waves takes root.

Airflow speed is reduced, temperature, air pressure and density decreases.

The airflow then expends from B/E over the surface of the fuselage/wing junction, thickening the boundary layer and adding its own velocity to it.

This is increasing the speed at which boundary layer dynamic stall can occur, dynamises the airflow around the fin at high AoA increasing YAW stability and control authority.

On Typhoon/Mirage 2000 strakes are used for the purpose but they increase DRAG and EM signature while having a much lower dynamic effect on the boundary layer and local airflow itself.

Point C, the junction LEX/Intakes lips is where the LEX shock wave will take root.

It is designed similarly to that produced by the diffusers (hitting the intakes lips to provock a milder shockwave, reducing airflow velocity further) to reduce transonic and supersonic drag of the wing leading edges and surfaces.

This feature allowed the designers to maintain a moderate wingsweep more suited to higher AoA and still reduce the %age of the wing staying subsonic at low supersonic speed, reucing wave drag further.

The difference between the A and the serie aircraft resides MAINLY in this drag reduction optimisation:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/3810/avsseriecq0.jpg

To OPTIMISE the characteristics of the design according to requierements, designers repositioned the main wing from shoulder-mounted to mid-fuselage.

This is ALSO a feature known to reduce wave drag and it allowed for the redesign of the crancked wing to a straight 48* + 70* LEX.

The LEX gives a much better high Mach characteristic than a crancked delta and provide the wing with energised airflow at their junction with the fuselage.

The large integral volume of the wing-fuselage junction allows for a higher internal fuel volume and reduces wave drag further.

More to the point, this different configuration also allowed them to increase the canards surface by 30% and position them in such a way that when fully deflected upward, they BLOW the upper wing providing with extra airflow in the same area.

RESULTS compared to the Rafale A:

A SIGNIFICANT gain in approach speed and AoA, low-speed characteristics, high AoA characteristics, total payload, number of hardpoint both wet and dry, drag reduction throughout the whole of the flight envelop, range, corner speed, cockpit visibility and layout.

Rafale are capable of higher controled AoA on aerodynamics only than F-22, Typhoon, Gripen, X-31 and have a similar corner speed to Typhoon...

Thats for those laughing at Dassault "NOT KNOWING WHAT DRAG IS" in view of the aircraft exeptional range and payload you guys have to go back to basics.

TO finish:

The airframe was simplified with deletion of the A airbrakes, airscope at fin root deleted, the number of control surfaces was reduced, uses of lightweight materials increased to 24% of its weight and 70% of the wet reas, L.O features included in its design, nose shape redesigned for better visibility forward at high AOA for carrier Operations, structural G-load are 90% above 9G guaranteed by manufacturer etc.

People think of Rafale as being a 1985 design when in reality it IS a 100% totally NEW and optimised aircraft with performances to beat.

Full scale developement wasn't authorised before April 1988, only three years before US DoD did the same for F-22A (August 1991) and Rafale C01 was designed and built in just 18 month with a first flight in 19 May 1991.

FIRST FLIGHTS:

Rafale A = July 1986.

YF-22 = 29 Sept 1990.

So if you wanted to KNOW what OPTIMISATION meant to Dassault designers i think this answers all your questions and perhaps more.

One question you can answer to ME now, considering that aircraft generations are <> more than 15 years or so, why is that you guys keep considering Rafale as being of an "older Generation" than that of the Raptor?

http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5237/mirageiiio01gv4.jpg
About supercruise, since they knew about it most of you werent born, there is NO question on how they would manage to have this Rafale flying at 1.4 DRY in A2A configuration.

BKNO

May 23rd, 2007, 08:15 AM

Grand Danois It is extremely arbitrary. You confuse categorising absolute data with the process of deducing a meaningful definition.

No it aint, YOU refuse to bring a CONSTANT to all designs when the arbitrary is in FACT their own transonic characteristic, thus variable from one to the other, do you really think that a SR-71 will have the same transonic zone and rag than F-35?

Grand Danois Just to make sure we're talking about the same term, when using arbitrary:

Thanks for this link but i got my own Oxford at home and this doesn't make your point stick, there are constants and variables, applying one constant to all is not arbitrary, it is factual.

Grand Danois So they are flying at M1.0+ at dry thrust. But is it meaningful to apply the term supercruise to this? No.

Really? Why NOT?

If you have had researched the subject further, you'd have understood from my very FIRST post on the subject that:

1) They have a much narrower transonic zone than F-35 due to their higher sweep angle = CRITICAL MACH.

2) In particular the Mirage 2000 doesn't have the same wing profile, there is NO point applynig a supercritical profile like that of the F-22 on an underpowered aircraft designed for high Machs.

Dassault never had the luxury of gih TWR engines so they had to optimise their airframes for a single purpose and in the 2000 case it is HIGH MACH.

It posseses a lower T/C ratio due the the wingplan, a lower drag coefficient at supersonic speed (supercritical drags 0.11 more passed M 1.2 for a starter) and a MUCH higher sweep angle which results on:

a) MUCH Higher critical Mach.

b) Steeper reduction in transonic high drag zone.

c) Much lower transonic and supersonic drag coefficients.

d) Much higher Mach limits.

Thus, Mirage 2000 flying with 6 AAMs at M 1.1 is perfectly at ease doing it with an engine WAY less powerfull than F-16 doing it with only 2 AIM-9Xs.

Grand Danois You have absolutes, what you call facts (rather factoids),

Like Mach being the speed of sound and not depending on aircraft design for example. You're kidding yes???

Grand Danois however you need to introduce relevant parameters that translate into meaningful content of a definition.

Design features and their aerodynamics are perfrectly RELEVANT and factual, like it or not.

Grand Danois Sheer going M1.0+ on dry thrust could be called "supersonic w/o AB." That would cover above perfectly well. Supercruise goes beyond that.

NO IT DOESNT:

First it technically depends on a particular design characteristics, making it a non-constant and according to your definition it wont be applyable to all.

Second (AGAIN) since the only constant is the speed of sound your point doesnt stick, when in DRY power an aircraft will go as fast as its design allows for, not faster and certainly NOT stay supseronic if drag exceeds thrust.

Grand Danois Precisely: You would have to know such data/info to determine if it supercruises. There are so many things you won't be able to determine without such. Though some things can be deduced from open sources.

Meaning a poor atempt a trying to deny the FACTS:

F-35 doesnt have ANY of the design features that would allow it to maintain a speed above M 1.0 in DRY power.

Its engine and inlets are OPTIMISED for subsonic speeds.

Its airframe is optimised for subsonic speeds.

Again these are NOT non-factual datas they are design features with well know aerodynamic characteristics and have a well documented effect on drag/speed and flight envelops.

Grand Danois Well, re-reading it made more sense the second time, as you at this time had clarified what you meant.

It's going to make more sense every time you read it and eventually you can keep at it and do your own research work to understand it further...

Grand Danois Kudos for making the effort to share your knowledge and perspectives with the rest of the board.

I like to say this (little) knowledge is not mine, guys like my main instructors passed it on me and i am very gratefull for what they did...

Grand Danois I cannot figure if this is adressed to me as I was commenting on the lesser heat signature as a function of improved engine effiency. Some sort of disconnect?

Part of it was adressed to some other guys, about the engine matter they respond exactly the same way to design as does the rest of the aircraft.

I dont always have time to respond the way i wish i did so the quality of my post is a variable as well...

BKNO

May 23rd, 2007, 08:25 AM

Dave H BKNO , in terms of infrared detection and tracking the F35 has the EOTS fitted under its nose according to the Lockheed page.

EOTS is VMC limited:

VMC = Visual Meteorologic Conditions, Thales/Sagem develops all-weather/long-range gear for a few years now (from OSF previous to 1999) and there is a lot more to come.

EOTS is derivated from the SNIPER pod, positioned under the nose where it doesn't cover the threats from above at more than 8* (twice LESS than OSF can do downward) and possese only ONE channel.

In case of use for the A2A search role it wont be able to do A2G simultaneously weither there is no need for using OSF in the A2G role as there is a dedicated pod for the role.

EOTS is NOT a dedicated A2A optronic system it is preliminary designed for A2G and BTW is a lot more weather limited that Thales Pirates and OSF.

Dave H There is no data on the range of it but doesnt it mean that the F35 will be able to do what you claim the Rafaele can do to it?

Passive interception in BVR means a BVR IR AAM. The US have NONE in their inventory just yet and L-M clearly indicate that it is DAS which is designed for cueing IR AAMs NOT EOTS.

When it comes to that, if AIM-132 ASRAAM is intergrated to F-35 it will be able to clue it but the ASRAAM have a limited BVR (<> 30 km) capability.

Dave H Surely increased detection ranges via radar and IRST sensors are just a fact of improving technology,

That's a point which is also valid in the case of Rafale sensor fucion.

First because its futur AESA is optimised (Low X-band) for L.O detection, further even with the GaN technologies in the pipeline and the possiblity of a GaN-based AESA radar, second because sensor fusion allows for passive BVR detection and high concentration of radar energy on a target once it have been detected, increasing the L.O detection range with radar by skipping the search mode altogether.

In designation mode, range can increase by up to 25% on conventional radars, imagine with a radar optimised for the right bands to detect L.O targets.

Dave H it should mean that missiles will need greater ranges eg meteor and therefore WVR turning or supercruise becomes less relevant? See first, shoot and run.

It's in the plans methink, METEOR is scheduled, budgeted and awaited, there are even more talks on the developement of an IR seeker for it...

IDave H m sure the french systems are top of the line but I imagine the US knows pretty much what the european manufacturers are doing particularly as companies tend to be multinational these days eg BAE. Are there any secrets anymore?

The US are two generation behind in Optronic/optical technology like ot or not, they have spent MUCH more R&D in developing 5 generations of AESSA and stealth than IR/UV/Optronics.