The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft

[merocaine]

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]

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. nfloorl:

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... nfloorl:

 

[BKNO]

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]

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]

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]

The picture is included in the Eurofighter presentation for Norway that can be downloaded here. 12MB! Very good read! It deals a lot with stealth and how the EF intends to counter it. On the main page here 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 (20 MB). Very amusing! Enjoy!

 

[swerve]

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]

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/e...ily.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/e...ily.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/votr...irage_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]

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) 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]

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]

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]

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. :

 

[swerve]

...
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.