The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft

[BKNO]

Rich What war was that?

Another one you missed.

Kosovo which was the most demanding in terms of IR performances due to the European weather..

Rich I really asked that question as a gentleman even tho I knew I was going to get a snide comment from this guy.

Following all the teasing, wind-up of your previous post it was the very least you could do and BTW was your post on the pods desinformation or simple ignorance???

For your info the OPIT in question is an active AdA specialist...

Rich I was honestly trying to steer the conversation into a gentlemanly discussion. But I do listen to warnings from Moderators.

AGAIN are you trying to look like the victim here, you want ME to dig all your previous attempts at steering the bull???

Rich I dont think anyone actually reads all of them. And you do like to sneak in little inaccuracies and flamboyant over exaggerations. But you get away with them because very few actually read them.

In view of what you have been coming up so far your opinion on this matter is less than relevant to me.:nutkick

Rich You have been a rude, arrogant, know it all since you came on this forum. And now your calling a respected poster here a "boy". I think your time is short in this forum. BTW your spelling sucks.

Mate here is some spychologic aspects of your behaviour:

Wind-up someone to try to have them banned when they loose it.

Is it RUDE taking notice of the fact that you have been totally unable to participate to the debates in a constructive maneer and have consistantly tried to inflame them???

Too bad you're not smarter because i'm NOT the only one who noticed here....

NOTE As opposed to YOU i re-edited and deleted the agressive bit.

Now Want the definition of RAT again???

Realistic
Astonishing.
Technology.

= Rafale. Have a good day.

 

[Grand Danois]

Just for the record, I don't agree with the use of the term "Rat" for the Rafale.

Things should be called by their approp name.

 

[BKNO]

Grand Danois This is disingenous and a strawman.

NO mate YOU speciality. Again we're promotion buddies and i take notice that instead of staying technical you AGAIN ressorts to pseudo-political spin and twist at personal level which would make Tony Blair proud....

Grand Danois Second, I encouraged you to provide the aviation definition of "cruise." You chose not to do this, but went for the strawman instead.

Find a better definition than Operational reality please...

But if you want since you show yourself UNWILLING to inform yourself and others i'll scan that of this very same doc for you too...

Grand Danois Symptomatic.

Of your won tactics. YOU totally failed to make you pont stick and try to take me on. Get a brake i'm much harder than you mate, i got what it takes to argue at the right level....

Grand Danois Things should be called by their approp name.

And I dont regard you under the same light as Rich for some very obvious reasons, it doesnt mean that you're high in my X-Mass post list though.

 

[Grand Danois]

NO mate YOU speciality. Again we're nott promotion buddies.




Find a better definition than reality please...

Data is reality, but they have to apply. The question is: what is the purpose of cruising?

 

[BKNO]

Grand Danois Find a better definition than reality please...

Purpose is RANGE.

Definition is: Sustained speed at optimum range-to-speed flight regime.

Not too hard to figure this one but if you wish again i will give you the non-French-translated Dryden version...

Grand Danois Data is reality, but they have to apply. The question is: what is the purpose of cruising?

Fuel effisciency, where exactly does this make your point?

Transonic characteristics???

They varie from an airframe to the other, even TWO aircrafts with a similar Max DRY speed aren't going to have the same transonic drag nor supersonic drag for that matter. My examples: F-16/Mirage 2000.

The 2000 wingsweep makes it transonic region a doddle, compared to F-16, the supercritical wing profile of F-22 drags more at supersonic speed by a factor of 0.21 too and it doesn't have (allegedly) a proper (longer) range at its supercruise speed.

So obviously you'll have to look elsewhere for another atempt to redifine the basics for the time being; what a Squadron pilot would tell you it is depending on altitude, drag (payload) and engine/inlets specifics (aircraft).

We have NO (official) informations on Rafale A2A configuration supercruise speed appart for one (Sweedign specialised press) source giving it at M 1.4 but in STRIKE configuration at low level a typical cruising speed is obtained at 89% power setting.

= M 0.82 with 3 X 2.000 l, 4 MICAs, 2 X 1.300 SCALPs.

This is the Operational REALITY defining the word CRUISING.

 

[Grand Danois]

Cruise = fuel effiency.

Thank you.

I need not say more.

 

[BKNO]

Definition is: Sustained speed at optimum range-to-speed flight regime.

Which is what i learnt in my flying school long ago.

Grand Danois I need not say more.

Well we do agree there no doubts but again i take notice you carefully avoid the other points i made in my reply...

= NOT a constant but a variable depending on specific aircraft design.

You're in the ropes trying to make a constant which doesn't apply to all designs by isolating one particular from the rest. As usual.

 

[Grand Danois]

Definition is: Sustained speed at optimum range-to-speed flight regime.

Which is what i learnt in my flying school long ago.



Well we do agree there no doubts but again i take notice you carefully avoid the other points i made in my reply...

= NOT a constant but a variable depending on specific aircraft design.

Yes. Has been part of my argument all the time.

I didn't avoid them. Just took this one "for starters" so it could be cleared up.

So

Super = Supersonic

cruise = Sustained speed at optimum range-to-speed flight regime.

This is, dependent on design, engines, aerodynamic characteristics in the transonic regime in particular...

 

[BKNO]

Grand Danois Yes. Has been part of my argument all the time.

Well i noticed but it doesn't change anything to factuals which are speed of sound and power settings.

Grand Danois Super = Supersonic

cruise = Sustained speed at optimum range-to-speed flight regime.

This is, dependent on design, engines, aerodynamic characteristics in the transonic regime in particular...

The transonic transonic regime in particular???

Where do YOU get this one from?

Engines are supposed to be SHIELDED from the effects of compressibility by optimisatiom of their intakes. nfloorl:

I SHORT they NEED a CLEAN airflow to give their best...

(You really should read some on the formation of shock waves).

It depends on engines and intakes optimisation, it depends on pressure recovery and in any case there IS NO such thing as transonic regime for engines since the airflow is supposed to be subsonic in order for the engine to recycle the pressures effisciently.

For high specific thrust you want a SLOW airflow in front and a high velocity airflow behind it so if it goes from subsonic to transonic it will be where it is designed for the purpose, inside its casing when compression and temperature increases its velocity, NOT when the airframe enters/is in its transonic zone.

In some cases where airflow becames supersonic in front of the compressor, the phenomenons associated to compressibility are totally differents than for the rest of the airframe and the engine would be optimised for thise specific pressure recovery to recover some extra for a gain of about 0.2 Mach at maximum M (1 Shock intakes).

That's WHY airframe designers goes through the trouble of designing multiple-shock intakes and pressure vents to start with.

Basically Engine settings are known for their fuel effisciency at different altitudes and are totally independent of the aiframe speed...

They depends on the intake design though and their optimisations.

I am not too sure that M88-2 likes it very much more at M 0.82 than above M 1.0 at the same power setting, what i know for sure is that it will do both and that it entirely depends on aircraft configurations NOT its transonic zone.

Was that NOT rude from me???


Most modern passenger and military aircraft are powered by gas turbine engines, which are also called jet engines. There are several different types of gas turbine engines, but all turbine engines have some parts in common. All turbine engines have an inlet to bring free stream air into the engine. The inlet sits upstream of the compressor and, while the inlet does no work on the flow, inlet performance has a strong influence on engine net thrust. As shown in the figures above, inlets come in a variety of shapes and sizes with the specifics usually dictated by the speed of the aircraft.

SUBSONIC INLETS

For aircraft that cannot go faster than the speed of sound, like large airliners, a simple, straight, short inlet works quite well. On a typical subsonic inlet, the surface of the inlet from outside to inside is a continuous smooth curve with some thickness from inside to outside. The most upstream portion of the inlet is called the highlight, or the inlet lip. A subsonic aircraft has an inlet with a relatively thick lip.

SUPERSONIC INLETS

An inlet for a supersonic aircraft, on the other hand, has a relatively sharp lip. The inlet lip is sharpened to minimize the performance losses from shock waves that occur during supersonic flight. For a supersonic aircraft, the inlet must slow the flow down to subsonic speeds before the air reaches the compressor.

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/inlet.html

 

[Rich]

Another one you missed.

Kosovo which was the most demanding in terms of IR performances due to the European weather..

Oh I remember it alright. I just thought even you couldn't come up with such a statement regarding Kosovo, an air war where French air forces were almost totally dependent on Yank air forces.

As in almost "completely dependent" on Yank cruise missiles, Yank stealth, and Yank electronic warfare suppression. If anything Kosovo was an embarrassment to the French air force because they couldn't have survived in the Kosovo air if we hadn't been there. Hell, the French had to actually cancel missions if Yank EW assets weren't available to babysit them.

A whole lot of good your IRs and your optronics did you then.

I guess your targeting designers forgot that little fact of life. How to get the aircraft to the target in once piece to even use the targeting pods.

Following all the teasing, wind-up of your previous post it was the very least you could do and BTW was your post on the pods desinformation or simple ignorance???

It was a simple question. Believe it or not the entire world isnt out to get you. Or even every American. 99.9% of us are, but not 100%

AGAIN are you trying to look like the victim here, you want ME to dig all your previous attempts at steering the bull???

First explain to me what in hell "steering the bull" means. I'm not a technology expert and I often ask such questions here.

Mate here is some spychologic aspects of your behaviour:

Wind-up someone to try to have them banned when they loose it.

What in hell does that mean? I have enough problems keeping myself from getting banned mate.

Is it RUDE taking notice of the fact that you have been totally unable to participate to the debates in a constructive maneer and have consistantly tried to inflame them???

Just being rude to me will not only not get you banned but will probably make you some friends. But let me give you some advice my young friend, "dont piss off all the people all the time".

Too bad you're not smarter because i'm NOT the only one who noticed here....

Well we cant all be genius's. However at least I can spell and use the kings English.:

For the record I woke up this morning and said to myself I wouldn't call the Rafale "the rat" anymore, and that includes "das rat", "Le Rat", "dat be a rat Homie", or any other language.

Interesting reading on Kosovo http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1365/MR1365.ch3.pdf

If anything this air war is a poster child for for a fact Ive brought up time and time again in these forums. That in todays environment these fighter vs fighter comparisons, vis-a-vis 1917 Red Baron, are almost completely irrelevant. What is relevant is judging how the airplane fits into the complete air defense/attack mechanism.

Its why I keep telling Aussies not to judge their aircraft purchases on the individual system alone but instead as a "system within systems".

Because simply put, if the French air force were operating in Kosovo alone in 1999, even with today's Rafale, it couldn't have survived. It most certainly wouldn't have won. Or let me put it in the words of an RAF Vice Marshall

Retired RAF Vice Marshal R.A. "Tony" Mason, director of the University of Birmingham’s Center for Studies in Security and Diplomacy, struck the same cautionary note at a recent Eaker Institute symposium: "We know there are two kinds of air power—the United States’ air power and everybody else’s," he declared. "Unless we in Europe do get our act together, we are going to finish up as spear-carriers to the United States."

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=100&ArchiveIssueID=15

BKNO using this air war as proof of some kind of French superiority is one of his biggest exaggerations ever on these pages. The reality was the Kosovo campaign highlighted the disparities between the Euro and Yank air forces. They simply are not in our league and it doesn't matter how one air craft does against another.

The air campaign "highlighted a number of disparities between U.S. capabilities and those of our allies, including precision strike, mobility, and command, control, and communications capabilities," the U.S. secretary of defense and the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff asserted in a joint statement accompanying DOD’s post-Kosovo report. They warned that such disparities "will seriously affect [NATO’s] ability to operate as an effective alliance over the long term," and that "if the alliance is to meet future military challenges effectively, it must successfully implement the defense capabilities initiative [DCI]."

Heres my favorite quote

The stealth factor
Allied coalition air commanders tasked their most advanced attack aircraft, including the stealthy B-2 and F-117, to strike the heavily defended targets in Serbia, and their less advanced types, such as the Tornado and the French Etendard, to strike those more lightly defended in Kosovo. The command-ers did not include the missions of stealthy U.S. aircraft in the versions of the coalition air tasking orders made available to European air forces, and this caused some consternation among the European allies, U.S. officers acknowledge.

And more

Allied Force made it painfully obvious that lack of stealth has become a major disadvantage for European air forces. It compromised their ability to elude or attack air defenses, took them out of much of the action, diminished their contributions, and served as a nagging reminder of the long-standing unwillingness of the U.S. to share stealth technology with its allies.

And in between his fancy talk about "IRs" and "Optronics"

Noting "the alarming deficit in European capabilities for suppressing and destroying even relatively unsophisticated air defenses," the House of Commons report raises the possibility of "a risk of divergence in the alliance if the U.S. decides to pursue stealth technology as its main technique for defeating air defense systems." This, says the report, could result in the U.S. permitting its electronic countermeasures systems to become obsolescent, thus weakening the protection they now afford the European air forces in joint operations.

http://www.aiaa.org/aerospace/Article.cfm?issuetocid=100&ArchiveIssueID=15

"As the expense of stealth technology is probably beyond the reach of many European allies’ pockets or political will, they may have to choose between developing their own [EW] systems to protect their more vulnerable aircraft, or relinquishing the strike role to the U.S. Air Force," the report declares.

So Kosovo was a warning to the French. Not a statement of their superlative capability. But I guess BKNO was counting on nobody actually knowing anything about the conflict to dispute another one of his gross exaggerations.

Thats why you'd have to be mad to want to fight America in an air war. Because your not going to be able to send a message to an F-16 pilot to meet you at 30,000' at high noon. Your going to, instead, get the entire shebang landing on top of you.

And thats why our aircraft and our systems sell so well. And why our doctrine is copied so. And why we are such valuable allies to have.

 

[jaffo4011]

bnko and rich

you two are getting as bad as each other with your 'giant' posts aimed apparently and solely at each other.

perhaps you could consider private messaging each other instead or perhaps dinner would help iron out your differences.

 

[BKNO]

@Rich.

You last post is not even worse replying, full of innacuracies and your usual flaming material, as expected.nfloorl: You're the weakest link, good Bye.

Grand Danois The transonic regime in particular...

That of which aircraft BTW?

And since when transonic is anything else than as Dryden puts it a particular arbitrary data set???

You chosed to come against definitions which are made by people who WRITE the International Standards and doesn't uses arbitraries to define "supercruise" to the general public.

They describes all of these aerodynamics specifically and clearly.

Like this one:

Cruise: Cruise testing is conducted to evaluate aircraft range.

The aircraft is flown in stabilized flight over a range of speed and altitude conditions in order to determine the best speed and altitude to achieve maximum range.

Compare this to my schooltimer definition i have given you by memory...

Then; a more technical definition:

The primary parameters in cruise performance are specific range (SR) and range factor (RF). Specific range is nautical air miles per pound of fuel used. Range factor is specific range multiplied by gross weight.

This concludes the range debate methink...

About datas...

The only constant here are (AGAIN): The Speed of sound and Dry power.

These are applyable to all aircraft regardless of their particular transonic zones and there ARE very noticeable differences between them.

As a mater of FACT a quote from Jean Marie Saget who was flight-test pilot for Dassault and "Supercruised" at M 1.3 on a Mirage III-O in 1962.:

Quote: "The American [Lockheed] F-22 is by no means the first supersonic cruiser-with the throttle all the way out, and with no afterburner, the Mirage III with the Avon could reach M 1.3.

And that was in 1962!"
http://img117.imageshack.us/img117/5237/mirageiiio01gv4.jpg

I am curious to know what would be the critical Mach and transonic drag coefficient of the Mirage III...

Back to my examples...

The "simulated" F-16 have a transonic fit for; 0.9995<M<1.1467.
http://www.defencetalk.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=1607&stc=1&d=1180205295

Considering the FACTS:

F-16 SWEEP angle = 40* Mirage 2000 SWEEP angle = 58*.

F-16 have a large LEX which improves the wings Critical mach an empty TWR of 0.900. (F-16 F100-PW-220) vs 0.666. (Mirage 2000 M 53 P2).

F-16 pressure recovery at M 2.0 is only about 7.2 vs at least 9.0 for the 2000, their datas must be closer at M 1.0.

F-16 carries 2 X 90 kg weapons vs 672 kg (+ 6 pylons).

Both at 50% internal fuel.

You're more than welcome to ty to DEFINE supercruise from their possible difference in the supersonic flight regime and resulting transonic regions.

For your info 15* sweep angle results on a difference of Critical Mach from M >0.9 to M < 1.0 for a similar T/C of 0.5; the Mirage have a lower T/C by virtue of its delta winplan + 18* steeper sweep and is M 2.2 capable.

We're not going to mention of course the inherently lower drag wave associated to the delta and the fact that this Mirage 2000 airframe might well be fully supersonic at M 1.05...

Now go and good luck to bring us a stadard for the word "Supercruise" base on that.

"aerodynamic characteristics in the transonic regime in particular"???

Does NOT apply as it is an arbitrary; only CONSTANTS does.

Constants:

= Speed of sound.

= Dry power setting.

= SUSTAINED CRUISE ABOVE M 1.0.

@jaffo4011

This boy might well be in a great need of some attention but i'm not playing in the same ballpark. Please do no t asociate me with any troll. Thanks.

 

[Rich]

Rich.

You last post is not even worse replying, full of innacuracies and your usual flaming material, as expected. You're the weakest link, good Bye.

Meaning you are unable to answer to your ridiculous Kosovo statement, which I shot full of holes.

WRONG a serie of technologic world first from the 90 to today and best war performances are there for evidence.

Rich What war was that?

Another one you missed.

Kosovo which was the most demanding in terms of IR performances due to the European weather..

But I guess your technically right. When we were able to give them easy enough targets to bomb, and when we had Yank EW aircraft available to escort them, the French IR systems did just fine.

BKNO the reason I'm not going to reply to you again is because I'm putting you on ignore. And the reason why I'm putting you on ignore is because you are a babbling screwball.

This is my last conversation with you.

 

[webmaster]

Rich and BKNO, stop biting each other on the ass and discuss technical side of the issue.

Now that both of you don't want to discuss this matter with each other, we should not see any flame bait or insulting replies.

 

[BKNO]

Mod edit: Show your maturity and "professionalism" then without resorting to insults then and base your arguments on supported evidence.

You'll have no cause to complain of edited posts or any further bannings then either.

Regards

AD.

 

[andrei]

Rafale for Romania ?

Acccording to this (http://www.gandul.info/actual/avionu...l?3927;860847), the Rafale in officially in the game for the romanian air force procurement tender. Romania needs and will buy 48 new planes - first deliveries expected in 2010- . The initial contenders were the f16 and the jas 39. The Jas 39 seemed to have the lead recently. This year, after a tremendous show by Eurofighter, the f16 option was loosing definitively loosing the race, while the Eurofighter was in the lead. Now the Rafale comes in to the game, and I suppose that by 2010, a more advanced version may be available (can anyone confirm this ?), able to outsmart the Typhoon block 3 on the offer. The article mentions other possible contenders (total of 6, I suppose F 18 f) and also the fact that the f22 is too expensive for Romania (no, really ? I personally would prefer a high low mix of 24 Rafale and 24-32 Jas 39 n. The Rafale for complex missions and air interdiction and the Jas 39 for patrolling the Black sea and expeditionnary missions in rough areas - the jas is cheaper in maintenance -

 

[XaNDeR]

both have an IRST. Both are HOTAS, Rafale has Spectra countermeasures while Eurofighter has DASS (which appears to be slightly more comprehensive in terms of counter-measures). Both have HMCS - Typhoon can slave the radar to it, they have very comparable radar capability , AESA will be on both , in thrust loading and turn capability both are far better than the older aircraft , like F-16 , Mig-29 , .. The Eurofighter is mostly based on air to air superiority , having a multirole as second choise , Rafale is mostly designed for ground capability , the rafale has a slightly better take off weight , bigger range obviusly , eurofighter is faster , all in all they are very similar aircraft , but if i had too choose I would choose eurofighter

 

[nero]

.

I have a basic simple query.

how many hard-points do the rafale has ??

also what is the maximum G limit that the rafale can endure ??

any inputs will be appreciated.

Admin: It has been pointed out before by other Mods that questions like this are best served by doing some research by yourself first rather than expecting others to do it for you. We encourage debate on this basis. You run the risk of being perceived as lazy by other members - and we have issued warnings recently to a number of individuals for not doing the basics themselves

 

[eckherl]

Here is some pictures that I thought I would never see of a French Rafale leaving and on board the flight deck of the USS Enterprise, apparently two of them participated in this exercise. My question I would like to ask, is this common practice between NATO countries to conduct such exercises.

 

[Grand Danois]

I would think it happens quite frequently, as I have heard of such many times.

Currently HMS Illustrious has USMC Harriers embarked.

http://royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/ConWebDoc.9793

And pictures:

http://royalnavy.mod.uk/server/show/nav.1268