The French Rafale Fighter Aircraft

[Aussie Digger]

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.


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]

@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]

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]

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!!! nfloorl: 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/article...trike-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]

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. Now all of a sudden "Das Rat" is "a proven combat airplane".nfloorl:

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

 

[BKNO]

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. nfloorl:

Get yourself a break, you earned it, fully.

 

[alexsa]

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]

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]

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

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Rich]

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]

...
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]

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/article...trike-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]

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

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 [email protected]) 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]

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]

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

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

 

[Tasman]

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]

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.