Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: 2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale
Bluewings12    6/24/2009 5:03:48 PM
Let 's watch them first :-) The F-22 h*tp://www.air-attack.com/videos/single/cAhL7lJCk4I The Rafale : h*tp://www.dailymotion.com/user/ministeredeladefense/video/x9ma8h_demonstration-du-rafale_news Both aircrafts are pulling nice stuff . Rafale only does it twice faster . Explaination and details to follow . Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
warpig       7/7/2009 11:36:06 AM

<sigh!>  Back to
just Seagull, I see.  Well, regardless of the greeting Herald is
dishing out, I hope you stick around anyway.

 

I'm not Blue Apple.



 
 
I know.  I'm lamenting that since he turned out to be Belgian, then StrategyPage is back to having only one reasonable Frenchman occasionally posting anything.  I had hoped he was joining you.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/7/2009 12:08:16 PM
Also, for a completely different type of terminal intercept consider Starstreak HVM.
 
It relates to the speed and energy available by the respective kill vehicles, the ability for them to alter course at high-G without losing energy, in the case of starstreak, the "darts" have the ability to hit the target (due to less drag) with enough kinetic energy to respond simply by aligning themselves to a projected 2d matrix generated by the aiming system and projected ON the target. It works because the darts have enough kinetic energy to be able to stay on target with minimal loss of energy and therefore deceleration. The system is fused to detonate after impact, and can supposedly hit targets at 9G@Mach1. It does have shortcomings etc, but the point is that there's many different ways for kill vehicles to operate and they largely depend on the aerodynamic, guidance and kinetic properties in each respective situation. In this case, as far as I am aware it is not lead-logic.
 
I found a test video of this happening somwhere, I'll try and find it.
 
GF made a point about a peregrine falcon having no proportional lead logic, this is because it has sufficient energy available to be able to track "in chase", maneuver and still retain enough energy ( up to and possibly more than 240mph) to impact upon most birds as a hitile (until peregrines develop fragmentation warheads.)
 
Much like starstreak, and in contrast to MICA.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       7/7/2009 12:13:34 PM
maneuver and still retain enough energy ( up to and possibly more than 240mph)TEST
 
 
Should have been Velocity, sorry.
 
Quote    Reply

Seagull       7/7/2009 2:14:41 PM
FS is a smart guy. He knows a lot of things, but has often been provocative (for him, it's a game), which is enough to most of you to dismiss everything from him.
 
I think BW always go much too far, which is always counter-productive. Sorry BW.
 The only thing where i'll support his views is for the 11G turns during demonstrations.
 
This year, at Le Bourget, it's been publicly advertised that the pilot pulled up to 10.5G on some turns (not sustained but...)
 
 
SP isn't a good place to read about Rafale . Maybe people like Herald are knowledgeable on some topics, but they are biaised about french materials. This doesn't make SP attractive for the French. In addition, the thread started by Rufus "What is wrong with the Rafale" is from the outset full of nonsense : some people here tries to explain some facts by their anti-french bias, offering a version of history to those who ignore what actually happened. Of course, since they choose their recipe, the story may sound coherent in the end, but it's a misleading approach.
 
Just imagine i learned everything i know about aviation by reading about Rafale. Rafale can fly supersonically without reheat, Rafale is "discreet", Rafale has a high level of sensor fusion. Should i conclude that Typhoon (or any other type) can't supercruise ? has no sensor fusion ? I could argue a such, because none of the other types are built like a Rafale, but this would be nationalistic biais, and prejudice to foreign competencies/industrials.
 
 I usually use the nickname TMor.
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/7/2009 4:34:29 PM

 The only thing where i'll support his views is for the 11G turns during demonstrations.

This year, at Le Bourget, it's been publicly advertised that the pilot pulled up to 10.5G on some turns (not sustained but...)


 
 
That's great, I don't think I ever disputed the ability of the jet to put on that many Gs, since I know the F-15 can get to at least 12G and gave examples of it from my personal knowledge.  I also don't think I disputed that the Rafale might reach 11G in a demonstration flight.  What I know I have disputed, and still do even after seeing a HUD picture from a demo flight, is that pilots routinely train to take their jets to above 9Gs during operational training missions, as opposed to demonstration flights at airshows.
 
Regarding that HUD picture, I have not gone back to check the video from Paris that BW posted to see if the picture you just posted is the same frame of video I'm thinking of from BW's video.  In the video, toward the end, there's a turn where the HUD is displayed and as I recall for the first couple seconds it shows a pretty constant high 8+ Gs (but always <9.0G), then abruptly displays 10.something (I think it was 10.0G) for maybe a second, then abruptly goes back to a fairly constant high 8+ Gs (but always <9.0G) for a few more seconds.  I conclude the best explanation is a glitch in the processing somewherein the flight control system that leads to the HUD display, as opposed to that the pilot is holding a constant turn, instantly jerks on an extra 1 to 1.5G for a second, and then instantly goes back to right where he was for the remainder of the turn.  I would be interested to see if this picture is from those frames of HUD video, or if it's from a different time.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Blue Apple       7/8/2009 5:08:38 AM
Given that it achieved a kill firing at a target behind the wing-line of the plane surely shows that the above isn't correct, it's actually been one several examples of native British engineering producing a world-class missile product, its off-boresight and lock-after-launch capabilities are designed to fully exploit the HMD of the EF.
 
ASRAAM achieved a kill on a target more than 3 miles behind the firing plane. That's hardly a demonstration a fast turning rate.
 
The fact remains that the British are adding TVC to their ASRAAM-derived CAMM. If it was able to achieve turn rate >100°/s during boost phase like MICA it wouldn't be necessary.
 
But there is no way that a missile with only tail control surfaces is going to achieve such rates.
 
you claiming the missile is a failure performence wise
 
Never said that it didn't perform decently. Only that its development process and abilities showed what I'd call (to avoid being rude agin) a "lack of consistency". It has an excellent engine but no TVC, a very good seeker that can't be used for long periods because of an outdated cooling solution, an INS and large range but no data link. That's like doing 90% of the work and then stopping short of your goal (in this case because the MoD is tired of funding the program).
 
If they retrofit the CAMM upgrades to the ASRAAM, then it will have a serious shot at being the best IR missile in the world. Until then it will remain an odd bird with lots of unrealized potential.
 
MICA has other issues (mainly with the IR seeker that seems to be a generation behind its competitors) but is a more "balanced" weapon (for lack of a better word). It's more expensive too.
 
even if that statement was correct (which it isn't) when a missiles seeker activates and its target is several km away outside its FOV or RANGE you would surely conceed that having a working update system
 
That's kind of asking to agree that water is wet... What I'm still waiting for is solid evidence that the MICA mid-course updates don't work (and given the VL MICA qualification campaign carried recently it's a hard one to believe).
 
Also, for a completely different type of terminal intercept consider Starstreak HVM.
 
Beam riding is another classic navigation law but my answer was within the context of Herald trashtalking MICA because the RF & IR version use (according to him) exactly the same navigation law when closing on their target which is somehow a design flaw because IR missile should "chase" their target while RF "meet" them and IR missile use "scalar" data while RF designed by "real men" should use "3D vector" data.
 
Which is complete nonsense as an IR missile (be it MICA IR, Sidewinder, ASRAAM) will use the bearing towards its target and a proportional navigation law to close on it while a RF missile (be it AMRAAM, MICA RF, Aster) will use bearing towards its target and a proportional navigation law to close on it.
 
The only potential difference is that the RF missile, IF it's confident on its target range information, can attempt to evaluate its target acceleration and compensate for it. But that's a dangerous game (overestimate the acceleration by more than 25% and the miss distance becomes greater than vanilla pronav).
 
GF made a point about a peregrine falcon having no proportional lead logic
 
Are you so sure it doesn't? After a bit a googling I found that according to medical research, birds of prey have a maximal acuity vision area in their eye that point sideways (40 degrees to the side for the peregrine falcon) and spiral during the dive to keep the target on this area.. This is in fact a basic form of proportional navigation.
 
Fascinating stuff.
 
I conclude the best explanation is a glitch in the processing somewherein the flight control system that leads to the HUD display
 
Rafale flight command system has soft and hard limits. To override the soft limits, the pilot has to keep pulling harder on the stick which explains the HUD message on the video frame: "release stick" which tells to the pilot he's in override mode.
 
There is no reason to attribute the +10g manoeuvre to a FCS glitch.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/8/2009 7:22:27 AM
""BW:
Acceleration during cornering (dogfight) is waay in favor of Rafale .
Vs a plane with vector thrust? Are you insane?""
 
Once for all , understand that the TVC on Raptor is needed , without it the aircraft 's turning ability would be below average . The F-22 hasn 't been built to defeat dogfighters but to avoid being tracked early and its aerodynamics at low level and high speed are average . Its TWR is excellent but the drag during tight turns is enormous which degrades badly its energy conservation as it can be seen on various videos .
 
""But the F-22 starts with a huge advantage and will keep it in most cases. And it won't fight at low altitudes, that's not what it was designed for and being stealthy, fast and cruising at a high altitude, it will be up to the Rafale to come and meet it (and most liekly meet its demise).""
 
I agree . The Rafale is not defenseless against the F-22 but it is true that the F-22 starts with a huge advantage .
 
""The best shot a Rafale would have is if it can catch a supercruising F-22 with its IRST. But to do that it would need a reliable IRST...""
 
The Rafale is using the IR Micas as small IRSTs and it works nicely up to 30-35km . As I see it , the F-22 would be detected before that through RWR and interferometry . Since the F-22 has nothing but its radar to look around , the EM emissions will betray its presence before any IRST get an eye on it . Spectra will automaticaly slew the long range TV cam on it and the Rafale driver will follow the F-22 on TV at up to 100km , the surprise effect is gone . Killing the F-22 is another story mind ...
 
Seagull :
""I think BW always go much too far, which is always counter-productive. Sorry BW.""
 
I am not trying to be productive Tmor , I 'm only correcting some posters who intentionaly bash the aircraft . 
So , you think that I 'm going "much too far" ? I don 't think so as everything I post can usualy be checked and verified on the Net . Since you know the Rafale so well (probably a bit better than I do actually) , you tell me where I 've been wrong .
Seagull , how many times we have discussed StrategyPage 's poor understanding regarding French hardware ? Countless times , at Air-Defense (and eslsewhere) we all know what is going on here .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       7/8/2009 10:44:31 AM

MICA has other issues (mainly with the IR seeker that seems to be a generation behind its competitors)
The only potential difference is that the RF missile, IF it's confident on its target range information, can attempt to evaluate its target acceleration and compensate for it. But that's a dangerous game (overestimate the acceleration by more than 25% and the miss distance becomes greater than vanilla pronav).

Rafale flight command system has soft and hard limits. To override the soft limits, the pilot has to keep pulling harder on the stick which explains the HUD message on the video frame: "release stick" which tells to the pilot he's in override mode.

There is no reason to attribute the +10g manoeuvre to a FCS glitch.


 
Now I definitely wish BW would listen to you, as you are right about MICA IR's seeker (not that it can be "blamed" since it was the first focal plane type seeker in operation).
 
Yes, that's the point.  That's how you can turn a medium range missile into a long range missile, at the cost of being susceptible to target maneuvers and poor target tracking.  SAMs have the same situation, where using an INS in the missile, command guidance, and/or mid-course upgrades can significantly extend the range of the missile.  And to achieve it, you basically have to have radar tracking of the target, as nothing else is typically reliable/accurate enough.

The stick indication sounds like a good point, and I don't know anything to rebut that.  Remember I said I didn't know if this was the frame of video I was thinking of, and also that I have no trouble at all believing that demo pilots take the Rafale to 10Gs in airshow demos. 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/8/2009 12:35:48 PM
Warpig to Seagull :
""Now I definitely wish BW would listen to you""
 
I always do Warpig , Seagull 's knowledge on the Rafale is top notch . I often use his references to back up my saying .
This is my harsh talk and strong attitude which is bashed on SP but some posters are constantly using insults toward me !
What I post on the Dassault fighter can always be verified and if I sometimes extrapolate a bit , it is again always in good faith . I am sometimes wrong like everybody else , but I learn as I walk the talk and I always admit defeat when I 'm defeated which is not the case with some other posters .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica    @BW   7/8/2009 1:08:19 PM

""BW:

Acceleration during cornering (dogfight) is waay in favor of Rafale .
Vs a plane with vector thrust? Are you insane?""

Once for all , understand that the TVC on Raptor is needed , without it the aircraft 's turning ability would be below average . The F-22 hasn 't been built to defeat dogfighters but to avoid being tracked early and its aerodynamics at low level and high speed are average . Its TWR is excellent but the drag during tight turns is enormous which degrades badly its energy conservation as it can be seen on various videos .


 
BW,

You are stretching the truth and making claims you cannot verify. You make it seem as if the F-22 were built, went to flight test and the engineers suddenly realized it's a dog and added TVC to compensate. FALSE. TVC was a part of the design and is WHY it will turn circles around opponents even into supersonic regions. You cannot discount TVC simply because you want to make some abstract Rafale vs F-22 comparison. In fact there is no comparison. Rafale is a good 4th Gen fighter but is completely outclassed by 5th Gen F-22 in every meaningful way. Stop playing pretend and suggesting otherwise. Also, airshows are just that, show. OR ENTERTAINMENT. It's not intended to demonstrate any kind of absolute performance limits of the platform. Not for Rafale and not for Raptor.

Drop this inappropriate thread please and start something more relevant to real world conditions. Why not open a discussion on how the multirole nature of the Rafale offer advantages over a purpose built design like the F-22 in terms of operational relevance through all phases and types of conflict and how operational cost and readiness affect operations ect. SOMETHING other than this non stop platform vs platform at airshow silliness. I can appreciate that you would like to see more respect for French technological prowess. It would help if you actually discussed that in a way that was actually relevant then people wouldn't "shoot the messenger" as much. Heck even if you want to discuss airshow performance do that! Nothing wrong with saying that platform a had a more dangerous and challenging routine or that crowds are more impressed by platform b ect. But when you try to extend that into other areas like absolute performance limits or combat capability you come off like a giant fanboy.

-DA 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics