2009 displays of the F-22 and the Rafale

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Sort in Reverse Order Posted

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NEXT

Wingman 7/27/2009 3:19:24 PM

Rafale Technical Display.

Captain Cedric Ruet, Rafale demonstrator achieved a historic double at the airshow Royal International Air Tattoo (RIAT), held on 18 and 19 July 2009, Fairford, Great Britain.

The fighter pilot himself, winning two trophies in its first participation in RIAT:
Sir Douglas Bader Trophy Best Solo Display Team (first prize in the solo presentation awarded after the vote of a panel of English general of the Royal Air Force and Royal Navy) and the Royal Air Marshall Ben Crowley Milline equivalent price to the public.

For this first display in the UK, the fighter pilot performed in front of 20,000 people, along with a wide variety of aircraft which came to commemorate the 60th anniversary of NATO: Swiss F18, English, Finnish and Spanish Eurofighter Typhoon, Dutch and Belgian F16, Swedish and Hungarian Grippen, Boeing Steerman...

However, the season is not complete, the pilot of the fighter squadron 1/7 "Provence" based at Saint-Dizier and his team of engineers represent the French Air Force in Russia and Poland, from the end of August.
link

link

According to the pilot himself, the g load values picks at 1.5, 11 g.

Reagrds, Wingman.

Quote Reply

Beazz 7/27/2009 4:16:19 PM

You're as big an idiot as BW and most likely ARE him. The Rafael has a MIPS and so does the F22.

You do sound like a petulant, retarded child, you know (hint: try spelling the name of the plane you bash correcly, it helps a lot when it comes to being credible). Anyone with the slightest clue about processors would know that hese don't "have" MIPS and that MIPS are the single most abused processing power measurements as they're very easy to manipulate.

For example, I could claim that since the Rafale MDPU boards use PPC740 processors running at 200MHz, each board has 600MIPS (the PPC740 can issue two integers and one floating point operation per second). This is of course ridiculous but is often done in marketing brochures like those on Thales or Raytheon sites.

But in the case of the Rafale, the people programming the software layer were kind (stupid?) enough to reveal the available processing power, i.e. 65 MIPS which would include both the redundant processing (each process has to be dispatched to two boards and run concurrently, just in case one board fails - can hardly have pilot displays go blank while the sytem reconfigures itself, can we?) and a virtualisation software layer that ensure some form of hardware independance to the application running on top (this is especially important for future upgrade, you may lose 1/3 of your processing power but make sure you can easily integrate faster processors later on with minimal software retunes).

As I don't have any public source regarding regarding the actual CIP power, I'll give the benefit of the doubt to the F-22 and assume that the 350 MIPS general processing power for each CIP (total per plane = 700) takes into account the same margins.

In the end, a comparison of both systems show that similar technology, delivered around the same period (2004 for the MDPU, 2006 for the CIP-2000 F-22 upgrade) have similar levels of performance (I won't venture a guess as to which one is the most powerful, I'd say that given that in the real world neither MDPU or CIP are fully populated they both have more than enough).

That's hardly suprising, nor is the fact that the F-35 will be fitted with even more processing power.

ONly a frenchmen would come to the conclusion that when both a/c state the MIPS, of course all the rest are scueiing the numbers and only the french and their rafail are being accurate. You actually expect anyone to buy into that line of BS? I'll say it agin little boy, the rafail is a clunker from a computer processing point of view when compared to the F22. The F22s numbers are not scued so as to mislead anyone. You have absolutely NO proof of even a hint of such nonsense. The F22 currently has 2 MIPS in ALL it's F22's with the room for the 3rd already there and can be installed at any time. NOT like your rafail with 1 of those MDPUs in them and ONLY an experimental version with more. Why do you think you experimental version has the xtra TWO applehead? NOT because the rafail has MORE then enough power as you claim. Everyone knows it is beyond straining its limits to keep up as it is. Matter fact, it can't keep up. LM has clearly stated that each F22 MIPS can be increased to 2000MIPS upon the need. No R&D needed to get it there. It's already available if the need arises. To say that they each came out only a couple years apart therefore means they each have similar capabilitys is pure ignorant. The rafail came out just a few years ahead of the F22 and the difference in those 2 a/c is night and day in favor of the F22. So is the computing power of the 2.

And your numbers are wrong anyhow. Where do you get the 350 per CIP for total of 700? They are currently useing ~725 MIPS per CIP for about 1450 Total as it is now and as LM has said, they can easily bump that up to 2000 PER CIP. Face it, the rafail is a clunker. When it comes to computers, a few years is an eternity and the rafail came to life several years ahead of the F22.

Beazz

The Rafale is a 4th generation aircraft with some minimal RCS reduction work. It is similar to the EF and Gripen, better than the F-15 or any Russian aircraft, and somewhat worse than the Super Hornet in that regard.

I'd say the S-shaped intakes and semi-recessed AAM ejectors carrying the MICA conformal to the body would give the Rafale an edge even in frontal RCS vs the Super Hornet in a pure air-air configuration. Lateral RCS is probably worse though.

I am all for eliminating needless complexity... but a retractable refueling probe is just no big deal.

For the DGA it is. They're the ones buying the plane, they're making the requirements (even if I agree this is not the smartest one - at least it's not as bad as refusing to equip HMS).

You did not understand what I said. You interpreted it to mean what you thought it said and you LIED.

Jesus. I quoted you word for word:

"It means how long the gas flask is good before it has to be recharged before all the gas leaks out.Just how big a gas supply do you think the chiller can carry you buffoon? Of course the MICA could possibly use a primitive Peltier cooling unit, but that lasts only as long as the batteries hold out. That isn't very long either. By the way, we Americans, and some others use something called a Stirling cryo-engine, dummy, to cool our Sidewinders' seekers. Don't bother to google it. You'll find it, but you won't understand it at all."

These are you words, you uttered that nonsense on March 23rd 2009. You can try to twist it as much as you want but that won't change the end result: you were ignorant about the MICA IR seeker cooler just like you're ignorant about everything else about that missile (or any French weapon).

You were and are deceptive. Its masked by the strakes and fins and buried exactly as I said.

No it's not. Neither MICA nor AMRAAM use buried antennas, they use plain rear-facing antennas (I'd bet simple circular microstrip given the shape on the picture).

That is a retransmission antenna on both missiles.

Sure. Whatever.

(straight from Raytheon docs, red circle is mine)

No its not the same term for term.

Check my reference, check Reactive's linked article. Same equation.

And why the terms for an industrial robot and a MISSILE are NOT the same?

They're both closed-loop regulation systems. The language is the same in both cases. You're the one constantly using non-standard terms like "predict lead logic" or other BS. It's pointlessly confusing (unless of course your real goal is to confuse people - in that case you're quite good at it).

In fact , there is nothing the USA can field right now with the capabilities of Rafale

Except the latest Super Hornet blocks. Ok, it's not as nimble and the proposed IRST is an abomination but performance-wise it's very close. And the radar is much better compared to the vanilla RBE2. More integrated weapons too (even if I'd take AASM over JDAM).

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/27/2009 6:36:48 PM

Quote: "The Rafale is a 4th generation aircraft with some minimal RCS reduction work. It is similar to the EF and Gripen, better than the F-15 or any Russian aircraft, and somewhat worse than the Super Hornet in that regard."

The guy who wrote this have little idea....

Rafale have shapes much closer to US EM L.O aircrafts than F/A 18:

Read; leading edge sweep is the SAME than YF-22, the mid-fuselage mounted wing and blended wing fuselage junction are only beaten by that of YF-23.

S-shaped inlet gloves, M88 engine vanes, work on IR and EM emition reduction from design stage including serated material all over the aiframe etc.

In FACT they both qualifies as L.O when equiped with AESA LPI radars.

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/27/2009 7:04:49 PM

I have to correct you there...

Quote: "Rafale ' IR signature and air compressions seen from under :"

These are aerodynamics; pressure zones NOT the IR signature of the aircrafts.

HIGH pressures in BLUE, LOW pressures in RED.

Where Rafale scores with IR signature is in the unique design of M88 which posses an extra cooling channel, and its integration to Rafale which airframe also provide with more cooling for its engine than most aircrafts.

It is RAM-fed by a low pressure channel running from the front (hiden behind the inlet difusers) which also is used to cool the avionic bay when the aircraft is not in flight.

This channel is split in two, one part of the cooling airflow runs within the engine itself, running from front to end and also cools the afterburner casing, it then mixes with the outer cooling channel which surrounds the whole engine external case and surrounds the hot jet with the help of an extra con-di nozzles.

You can see the extra channel and its casing very clearly in the drawing above.

The second set of nozzles are longer and much cooler, they are shielding the hot gas from the PoV of IR seekers at much more acute angles than a normal set of jet engine nozzles would...

This means that the whole of the aircraft rear fuselage skin is a lot cooler, that the visible nozzles are also a lot cooler and that the hot gas are not as visible than with let's say F-35 which F-135 runs at a higher TET than M88 and nozzles aren't cooled by any additional airflow while being made of similar material...

Quote Reply

Herald12345 The leading edge of the Rafale wing..... 7/27/2009 9:13:32 PM

is not there for RCS . Its there for the same reason that the sweep was there on the F-102. to handle the slip through the transonic range that ALL delta wing aircraft have. Its not the same sweep as the F-22.

47.5 degrees F-22.

Hello? Are you insane?

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/28/2009 2:22:43 AM

"In FACT they both qualifies as L.O when equiped with AESA LPI radars. "

Now now... I have already had to cautioned more than a couple fanboys about making things up on this message board.

It is becoming obvious that while you might have an interest in fighters, you have no actual experience with them or the technologies involved.

The Rafale is not a LO airframe, regardless of which radar it is fitted with, even flying clean. France has extremely minimal RCS reduction experience and they had none at all at the time the Rafale was being designed. It isn't that France is incapable of building a reduced RCS airframe, but they certainly haven't done it yet and it would require a long time and a lot of effort to develop the technology.

The Neuron program will probably help to develop the skills of French engineers given time, but even that is only a single aircraft, and a demonstrator at that.

As for the Rafale... late in the game its designers took a few very basic steps to limit its RCS. This HAS helped reduce its RCS, but it is nonetheless right amongst the pack with other late 4th generation aircraft from an RCS standpoint.

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/28/2009 6:20:37 AM

"Herald12345
to handle the slip through the transonic range that ALL delta wing aircraft have. Its not the same sweep as the F-22".

Sorry to say but.... You clearly have NO idea what you are talking about...

I know the guy who posted the picture you use and i can tell you for a FACT that he doesn't comprehend the subject the slightest, this might explain why you got mislead so badly.

For example he REVERSED the angle used to calculate the sweep angles, that of F-22 is 42*, that of F-35 is 35*, that of F-16 is 40*.

The leading edge sweep determines the critical Mach, weither the Mach lines you describes with the help of this picture have insignificant effects of aircrafts performances and negligible on their handling (which would be the issue if ever).
link /> link wave

Here are a couple of article from a proper source for you to read in order to start to comprehend the issue.

Rough explaination:

. The Critical mach is the point at which the effects of compressibility will start to be felt in terms of transonic DRAG.

. F-35 is designed as a transonic/low supersonic airframe, with a LOWER critical mach than even F-16, all these aircrafts have a similar wing thicknes ratios so values are equal in scale.

. The higher the sweep angle, the later in the Mach scale these effect will be felt, the lower the transonic and supersonic drag pic value will be, the lower their mpact on performances.

. The difference comes from their wing profiles and in this respect the F-22 and F-35 drag slightly more in supersonic due to the use of a supercritic profile as opposed to laminar profiles for others.

. F-22 CAN handle it with a very High TWR and a delta wing (YES the Raport lift is vortex lift like a croped delta), the F-35 canot and is limited to M 1.6 with NO supercruise capabilties.

Now regarding YF-22, the leading edge sweep angle was 48* as is the case for Rafale.

This was reduced to 42* and dont tell me the document disclosed by Dryden in behalf of Lockheed Martin isn't accurate, it is L-M own figures, as for Dryden, they know what they're talking about, they halpt L-M with the design and aerodynamics.

Now with regard to the question of EM return it is obvious that the closest to the ideal 45* angle are the sweep angles of F-22 and Rafale, NOT that of F-35, even F-16 design is more suited to EM return from front and sides.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Rufus:
Now now... I have already had to cautioned more than a couple fanboys about making things up on this message board.
[linked image]

You might be interested to know that RAND sees things differently, L.O ands V.L.O are clearly different levels of Low Obsevability, as for "making things up", how about your collegue above who rewrite all known aerodynamic books?

Both F/A-18 were in the R.O category because of the characteristic of their airframe designs and radars, they already were above the MIN category by a fair margin.

With the use of more discreet sensors in the A2A role, IRST and AESA LPI radars, they are now L.O. as opposed to V.L.O which involves the use of internal weapon storage and more developed RAM.

In some aspcect, Rafale have more discreet features then even F-35 and F/A18, its IR signature is particularly low and its leading edge sweep angle is closer to the ideal 45*.

Rufus:
It is becoming obvious that while you might have an interest in fighters, you have no actual experience with them or the technologies involved.

This is a hell of an assumption to make, please give some attention to my posts...

Rufus:

The Rafale is not a LO airframe, regardless of which radar it is fitted with, even flying clean.

Accorsing to RAND criterias yes it is, and the use of an AESA LPI radar matters.

L.O is define it terms of "Observability" but can also be regarded as vulnerability to "Detection", be it Electromagnetic, InfraRed, Radar, Radio, Visual etc.

It is the degree of measures vs these and the design features which are involved which makes the level of Observability.

BOTH F/A-18 and Rafale (as opposed to what you say probably by lack of informations) have been treated accordingly to their primary customers requierements, i.e. reduction of EM return by shaping and uses of RAM, including S-shaped inlets, engine vanes, serated materials etc.

In the case of Rafale, the IR reduction measures goes even further than any US in-service fighter thanks to its engine design, it also use totaly passive sensors to minimise its radar emitions while tracking and conduction intercptions.

Rufus:

France has extremely minimal RCS reduction experience and they had none at all at the time the Rafale was being designed.

I'll have to agree to desagree.

France used a lot of Signature management features from Rafale A design stage without compromising with aerodynamics in particular with the choice of materials, the conceipt with Rafale C (in reality named Rafale D for "Discreet" at roll-out) was pushed much furtger with redesigned inlets and use of serated material + RAM.

The RAM paint was developed and applied to serie Rafales with the addition of a Visual reduction characteristic.

Perhaps you don't know it doesn't mean there was no experience, but ONERA in France was working on the subject of EM signature management long before ACX for both aircrafts and weapons like SCALP, they also conducted the researches on increased engine TET and IR reduction of M88 wirh SNECMA.

link

Rufus:

It isn't that France is incapable of building a reduced RCS airframe, but they certainly haven't done it yet and it would require a long time and a lot of effort to develop the technology.

It is not the opinion of the specialised press on the subject, we know from our pilots that a Rafale will detect a Typhoon at TWICE the range of another Rafale using the PESA RBE2 in a head-tohead engagement.

Your assumption that they have similar RCS is already known to be false.

Rufus:
The Neuron program will probably help to develop the skills of French engineers given time, but even that is only a single aircraft, and a demonstrator at that.

France flew the first V.L.O UAV in Europe in 2000, the second one, instable tail-less in 2002.

Rufus:

It is WAY above the rest and i can name all the appearent EM reduction features for you if you wish but for one thing, in the L.O UAVs designed by Dassault, the frontal cross sectional design, (YF-23-like) with a mid-fuselage mounted wing and large wing/fuselage blended area was used.

It is known not only to reduce radar return from the sides it also reduces ionduce drag in transonic and supersonic.
link

Something else, nEUROn and F-35 will have similar RCS, nEUROn will fly earlier in 2011 than F-35 will enter service, this gives you an idea on how "far behind" the USA Europe really is technologicaly.

The Operational version of nEUROn and the follow-up technology derivated European Future Air Combat System are at two different stages of DGA programe progresses.

The Operational version of nEUROn is at initial research stage...
link

EFACS was at technology risk study two years ago (2007 Annual repport).
link

EFACS is the remplacement for Tronados and (non-French service) Mirage 2000 using technology developed for nEUROn.

I think your problem over there is the lack of proper information about what is done over here, this said with due respect of course....

Quote Reply

Wingman 7/28/2009 6:41:29 AM

Just to make my points...

Now about maneuvrability...

Two trophies for the Rafale

[linked image]

Capitaine Cédric Ruet.

[linked image]

Le démonstrateur Rafale a gagné deux trophées.

[linked image]

link

Here, the pilot describes his display Maximum g load: 10. 10.5 looking at 11.0 g.

link

Here is the RIAT display...

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/28/2009 1:09:50 PM

Let me just start this response by saying that if you think trying to bury the thread in a pile or random irrelevant crap is going to make you look smarter than you are, that you are mistaken.

"F-22 CAN handle it with a very High TWR and a delta wing (YES the Raport lift is vortex lift like a croped delta), the F-35 canot and is limited to M 1.6 with NO supercruise capabilties."

Ah, the standard fanboy misunderstanding of the maximum speeds of fighter aircraft. The key thing you need to realize is that the F-35's listed top speed is its specified top speed, M1.6+ That is to say it is designed to be just as fast as its competition when carrying a useful wartime loadout. It is only in the rarest of circumstances that a 4th generation fighter exceeds M1.5 in training, and it would be all but unheardof to do so in combat. Sorry if the facts clash with your fantasy theories of air combat.

You and the rest of the fanboys are also going to be greatly disappointed when the real numbers for the F-35 become public. I will just say that there is nothing about its design that precludes supercruise or maximum speeds above M1.6.

Your attempt to argue that the Rafale is a stealthy aircraft because of its wing sweep angle is pretty amusing to me though. I wonder if even you believe the stuff you are typing. If so, that is pretty depressing for one who clearly spends time scouring the internet for information on airplanes.

"You might be interested to know that RAND sees things differently, L.O ands V.L.O are clearly different levels of Low Obsevability"

Did you read the slide you linked to? I wonder if English comprehension is partially the issue here.

"We use a subjective method to provide the reader with a qualitative relative comparison"

All they are doing is trying to group fighters into broad groups so that they can simplify things for readers who lack the background or clearances to view the actual data. These are not official definitions of terms, nor are they even particularly accurate.

"With the use of more discreet sensors in the A2A role, IRST and AESA LPI radars, they are now L.O. as opposed to V.L.O which involves the use of internal weapon storage and more developed RAM."

Here you are also badly garbling up key terms. When discussing the RCS of an aircraft, its sensors are not part of the equation. Operationally, stealth depends on a huge number of factors that fall outside the context of this discussion, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking specifically about the Rafale's lack of significant RCS reduction features. I can't tell if you are intentionally trying to muddy the waters or if you are yourself confused.

"I'll have to agree to desagree."

So what? It is already quite clear that your level of knowledge and posting style is that of a fanboy. You, like the various other fanboys on the internet, are not interested in factual discussions, but rather see yourself as a champion of your favorite airplane on a mission to defend it from perceived critics. Like our other fanboys, you are either prone to badly misunderstanding concepts and sources in a manner that consistently favors your favorite plane, or you are a liar. The distinction is largely academic in my opinion as the end result is similar.

I will repeat the facts for you once again. The Rafale is a more or less conventional 4th generation aircraft. Like most 4th generation designs it has received some minimal RCS reduction work. On an aircraft that was not designed with RCS reduction as a goal the efficacy of these late-stage RCS reduction efforts is minimal. There is simply no fixing major RCS offenders like the Rafale's vertical tail, etc. It is just silly to sit here talking about the sweep of its wing, when anyone who has worked with stealth aircraft can take one look at the Rafale and tell you that it has received, at best, extremely minimal RCS reduction work. They haven't even taken care of the issues that could be changed without resorting to internal carriage, etc.

You can post as many pictures with little arrows and lines drawn on them as you want, but you can't change the underlying facts.

"Perhaps you don't know it doesn't mean there was no experience, but ONERA in France was working on the subject of EM signature management long before ACX for both aircrafts and weapons like SCALP, they also conducted the researches on increased engine TET and IR reduction of M88 wirh SNECMA."

Very very minimal work... You don't seem to understand that RCS reduction is an incredibly large and complex field of engineering at this point. The US has built, and continues to build, numerous full scale flying testbeds, prototypes and demonstrator aircraft, and that is in addition to their work on munitions, sub-scale models, etc etc. France isn't even in the same game, let alone competitive. It is like launching a rocket in your back-yard and then claiming that you have a program to build a moon base. Everyone has to start somewhere, but you can't confusing taking a minimal first step with the level of effort and resources required to do the real thing.

"It is not the opinion of the specialised press on the subject, we know from our pilots that a Rafale will detect a Typhoon at TWICE the range of another Rafale using the PESA RBE2 in a head-tohead engagement."

These sorts of anecdotal accounts are of very limited use. It is not unlike the reports from the US Navy's exercises with the Rafale in which the Super Hornets were able to consistently out-detect the Rafale to such an extent that the rules of the exercise needed to be changed in order to ensure it was worthwhile. (and that was with the Super Hornet's older conventional radar)

"France flew the first V.L.O UAV in Europe in 2000, the second one, instable tail-less in 2002."

Once again I find myself wondering if even you understand how foolish you sound when you say things like this. There is simply no comparison to the small scale model work France has done to the level of work required to fully develop low-observable technology. Do you have any idea how many models and subscale prototypes were tested before the B-2 was first flown?

I see what you are doing, and I understand why. You want to believe that your favorite plane is not as far behind the current state-of-the-art as it is. In order to believe this you must convince yourself that its designers had expertise in a field they simply didn't. So you try to simplify the problem. You say... sure, other countries spent decades and countless billions of dollars to develop this technology... but France has come pretty close in just a few years with a few barely funded development efforts... and on and on.

Sorry, it just isn't realistic.

"Something else, nEUROn and F-35 will have similar RCS, nEUROn will fly earlier in 2011 than F-35 will enter service, this gives you an idea on how "far behind" the USA Europe really is technologicaly."

lol... now the serious fanboy fantasies begin!

You are trying to compare an early stage development program for a UAV demonstrator to a massive, fully-funded, manned aircraft program that has piggybacked on decades of LO design experience, and you have tossed in the usual "similar RCS" claim despite not having a clue what you are talking about. Charming!

A more appropriate comparison would be to something like the X-45, the first of which was completed in 2000.

"I think your problem over there is the lack of proper information about what is done over here, this said with due respect of course...."

Actually no, we have plenty of fanboys here and they have already found many interesting ways to misunderstand or make up information so your presence is pretty redundent.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 7/28/2009 4:13:56 PM

Some posters must be deaf or they can 't read . Ok , let 's start again .

Rufus doesn 't have a clue on the Rafale 's design and he keeps spreading lies . Tell me Rufus , are you not tired to look stupid ? You post BS by the numbers without backing up anything and you really hope that is enough or will do to fool people ? You 're mistaking . You said :

""We are talking specifically about the Rafale's lack of significant RCS""

(first mistake)

""The Rafale is a more or less conventional 4th generation aircraft""

(2nd mistake)

""Like most 4th generation designs it has received some minimal RCS reduction work""

(3rd mistake)

""one look at the Rafale and tell you that it has received, at best, extremely minimal RCS reduction""

(4th mistake)

""you must convince yourself that its designers had expertise in a field they simply didn't""

(5th mistake)

Rufus , you are incapable to back-up anything I just quoted because you 're wrong on all accounts and there is nothing on the Net to prove your case , you have no case . You are a misinformed lyier . In fact , you are trolling .

On the other hand , I can demolish your BS with ease because I know what I am talking about and I also have all the data I need to do so . Read , learn and don 't forget :

"The French fighter is definitely a ?low-observable? aircraft, and its systems will set new standards in terms of low-observability and survivability. Every effort has been made by the engineers to minimise its infrared and radar signatures. The objective was not to make the aircraft undetectable or to match the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the F-117 or B-2, but to significantly reduce the detection and tracking range of hostile airdefences. Accordingly, the airframe has been carefully shaped to cut down its RCS. Other signature reduction measures include state-of-the-art Radar-Absorbing Materials in various areas of the airframe, ?sawtooth? edges on the foreplanes, on the flaperons, and on some access panels and doors, specially treated canopy, plus ?double-S? shaped air-intake ducts to hide the engine compressor faces. Thanks to the Hot Spot treatment, infrared signature is minimised, and the Snecma M88 turbofans have been optimised to limit infrared detectability."

(From Rafale International Fox-Three No 4)

I remind you that the Rafale has been designed from day one to be LO (not VLO) . The design started in 3D CAD , then the prototypes have been validated after spending weeks in anechoic chamber with various load . I 've got a piture of a Rafale in the chamber loaded with 2 different fuel tanks (1250 l and 2000 l) and 2 Micas , unfortunatly the picture is part of a pdf and I can 't post it here . Notice the "carefully shaped airframe" to start with .

Then :

"The fuselage and wings are manufactured entirely with composite materials and alloys (carbon fiber, kevlar, titanium and various alloys) and received treatment reducing the reflection of electromagnetic waves, making the jet discrete ."

(From a French DoD publication , january 2006)

Also :

"The Rafale is low observable and it can operate by night or day in all weather conditions. It features the latest technologies including multisensor fusion and digital voice control."

(From Dassault Aviation Publication , february 2002)

You see Rufus (and other non believers) , there is plenty of official material who clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge (and bias) . I 've got some more but it should be enough for now , I 'll dig out extra studies as I see fit .

It is about time to acknowledge that the Rafale is not a 4th generation fighter and it hasn 't been built to be one of them .

Some of you did not like what Wingman said but he is correct and his posts should be kept in mind .

Rufus also said :

""France has extremely minimal RCS reduction experience and they had none at all at the time the Rafale was being designed.""

I 've just demolished its rubbish . More to it , France started her research in stealth technology in late 70s , almost 20 years before Rafale . In 1999 , Dassault stated that the discrete technologies used on the Rafale were the result of around 20 years of work . The Mirage 2000 already had some early LO features regarding the airframe and air intakes design , its RCS was already almost twice smaller than the F-16C 's RCS . We 're are not the new comers as some like to think ...

Our knowledge on "stealth" is better than most think and certainly the best in Europe (I don 't know why Russia is nowhere) .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

JFKY BW 7/28/2009 4:30:03 PM

you keep saying the same sad things over and over, it won't make them true, you know. Rafale is NOT Low Observable...the tail fin and the fuel probe demonstrate that.

Please stop trying to make this pig's ear into a silk purse...it is what it is, a low altitude multi-role fighter, with some RCS control measures. But it was NOT designed from the outset, unless the designers were drunken idiots...and as I don't believe too many first rate a/c engineers are drunken idiots it's very unlikely that it was designed to be LO......

Please give it up...you are CLUELESS.

There is a nice Psych study about the clueless...they are lacking in the ability to self-examine, it's why they are CLUELESS. They can not see that they have jumped off the rails and it is INCONCEIVABLE to them that they have, and so it becomes impossible to explain their errors tot hem. because they can not accept they have made errors.

You are clueless.

Quote Reply

usajoe1 BW get help, you have a disease 7/28/2009 4:41:12 PM

Dictionary.com

pathological liar
Function: noun
- an individual who habitually tells lies so exaggerated or bizarre that they are suggestive of mental disorder.

-a person who lies to the point of it being considered a disease or condition, an abnormally habitual liar.

Quote Reply

Rufus 7/28/2009 5:07:04 PM

The truck driver returns! Long trip?

(From Rafale International Fox-Three No 4)

Ooh, a marketing brochure! I don't doubt that they made "every effort" I am just making it clear that considering the extremely limited level of expertise France possesses in LO design "every effort" just didn't amount to much. It is a lot like saying that India made "every effort" to design a competitive fighter with their Tejas program... but look what that got them...

Of course not. They didn't even bother to clean up the airframe. The very first step that would be taken if in fact an aircraft were being designed to be LO would be to ditch the vertical stabilizer, get rid of the various probes and protrusions, and address the Rafale's fit and finish issues such as the proud rivets, poorly fitting panels, and poorly concieved work-arounds like that heat shield at the rear of the aircraft.

Then :

(From a French DoD publication , january 2006)

Also :

"The Rafale is low observable and it can operate by night or day in all weather conditions. It features the latest technologies including multisensor fusion and digital voice control."

(From Dassault Aviation Publication , february 2002)

Ooh look! More marketing claims. I guess I should throw out my years of experience and start believing something that is obviously false because a truck driver on the internet read a marketing brochure. LOL

Yeah, marketing pamphlets. Want me to fetch some for the Eurofighter, Super Hornet, and Gripen? Wanna bet they all claim things that the others would disagree with? Watch out! I can dig out "studies" as I see fit! LOL

Here is one!

"The combat-proven F/A-18E/F Super Hornet delivers cutting-edge next generation multi-role strike fighter capability that is available today, outdistancing current and emerging threats well into the future. The Super Hornet has the capability, flexibility and performance necessary to modernize the air or naval aviation forces of any country."

h*tp://www.boeing.com/defense-space/military/fa18ef/docs/EF_overview.pdf

Wow! Look what I just proved with this "study!"

The Super Hornet could modernize ANY COUNTRY'S airforce! That includes France. That pretty well settles this argument I think.

But Wait! There is more!

"Gripen IN is the most technologically advanced fighter aircraft in the world. Gripen IN is equipped with futuristic warfare technologies developed specifically for India and will be the first of the new generation, multi-role combat aircraft to enter service."

link

Wow! Did you see what I just proved with this "study?" The Gripen IN is the most technologically advanced fighter in the world! I didn't know that !

Does anyone doubt I could go on and on and on with this?

It is about time to acknowledge that the Rafale is not a 4th generation fighter and it hasn 't been built to be one of them .

LMAO It is about time you realized that the opinions of fanboys and truck drivers mean NOTHING. You can cry and complain all you want, but the Rafale remains a 4th generation fighter.

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 7/28/2009 5:41:11 PM

Warpig :

""I think there is no question at all that the RWRs in the F-15/16/18 could ID the SLOT BACK and display an indication of a MiG-29""

I agree but the systems are not going to tell the pilot where the Fulcrum is . Is it coming toward you , is it behind you , and where exactly ? Spectra does it with great accuracy .

""the relatively new thing would be the fusing of the emitter's identification, azimuth, and elevation from the RWR with the location data of the bandit derived from the radar.""

What about doing it without the radar ? A single Rafale can do it at up to 35-40km with the LRF and two Rafales can do it by sharing the Spectra data (triangulation) . The Link-16 is not fast enough to provide a clear firing solution but is fast enough to provide a drop basket small enough to fire LOAL . It is not a tactic actually used by the AdA or the MN but it is feasable and tacticaly correct while expensive (small kill-ratio and Mica is expensive) .

""What I didn't see was whatever information you used to conclude that the Rafale was not using its radar during that engagement (...) that I did not see what indicators might have shown the reaction to the pop-up target was radar-off ""

Easy , the "Mig-29 alert" was on the right screen (provided by Spectra) , then it is put on the main screen (battle display) already withing the Mica 's NOZ because the Mica was asked by Spectra to look there and found the target , which is computed automaticaly radar on or radar off as soon as a sensor is getting something . From this info , the pilot shoot or most probably lase-shoot for a better kill .

""I did not recognize the information that leads you to conclude the particular MICA launched was necessarily a MICA-IR""

-1) The distance told me .

-2) You can fire an EM Mica LOBL without the radar and just with the LRF but an IR Mica will perform better WVR and the end game is silent .

Locutus :

""Your RCS figures are for the aircraft clean""

Of course , they always are . Now take 2 aircraft , one with a RCS of 0.1m Square and the other one with a RCS of 3m Square which is 30 times higher (ie: Rafale/F-16) , then load them both with external stores . Which one will still have the lowest RCS is a given .

It is the reason why I asked people to try to guess the RCS of this :

From the front , the RCS is just below 3m Square which is similar to a F-16 clean . A SU-27 or a F-15 Eagle loaded as Interceptors trying to kill this Rafale will both have a RCS about 10 times higher . Which one will see the other(s) first ?

I am not even taking into account jamming who can divide the detection and tracking range by 2 or more . Also , a Rafale loaded like this is in a deep strike penetration and will try to stay EM silent , relaying on passive sensors to work its way through .

We 're not talking about a loaded F-15E or F-15K (barndoors) , nor a F-16 Blk42 (small barndoor) or a SH but about a Rafale .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Bluewings12 7/28/2009 5:53:54 PM

Rufus :

""The truck driver returns! Long trip?""

No , not really . Dijon-Paris and return twice .

So Rufus , you discard every French paper ? Even coming from the French DoD ?

Ok .

I 'll do the same with the Boeing and LM Bullsh*t .

Cheers .

Quote Reply

Pages: PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 NEXT

	News As History - November 24, 2009
	Home News How to Make War Wars Around the World Austin Bay's On Point Dirty Little Secrets Features Al Nofi's CIC Prediction Market Wargames Measure of Respect On War and Warfare Videos Photos Jokes Community Military Discussion Boards Military Jokes Military Photos Military Book Reviews Military Movie Reviews Military Links Wargame Store StrategyPage Subscribe Login Feedback About Us Search Account Manager Advertise With Us