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
Sign In   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

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Herald12345    Ypu should have read what he said, liar.    7/29/2009 8:23:57 AM
I'll let the evidence speak for itself.
 
You obviously don't know the difference between wake and  wing incidence. No amount of BS you try is going to cover that error up.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Oh by the way, liar.   7/29/2009 8:32:12 AM
I am 123456. I didn't try to hide my identity behind a new name when I needed a new account. Herald I was, and Herald I am. You won't find a Necromancer/Herk the Merc here, sneaking back in under false colors.
 
Therefore....... What reason did you have to sneak back in here? BW couldn't carry his own water, so he invited a few ignorant friends to try to prevaricate for him? . .  

How very cowardly of the entire lot of you.
 
Herald

 
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/29/2009 8:48:30 AM
 
Quote: I'll let the evidence speak for itself.
 
  Please DO.
 
 
Quote: You obviously don't know the difference between wake and  wing incidence. No amount of BS you try is going to cover that error up.
 
  As opposed to YOIU and your pal i studied the subject even from an early age, and you are WRONG again, i DID describe woth what you call "Wake" as a Mach line which is the official technical term as used by NASA/DRYDEN and Critical Mach.
 
  Please stop associating yourself to me by default, you8 clearly dont have the elementary knowlege to eve write about the subject, not do your pal Dwight Looi.
 
  AGAIN.

He didn't calculate these aircrafts leading edge angle properly but reversed them, then fails totaly to include the very notion of Critical Mach in his "theories" when in FACT this is what determines the aircraft DESIGNED Maximum Mach.
 
  NOT the Mach line.
 
  Also i posted the links to the authority in the US on BOTH issues, so don't go pretending you were right and I wrong, it is the opposite...

  This makes you the fanboy in need of socialising at all cost and me the educated airman who is trying to teach some guys who show a very strong and unusual resilience to knowlege in a permanent basis...
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/29/2009 8:52:26 AM
 
 
Quote: You incidentally are irrelevant with all that bull sincve the angles he calculated were not sweep but the angle of the shock tubes (look it up, fanboy).
 
  WRONG: He done BOTH and his calculation of the F-22 and F-35 Sweep angles are VISIBLY WRONG.
 
  I understand you are from the SAME school, i, myself am mor from that of L-M Raptor, so we know who the fanboys are...
 
Quote: but was actually a designer compromise for angle of attack (lift versus drag)
 
  Not to say it was solely designed for L.O it still is a far better abgle for radar return than a 35*.
 
  As for your fanboy explainations on aerodynamics let me correct you here.
 
  Angle of attack have little to do with this, what the designers were looking for was a specific Critical Mach in view for optimisation of its maneuvrability within a defined part of its flight envelop.
 
  You and Dwight Looi are FAR from being advanced enough on the subject to comprehend the principle of drag, let alone transonic and supersonic, and it SHOWS.
 
  About Rafale aerodynamic requierements:
 
  The previous experience with Mirage 2000 showed that the sweep angle and aspect ratios were giving maximum turning performances at a Mach which was considered too high for the percentage of engagement in turning fight.
 
   Aspect ratio was increased from 2.0 to 2.2 and sweep angle from 58* to 48*, this moved the maximum turning performances to a lower Mach trhan that of the Mirage 2000, looking for Mach 1.6/1.6 where 90% of turning fight takes place rather than 2.0/2.2.
 
Quote: in the mainly turn oriented energy regime,
 
  Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing"...
 
Quote:  the French designers used for their choices in designing that bomb truck aqs an "agile' dogfighter with the underpowered engine they expected SNECMA to deliver.. 
  Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing" but i SURE can flame...
 
 
Quote: That was your lie LO or reduced RCS lie, that I wanted to shoot down.
 
  EM L.O obbeys to physics, physics says the best angle for low reflectivity is the closest to 45*, NOT that of F/A-18 NOT that of F-35 but that of Rafale = FACT.
 
 
Quote:  As for Dwightlooi's numbers? He acknowledges that it was a simplified case, and then he shows why he used those analytical tools. If you want to read what he actuallt said, its here.
 
  He should aknowledge that he still CANT grab the most elem
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/29/2009 9:14:52 AM
Rufus :
""Warpig...  you are trying to discuss facts with Bluewings.""
 
Which proves that Warpig is more clever than you are . The discussion we are having Warpig and I is cordial and interesting , why don 't you try Rufus ?
 
Locutus :
""Would you like to explain how the Rafale maintains a low RCS while carrying external stores?""
 
First , all external stores are not equals , for exemple a GBU-24 has a bigger RCS than an Amraam obviously . We can use some average but known RCS values to calculate the RCS of a given aircraft with external stores . In the picture I posted , the Rafale is loaded with two supersonic 1250l fuel tanks , a central subsonic 2000l fuel tank , 2 stealth APACHEs cruise missiles and 2 Micas . A little bit of maths quickly give us the avarage RCS of the Fighter :
- Rafale = 0.1m Square
- 2 small fuel tanks = 0.5m Square x 2 = 1m Square
- 1 big fuel tank = 0.8m Square
- 2 Stealth Apaches = 0.3m Square x 2 = 0.6m Square
- 2 Micas = 0.3m Square x 2 = 0.6m Square 
Total : 3.1m Square . This is the RCS from the front and this is 8 times lower than a F-15 Eagle clean .
 
Rufus :
""We already know that Super Hornets have a large detection range advantage against Rafales""
 
Source ? During the first encounter with SHs , the early Rafales F1s have suffered losses BVR because of the lack of the Link-16 . It has been talked widly by both USN and MN pilots , nothing to do with radar range . Stop inventing stuff .
 
I understand that some posters are not really knowledgeable on how RCS work (it is a big and rather difficult business) and the different ways to cutdown an aircraft 's Radar Cross Section . A quick reminder :
 
Even though a radar may transmit megawatts of power in a single pulse, only a tiny fraction of that energy is typically bounced back to be received by the radar antenna. The amount of power returned from a target to the transmitting radar depends on four major factors:
  1. The power transmitted in the direction of the target
  2. The amount of power that impacts the target and is reflected back in the direction of the radar
  3. The amount of reflected power that is intercepted by the radar antenna
  4. The length of time in which the radar is pointed at the target
The formula used is :

Regarding the "Reflectivity" , the RAM coating is of the utmost importance :
 
Reflectivity refers to the fraction of the intercepted power that is reflected by the target, regardless of direction. Radar power does not necessarily reflect equally from all parts of an aircraft, and some components produce stronger radar reflections than others. In addition, some radar power is usually absorbed by the target. This absorption is especially true of aircraft coated with special substances called Radar Absorbent Materials (RAM) or those using internal reflectors called Radar Absorbent Structures (RAS) that trap incoming radar waves. Regardless, the power that is reradiated, or scattered, after reflecting off the target is equal to the intercepted power less whatever portion of that power is absorbed by the target. Reflectivity is defined as the ratio of power scattered by the target (Pscatter) to the power intercepted by the target (Pintercepted).

 
The thickness of the RAM material corresponds to one-quarter wavelength of the expected illuminating radar-wave. The incident radar energy is reflected from the outside and inside surfaces of the RAM to create a destructive wave interference pattern. This results in the cancellation of the reflected energy.
Btw , this is the reason why the RAM paint on the Rafale is thicker than on the F-22 and F-35 . During testing in anechoic chamber , Dassault probably found out that the Rafale EM "Spikes" could be cancelled with a specialy designed non-resonant magnetic RAM . Simple ! (lol)
 
More later ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       7/29/2009 9:27:51 AM
Wingman , your last post is excellent :-)
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Of ypu don't know what you discuss, try to baffle them with bull?    7/29/2009 9:33:32 AM

 
 

Quote: You incidentally are irrelevant with all that bull sincve the angles he calculated were not sweep but the angle of the shock tubes (look it up, fanboy).

 

  WRONG: He done BOTH and his calculation of the F-22 and F-35 Sweep angles are VISIBLY WRONG.

 

  I understand you are from the SAME school, i, myself am mor from that of L-M Raptor, so we know who the fanboys are...

 

Quote: but was actually a designer compromise for angle of attack (lift versus drag)

 

  Not to say it was solely designed for L.O it still is a far better abgle for radar return than a 35*.

 

  As for your fanboy explainations on aerodynamics let me correct you here.

 

  Angle of attack have little to do with this, what the designers were looking for was a specific Critical Mach in view for optimisation of its maneuvrability within a defined part of its flight envelop.

 

  You and Dwight Looi are FAR from being advanced enough on the subject to comprehend the principle of drag, let alone transonic and supersonic, and it SHOWS.
 

  About Rafale aerodynamic requierements:


 

  The previous experience with Mirage 2000 showed that the sweep angle and aspect ratios were giving maximum turning performances at a Mach which was considered too high for the percentage of engagement in turning fight.

 

  
Aspect ratio was increased from 2.0 to 2.2 and sweep angle from 58* to 48*, this moved the maximum turning performances to a lower Mach trhan that of the Mirage 2000, looking for Mach 1.6/1.6 where 90% of turning fight takes place rather than 2.0/2.2.

 

Quote: in the mainly turn oriented energy regime,
 

  Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing"...


 

Quote:  the French designers used for their choices in designing that bomb truck aqs an "agile' dogfighter with the underpowered engine they expected SNECMA to deliver.. 

  Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing" but i SURE can flame...


 

 

Quote: That was your lie LO or reduced RCS lie, that I wanted to shoot down.

 

  EM L.O obbeys to physics, physics says the best angle for low reflectivity is the closest to 45*, NOT that of F/A-18 NOT that of F-35 but that of Rafale = FACT.
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/29/2009 9:57:03 AM

Wings and Configurations for High-Speed Flight


Swept Wings
 
The critical Mach number of a wing is the flight Mach number of the aircraft at which the local Mach number at some point of the wing becomes 1.0. At a Mach number slightly in excess of this critical value, shock waves form on the wing, and further increases in speed cause [249] large changes in the forces, moments, and pressures on the wing. The effects on the lift and drag characteristics of increasing the Mach number beyond the critical value are briefly discussed and illustrated in chapter 5. Subsonic aircraft usually do not cruise at Mach numbers much beyond the critical value. For supersonic flight, however, the aircraft must have sufficient power to overcome the high drag in the transonic speed range and be capable of controlled flight through this capricious Mach number range.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/His...


Mach angle    (NASA SP-7, 1965)
The angle between a Mach line and the direction of movement of undisturbed flow. See Mach wave.

Mach wave    (NASA SP-7, 1965)
1. A shock wave theoretically occurring along a common line of intersection of all the pressure disturbances emanating from an infinitesimally small particle moving at supersonic speed through a fluid medium, with such a wave considered to exert no changes in the condition of the fluid passing through it.
The concept of the Mach wave is used in defining and studying the realm of certain disturbances in a supersonic field of flow.
2. A very weak shock wave appearing, e.g., at the nose of a very sharp body, where the fluid undergoes no substantial change in direction.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/... wave


Quote: in the mainly turn oriented energy regime, (underpowered engine you forgot to quote, H.)

 
Quote: Exactly what I said, poster, but without the uncited and unacknowledged fluff from ypir plagiarozed source . Who doesn't know aeronautics here?

  YOU.
  And it SHOWS, "unacknowledged fluff from ypir plagiarozed source?.

  NASA/DRYDEN defines the aerodynamics of F-22 and F-35, they WRITE the book in PLAIN American English but obviously your bunch is NOT interested the slightest...

   Time to go to your nearest flying school and borrow the books, in aeronautic language this phrases means nothing else than "i dont know what i am writing" but i SURE can flame...

 

 Quote: Since I don't have to hunt for this stuff...

  You should LEARN because you cant even comprehend what you copy/paste...

 

Quote: And for a novice like you: wiki is good enough.

  AGAIN you are the novices here...

  The sources i am using are the only authorities on the subject, meaning before puting even a begginer on an aircraft youy have to learn your theoprical basics, it helps understanding the complex stuff which is way above your newbbies heads.

  And BTW the best example of it is your quest for the Delta wing  when the best sources available simply talk about wing sweep.

  There is no need for a delta design to obtain a high Critical Mach.

 

Quote: By the wey, you are a liar.

As I plainly showed here.

 
  Really? WHERE?

  You keep taking your low standard for a granted worl'ds avereage, think again i posted the links to these articles on this very particular subject...

  Dont mystake ME for one of yours, you're simply not up to it, your bunch have to ressort to spin ,twist and reverse psychology, calling people names which in reality applies best to yourself....

 
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/29/2009 10:07:57 AM
Quote: Another advantage is that as the angle of attack increases the leading edge of the wing generates a vortex which remains attached to the upper surface of the wing, giving the delta a very high stall angle.
 
  Yet another CLEAR case of "I don't know what i write about" and mediocre copy/paste while insulting people calling them liars and failing to comprehend what one posts...
 
  Vortex lift is a characteristic of the DELTA wing little to do with the choice of sweep angle for Rafale.

  F-22 generates vortex lift as well as that of Typhoon, Gripen, Mirage 2000 , Concorde and yet their sweep angles are total different...
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12    F-22 RAM coating deficiencies   7/29/2009 10:14:58 AM
It seems that the F-22 's RAM coating is having even more problems than I thought ...
(July 3 , 2009)
 
""A former LockMart engineer who worked on the F-117, B-2 & F-22 programs is to file a lawsuit against the company for allegedly conceiling deficiencies on the radar-absorbent material (RAM) coatings of the stealth fighter:
The pending lawsuit accuses Lockheed of knowingly providing defective coatings used to reduce the aircraft?s radar and visual signatures, and covering up the problem by adding 272kg (600lbs) worth of extra layers.
 
The F-22 requires three layers of coatings to reduce its radar signature, according to Olsen?s statements in his case. A primer seals the surface of the aircraft skin and helps with the adhesion of the next layer. Next, a conductive coating with silver flakes mixed with polyurethane materials is applied to keep radar waves from bouncing back to the emitter source. Finally, a topcoat layer has properties, including metallic materials, to reduce heat, which lowers the risk of radar detection. "If those coatings are not effective, the other stealth measures of the aircraft?s design are negated," the lawsuit says.
Olsen claims he witnessed Lockheed management misleading USAF officials about the quality of the stealth coatings. Olsen?s supervisors instructed him not to speak at meetings with USAF officials. [?] Lockheed also schemed to avoid government inspections of the coatings, secretly shipping batches of the stealth materials to the homes, the lawsuit states.""
*************
 The Rafale never had such problem ...
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy