Dassault VP : Rafale's successor will join Eurofighter Consortium-like Euro Consortium.

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title Newest to Oldest

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 NEXT

gf0012-aust 10/27/2009 3:20:28 PM

gf0012-aust you beat me too it, even as a novice, i had tears streaming down my cheeks from laughter, its pure gold

but tell me what are you doing up at this time of the morning in aus, like me, did you wet the bed too ?

I start before dawn out of force of habit. plus the dog was going cross eyed and that means that he needs

to be let out for a whiz. :)

you get more work done before everyone else starts dribbling in....

Quote Reply

markrigh rcs 10/27/2009 3:47:01 PM

How can u guys compare rafale's, eurofighter's or gripen's rcs with superhornet's?

From a designer's point of vue, the 3 eurocanards were designed with rcs reduction as a requirement. The super hornet's reduction features come in as an upgrade of the existing f-18 airframe.

Saying that superhornet has a lower frontal rcs then rafale's, eurofighter is roughly equivalent as saying the F-15 SE (which is an upgrade) frontal rcs is lower than the f-35's (boeing is claiming the frontal rcs is equivalent, everyone knows it is false).

If we look closer to a superhornet rcs reduction feature ( hiding the compressor blades ):

h*tp://www.primeportal.net/hangar/michael_block/fa-18e_165898/

the s-shape duct is trying to partially hide the blades, but it less succesful than the rafale's:

h*tp://img407.imageshack.us/img407/614/earafaleweb.gif

My point is by designing a plane with a precise requirement in mind, will come off better than a "patch" of an existing plane. Logical.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar MK reply. 10/27/2009 3:52:31 PM

There is no gibberish, if you had actually read what I wrote and compared the data I supplied with that stated in the document you linked to, you would realise that the data I provided were actually more worse for the Rafale. The empty weight stated in the document is actually ~450 kg lower than the one stated by official sources! That means if the guy who has assembled that document had used the empty weight I supplied (stated in a programme document and on the EC 1/7 website) the results for the Rafale would be a bit more worse!

Then the performance parameters are WORSE for the heavier Squall over the fuel fraction curve as the plane empties fuel burden. You see this, right? And yes I let it slide, because I sort of suggested that the guy who did the work was generous to the Rafale for engine performance and lofting.

In effect look at page 7 of the powerpoint. That extra thrust the Typhoon has means that dirty at altitude it can point better than the Squall. There is no way to escape what are good guesses based on assumed equivalents that are assigned for both planes. For one thing if you think the CAT limits for the Typhoon are too high then you really did not read page 1.

Look my point is that you stated the Rafale is underpowered and has a bad (high) wingloading. That is certainly bollocks and that is what I countered by bringing up data (from the operators/manufacturers). I could have further elaborated, but felt it should be sufficient. This is not a Rafale vs Typhoon issue for me, but rather a counter against unfounded claims. Compare the Rafale's TWR and wingloading with that of other aircraft as well, not just the Typhoon and you'll see that your claims are overly exeggerated in a negative direction, albeit I agree that the view of some Rafale fans here is exeggerated in the opposite direction (the positive/optimistic one). I assess it from an objective view and try to be as neutral as possible on that.

The Rafale is an ordnance delivery vehicle designed for thick air. Look at the wing chord for this design bias.

I actually value that comparison as a fair assessment and one can clearly see the good intentions of the creator to provide an objective assessment on the base of PUBLICALLY available data. He got the Rafale's empty weight and Typhoon's fuel load wrong, albeit on a 50% internal fuel computing base the ratio of the results remains unchanged. I actually pointed out that the guesses leave room for errors. The results can be both better or more worse for both aircraft in reality. The conclusions may give us a rough indication in the right direction, but they aren't definite.

He's accurate to within 3%. That is rather good for public data.

A broader overview of TWR & wingloading parameters for different modern combat aircraft, kept simple but on purpose.

Computations for wingloading and TWR with 50% and 100% of internal fuel:

Sequence of data as follows:

Empty weight/internal fuel/static reheat thrust/wing area

F-15C (F100-PW-200):

12800 kg/6103 kg/2 x 10800 kg/56.49 m²

Values at 50% of internal fuel:

TWR: 1.3:1

Quote Reply

Hamilcar MK reply. 10/27/2009 3:53:21 PM

The Rafale is an ordnance delivery vehicle designed for thick air. Look at the wing chord for this design bias.

He's accurate to within 3%. That is rather good for public data.

A broader overview of TWR & wingloading parameters for different modern combat aircraft, kept simple but on purpose.

Computations for wingloading and TWR with 50% and 100% of internal fuel:

Sequence of data as follows:

Empty weight/internal fuel/static reheat thrust/wing area

F-15C (F100-PW-200):

12800 kg/6103 kg/2 x 10800 kg/56.49 m²

Values at 50% of internal fuel:

TWR: 1.3:1

Quote Reply

Hamilcar Canards do not reduce your signal return. 10/27/2009 4:00:37 PM

They increase it. They are flapping billboards that show up as two glorious signal spikes in a frontal aspect radar signal return..

Better to do without; if you can.

Quote Reply

markrigh canards 10/27/2009 4:10:52 PM

yes canards increases frontal rcs. but it is interesting to see that eurofighter's canards are the biggest (and not coupled with the wings) and eads is claiming that the frontal rcs is the lowest putting aside f22 and f35. I wonder if the eurofighter and rafale have a special mode which limits the canards movement in order to reduce rcs spikes?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/27/2009 4:15:22 PM

but it is interesting to see that eurofighter's canards are the biggest (and not coupled with the wings)

incorrect, the typhoons canards are direct coupled. ie port and starboard are directly linked to each other. that was the advice given to us at a briefing by a RAF exchange pilot

Quote Reply

markrigh correction 10/27/2009 4:19:39 PM

but it is interesting to see that eurofighter's canards are the biggest (and not coupled with the wings)

incorrect, the typhoons canards are direct coupled. ie port and starboard are directly linked to each other. that was the advice given to us at a briefing by a RAF exchange pilot

sorry, i misused the "coupled" term. i meant that the distance between eurofighter's canards and the wings are much greater than in rafale's or gripen's configuration.

Quote Reply

MK 10/27/2009 5:44:10 PM

Correct. No idea if the M88-2 is really optimistic or not. The truth is we don't have the actual data at hand to make such a claim with certainity.

The Rafale is an ordnance delivery vehicle designed for thick air. Look at the wing chord for this design bias.

The Rafale is a compromise it was designed to fullfil both AA and AG requirements, that you won't get out the best performance for both areas with such requirements should be clear. The over all design and aerodynamic layout insists that Dassault opted for a fighter which is compromised for adequate AG performance.

He's accurate to within 3%. That is rather good for public data.

Difficult to judge, he has certainly done a good job with the data at hand, but there are a lot of unknown variables which make it difficult to assess how accurate the figures actually are. The aerodynamic layout of the Rafale and the Typhoon is quite different. At the first glance they might appear similar due their delta/canard design with a single fin, but if you look more closely you will recognise that they are very different in many ways. It starts with the fuselage design, but wings, canards and intakes are quite different as well. CG position and FCS control laws are another issue and when it comes to engine thrust he merely applied a thumb rule on uninstalled bench test static thrust values. Engineers have quite different data at hand when simulating an aircraft prior first flight and while the predicted behaviour and performance is often not far off, flight testing still unveils differences and problems which couldn't be computed. Suggesting someone which merely relied on some very basic data only achieves such a high degree of accuracy is quite optimistic. It might be in some areas and by luck he can really come close in theory, but the probability is quite low.

-weapons' coding. Something that the French tried to do was to nationally code their weapons so that anyone who bought the platform would have to use the French weapons that went with the platforms. For example, instead of coding for the NATO family (which the French knew meant American and British weapons' coding), the French tried to build their own family of laser guided bombs and failed. It was cheaper to buy AMERICAN and code Damocles to it.

The Rafale actually uses NATO standard hardpoints and MIL STD 1760. American weapons could be used as well as other NATO compatible stores that's at least what the manufacturer claims. The main issue is that the french want to be independant and this could be an advantage to those who haven't an overly good relationship to the US and we know that the french aren't to reluctant to sell their stuff to dubious regimes, though the same is also true for others, including the US. The french are probably able to integrate the AMRAAM or other non french NATO weapons if a customer requires it, pays for it and the US allows it. The latter two are a little bit more unlikely in most cases.

-weapon reliability: the air to air missiles don't work. Specifically MICA. The air to ground weapons seem top work but are up to twice the cost of the American, British, or RUSSIAN equivalents. That means that an ordnance paclage willo be expensive. (American aircraft can use some Russian weapons-Israelis are clever, they even get American weapons to work off French aircraft.)

On older aircraft this was certainly easier to achieve than on complex aircraft we see nowadays. Are there any known sources for the "MICA don't work" claim? The costs are certainly an issue, especially if the operator uses other NATO aircraft as well. Greeks and Taiwanese are actually doing that for example.

-avionics: I don't care what the defenders claim, that with AWACS support, the Rafale is as good as any other aircrsft. That is nonsense air to air or air to gr

Quote Reply

MK 10/27/2009 5:57:55 PM

but it is interesting to see that eurofighter's canards are the biggest (and not coupled with the wings)

incorrect, the typhoons canards are direct coupled. ie port and starboard are directly linked to each other. that was the advice given to us at a briefing by a RAF exchange pilot

I mean to remember that I have seen a prototype with canards deflected asymetrically.

@Markrigh,

you weren't necessarily wrong it is actually called long-coupled.

Quote Reply

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 NEXT

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