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

Hamilcar 10/27/2009 7:31:05 PM

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.

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.

We have enough to make a good guess.

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.

I just said that.

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.

The probabilities are not that far off.

-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.

The manufacturer lied or he would integrate Sidewinder and Amraam as standard (as Typhoon does). Ever see this in ANY Rafale offering? No. The US codes are not for French use for obvious reasons, mainly because of technology theft issues..

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

Quote Reply

french stratege 10/27/2009 8:17:42 PM

However rafale RCS can still diminish probably by a ten factor and ECM add equivalent of a further 10 to 100 time reduction equivalent:

indeed reducing by 3 range of a radar with sophisticated ECM is equivalent to diminish by a 81 factor RCS by passive means.So it would surely put Rafale in the same class of F35.

Few improvment is possible to their basic airframe shortcoming regarding RCS optimisation or manoeuvrability unless Boeing invest a lot on its own funds and develop a potent active signature management.

thats just not possible. the practical implications are that as soon as the platform goes to warfighting mode it reverts to external carriage. ie its dirty. as soon as its dirty the RCS is changed - considerably. again, look at the carriage points and then factor in mounts/dismounts. no amount of onboard sensors are going to compensate for what will be widly variant RCS as soon as the loads are on.

its not going to get close to B1 values - let alone JSF

In stealth mode JSF has 4 weapons in most common mode

Having 4 weapons on a clean Rafale does not change RCS by a big amount if passive RCS is not expected to go at F35 level.It depends on RCS calculations and optimisations done for a particular configuration.

Sophisticated jamming reduce ennemy radar range in any case.

Quote Reply

albywan 10/27/2009 9:19:53 PM

Having 4 weapons on a clean Rafale does not change RCS by a big amount

Is that because the Rafale already has a big RCS?

Quote Reply

sentinel28a 10/27/2009 11:39:56 PM

If those four weapons are hanging off of pylons, the Rafale isn't running clean.

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/27/2009 11:52:30 PM

and did someone take a hacksaw to the fuel probe and all the the other protrusions

lets not forget a wonderful bogging job for the misaligned panels, actually a complete redesign wouldnt hurt either

Quote Reply

MK 10/28/2009 6:43:15 AM

he manufacturer lied or he would integrate Sidewinder and Amraam as standard (as Typhoon does). Ever see this in ANY Rafale offering? No. The US codes are not for French use for obvious reasons, mainly because of technology theft issues..

It's not as easy as that. The french want to be independant so they use their own weapons, why should you waste an already tight budget on integrating weapons you don't need yourself, if you don't know if there will be a customer definitely requireing it. M2k customers bought the aircraft with the weapons, Dassault probably assuemed that it would be the case for the Rafale as well. It's a dilemma for the french on one side they can offer a complete package, that means an aircraft plus weapons, without requiring approval from a foreign government on the other side most potential customers have already stocks of compareable US weapons, so it's understandable that they don't want to separately purchase equal weapons at a much higher price or pay the cost of integration (if clearance would be given at all).

RoCAF missile tests 2004 against drone targets. They, thus, DON'T use MICA and soon not the Mirage 2000 which was sold to them with that missile. They use Sky Swords , some Israeli stuff, or SPARROW and the Falcon..

Is there a source one could check out?

Radar matters and ESM matters. See farther, GUIDE farther; including air to ground, exactly as stated . The twice as far range is based on propagation power, radar size, and signal processing. The F-15K in some respects outperforms the F15E in this regard.

The question is what are the data? You make generalised claims without giving specifics or proper sources for that. What are the detection/tracking/guidance ranges for both radars APG-63(V1) and RBE2 against AA & AG targets? And what is the actual range of their weapons?

I don't like FAS, myself, but some of your numbers seem even flakier than theirs

Feel free to point to the data you feel to be incorrect and why. Then we can cross check sources if you want.

The reason is called telemetry mismatch. You would have to build a "translator" node for the bit streams.

Is the MIDS on the Rafale working any different? France is actually a NATO member. .

I think the Russian baseline they used was the Su-30. whick does carry a nasty inventory of Kh-series air to ground munitions. Old but effective. And based on the parts shortages for the Rafale, I'm not so sure about the maintenance ease or costs.

I don't think so the russians made a specific offer for the Su-35 (Su-27M/T-10M). The question is has the Rafale's reliability and maitainance issues been improved upon since then? The ROKAF evaluations took place ~2001/2002 and at that time the Rafale had just entered service with the MN in its F1 configuration.

Agreed . The American aircraft data is severely cropped and understated for the SH and the F-22. The Rafale data is not that accurate either, going the other way, but there the distortion is not that bad..

What is interesting for me is the evolution of the data for modern combat aircraft we have seen over the years. One problem is that often data from various unofficial sources are used for that kind of comparison tables. People often make a quick search to get some data, often without verifying the data.

Quote Reply

WarLover 10/28/2009 1:40:04 PM

The Rafale is a crappy airplane. It is sufficient to look at its fixed fuel probe to immediately understand how poorly designed it is.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 10/28/2009 3:55:52 PM

Addressing RCS - my tuppence based on my aviation knowledge which is not extensive as regards military technology.

1) RCS will be reduced by a factor of 10 in a few years. I cannot see how this is possible with the existing airframe. no amount of work is going to change theis greatly esp as ordinance is external

2) RAM on fuel probe - At the end of the fuel probe sits a ball about the size of youre fist this is not RAM coated and it is metal.

3) Simplistic rule of thumb if it creates drag its going to increase RCS (very simplistic) recessed missiles were to reduce drag that this may reduce the RCS of the installation compared to a non recessed it is greatly significant.

4) Clean means No external Ordinance At all

5) For emphasis Clean means no external ordinance

6) RCS of Rafale is less than Typhoon - i am no excpert so conceede this is possible from some aspects , however in light of recent photos I am no longer willing to take this at face valu. In fact i am highly sceptical that the Rafales head on RCS is anywhere near as good as the typhoons - and that is not stealthy either.

7) the rafale has an RCS of 0.01M this figure appears to have been pulled out of some bodys arse.

I reckon the bloody refueling probe has a bigger rcs than that.

Now iam not an RCS expert but the above seem common sense to me - should any one be able to prove the above incorrect i am happy to stand back and bow down to superior knowledge.

P.S prove means real evidence not half arsed assertions based on wiki and sales brochures

nw my Q - why are canards worse signature wise than a conventional horizontal stab Answers in short controlled words please

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/28/2009 6:35:11 PM

The reasons are simple. The Israelis and the US already prove that you can code Russian or Chinese weapons for US aircraft. This is also true for Israeli weapons, and Japanese weapons, and RoC weapons, and RoK weapons. The interface is apparently very adaptable, as India, Pakistan, Japan, RoC, RoK, and even PRC did/do this for American aircraft and their own aircraft.. So whatever excuse that Dassault uses, it can't be economic. It has to be technical and nationalist. I prefer the Occam explanation. they want to cut their own economic throat because they have to cut their own throat. They don't know HOW to do it.

Is there a source one could check out?

Oblique reference to Hankuang ...

I make no such claims. The effective search cone of an RBE2 against a Rafale fighter sized object is roughly matched out air to air about 60-100 km based on Thales' own data. That is nowhere near an AN/APG 63 in ANY iteration as USAF admitted.

RBE2...

AESA Radar

While the first 100 or so Rafales were fitted with the early Thales RBE2 radar, the most important sensor of the next generation Rafale will be the new Thales RBE2 AA active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, which will replace the passive array of the RBE2.

Thales completed its first active phased array, comprising 1,000 gallium-arsenide Transmit/Receive modules, in 2006. In late April this year, the company said the RBE2 AA had successfully completed a new series of tests on Rafale, carried out jointly with the French DGA defense procurement agency, at the Cazaux flight-test center.

"This milestone marks the latest step toward qualifying the RBE2 AESA radars this year in readiness for delivery of the first two units to Dassault Aviation during the first quarter of 2010," Thales stated. "The radars will be installed on the aircraft in 2011 for delivery to the French

Quote Reply

french stratege 10/28/2009 6:39:54 PM

When I wrote

Having 4 weapons on a clean Rafale does not change RCS by a big amount

Is that because the Rafale already has a big RCS?
Lynstyine

I wrote clean rafale to says that I speak about a configuration without other external pylons or external tank, i.e like a clean rafale but only with 4 missiles added.

Just for pleasure the two best operationnal AtoA fighters: the best (F22) and the Second best (Rafale) on the same photo

Notice similar transparency and reflection of the two canopies both coated

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