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
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.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9yybk_demonstration-du-rafale-au-riat-200_tech
 
  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 et
 
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....
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/RAFALEMC-01_01.jpg" /> 
  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 :"
 

http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/2738/irsigfromground.jpg" width="370" height="188" /> 

 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.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/18-m88-barrieres-thermiques.jpg" alt="" />
 
  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.

 
http://www.militarypictures.info/d/42-3/FR_Rafale-9.jpg" width="640" height="426" /> 
 
http://img463.imageshack.us/img463/992/f35f22shockum9.jpg" width="550" height="450" /> 
 
 
 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".
 
  [linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/F22Dryden3.jpg" /> 
 
  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).
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/pao/History/SP-468/ch10-4.htm
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/hqlibrary/aerospacedictionary/aerodictall/m.html#mach 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]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/RAND1.jpg" /> 

  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 h
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/28/2009 6:41:29 AM
Just to make my points...
 
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/serated-rafale.gif" /> 
 
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/EA_Rafale_Web.gif" /> 
 
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/RAND2.jpg" />

[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/raf-f22.gif" />

[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/fa-f22.gif" /> 
 
  Now about maneuvrability...
 
Two trophies for the Rafale


[linked image]http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1248720647.JPG" />
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.

[linked image]http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1248720710.JPG" />
Capitaine Cédric Ruet.

[linked image]http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1248720773.JPG" />
Le démonstrateur Rafale a gagné deux trophées.

[linked image]http://www.network54.com/Realm/tmp/1248720825.JPG" />
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/base/breves/2009/juillet/deux_trophees_pour_le_rafale
 
 
  Here, the pilot describes his display Maximum g load: 10. 10.5 looking at 11.0 g.
 
 
  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 carr
 
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
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics