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
Rufus       7/30/2009 5:15:25 PM
The problem today is that people define generations around some very specific things. The overall design reflects the requirements it was designed for however. There were ever differences between different aircraft of the same generation.
 
Of course, there have always been variations within generations, but that doesn't mean that there isn't still a general consensus what each generation is.  It is silly for fanboys to try to assert that the Rafale is somehow a 5th generation plane when its design in no way resembles one.  If the Rafale is a 5th generation plane then what does that make the Gripen, F-10, Super Hornet, and Typhoon?  They are all technological contemporaries with variations on the same design philosophy.  They are all late 4th generation jets, but clearly 4th and not 5th generation jets.
 
This will become clearer as more 5th generation jets emerge over the next decade.  They won't be untouchable or anything, but they will offer a type of performance simply unavailable from earlier designs.
 
.
"I'm steadily amused how people ignore the Mirage 2000 which is in fact an aircraft of the MiG-29s or F-16s generation and it is the precursor of the Rafale. "
 
Who is ignoring it?  It comes up now and again, but as it is out of production it doesn't get mentioned much in the trade press.  What I find amusing is the incredible amount of time these boards spend discussing the Rafale, an aircraft in service in only one country with a tiny production rate. 
 
The Rafale is discussed more than any other plane on this board and many others simply because of the massive inferiority complex so many French fanboys have.  They all seem to be convinced that making up fairy tales about their favorite plane on message boards will somehow help it.


I don't know where exactly signature reduction measures stood on the Rafale's requirement list, it certainly wasn't the top priority as it was for the F-22 for example, but it was required by the AdA and this was taken into account when the aircraft was designed.
 
If indeed it was on the list at all, it was a very very low priority.   Its RCS reduction measures are minimal.  This has already been hashed out 100 times with the same conclusion in each case.  A few features to minimize the very worst RCS issues, but otherwise a totally conventional design. 
 
That doesn't mean that it isn't a good plane or couldn't be used effectively.  All but a couple hundred aircraft in the entire world(literally) have a similar level of RCS reduction or less, and many of those are still very much front line aircraft.  The problem isn't in saying "the Rafale has some RCS reduction features, its RCS should be somewhat better than earlier 4th generation aircraft." [true] 
 
The problem is when the fanboys start trying to claim "the Rafale is "discrete" it will sneak up on other planes using Spectra and its IRST to launch silent attacks on them with IR missiles!" [False]  The Rafale has some modest RCS reduction, but nowhere near enough to offer a decisive advantage. The Rafale will fight in a totally conventional manner for jets of its generation. (Nothing wrong with that, but those are the facts.  Nobody here is claiming that the Eurofighter, Gripen, or whatever else will sneak around undetected because they have a few RCS reduction features, a self protection jammer, and an IRST.)
 
 
As said the AdA had such a requirement, but it seems to me people have difficulties to understand that while reduced signatures were a requirement, full allspect stealth wasn't. From frontal aspect and that's the a
 
Quote    Reply

MK       7/30/2009 6:23:00 PM
Of course, there have always been variations within generations, but that doesn't mean that there isn't still a general consensus what each generation is.  It is silly for fanboys to try to assert that the Rafale is somehow a 5th generation plane when its design in no way resembles one.  If the Rafale is a 5th generation plane then what does that make the Gripen, F-10, Super Hornet, and Typhoon?  They are all technological contemporaries with variations on the same design philosophy.  They are all late 4th generation jets, but clearly 4th and not 5th generation jets.

I personally don't care that much about generation labels at all, as they have become more a kind of marketing argument rather than categorising aircraft into chronological periods. In Europe aircraft like the F-16 or MiG-29 are classed as 3rd generation while designs such as the Eurofighter, Rafale or Gripen are classed as 4th generation.
 
Who is ignoring it?  It comes up now and again, but as it is out of production it doesn't get mentioned much in the trade press.  What I find amusing is the incredible amount of time these boards spend discussing the Rafale, an aircraft in service in only one country with a tiny production rate. 
 
You miss the point here, the Mirage 2000 is the french counterpart to US/Russian 4th (3rd) generation fighters, not the Rafale. Just take a look at the technologies offered by the early teens/teenskis and compare it to what new designs such as the F-22, Rafale or Typhoon etc. have to offer. Stealth apart the differences in technology between the F-22 and its european "equivalents" aren't as large as some pretend here. MMI, avionics integration and systems in general, materials, engine technology, FCS etc. are all on an equal level. Of course there are some differences, as it was the case with previous generations of combat aircraft. The fact that the gap and technologies and capabilities between those newer designs and the legacy types isn't a large has more to do with the fact that the development of the new designs took much longer and much of the stuff has found its way into upgraded variants of the legacy designs.  
 

The Rafale is discussed more than any other plane on this board and many others simply because of the massive inferiority complex so many French fanboys have.  They all seem to be convinced that making up fairy tales about their favorite plane on message boards will somehow help it.
 
No idea, I'm new here and haven't read that many threads up to date. But I can see 2 of them concerning this aircraft at the top. 
 
That doesn't mean that it isn't a good plane or couldn't be used effectively.  All but a couple hundred aircraft in the entire world(literally) have a similar level of RCS reduction or less, and many of those are still very much front line aircraft.  The problem isn't in saying "the Rafale has some RCS reduction features, its RCS should be somewhat better than earlier 4th generation aircraft." [true] 
 
 Agreed.

The problem is when the fanboys start trying to claim "the Rafale is "discrete" it will sneak up on other planes using Spectra and its IRST to launch silent attacks on them with IR missiles!" [False]  The Rafale has some modest RCS reduction, but nowhere near enough to offer a decisive advantage. The Rafale will fight in a totally conventional manner for jets of its generation. (Nothing wrong with that, but those are the facts.  Nobody here is claiming that the Eurofighter, Gripen, or whatever else will sneak around undetected because they have a few RCS reduction features, a self protection jammer, and an IRST.)
 
Well "Discret" was the term used by the manufacturer for the AdA stealthier model. IR signature reduction and RF emission management and avoidance are part of this concept, next to the RCS reduction. I think some people refer way to much to the F-22, but this comparison lacks. Proper tactics coupled with all this might indeed provide an edge with some significance over older designs, but ofcourse NOT to the degree as offered by the F-22 or the F-35 in the future, at least not in form of RCS.

 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/30/2009 7:10:23 PM
Quote: I am sorry, but the vertical tail is in fact very relevant, and simply isn't something you do if you are trying to build a reduced RCS plane. That would be very nearly the first thing you would get rid of.
 
  WRONG: For many reasons.
 
  First of all design are mostly evolutionary and the US scool of aircraft design have a long history of using twin fins INCLUDING for non L.O aircrafts, i.e. the YF-17 and F-18.
 
   Secondly, the very fact that frontal engagement are the most likely scenarios when one tries to hunt a target in a view of intercepting it (known fighter pilots basic tactic) means that this feature is much more useful for a V.L.O (All sector RCS reduction) than a L.O aircraft such as the Rafale and F/A-18.
 
   Third, all designs are the result of compromises, the less compromised of all were the F-177 and YF-23.
 
   BOTH features aV-shaped fin for the simple reason that they do away with the elevators, which is obviously NOT the case of F-22 and F-35.
 
   For the rest see my reply to Rufus about the features which are known to reduce RCS.
 
 
Quote:
 from the SR-71 to the F-35, not one single one of those aircraft have a vertical tail.  Even a canted tail is not ideal and many future designs avoid tails completely.
 
   Neither does the F-15 noer the F-18 and yet they both doesn;t qualify as L.O, as opposed to F/A-18.
 
>>>>>

Rufus      
 as well as the earlier aircraft of the 4th generation.

  Which one?

 

Rufus
It was simply designed too early for RCS reduction to have been considered a major design goal.

  A S-shapped inlet glove and vanes features on its structural airframe and engine design are not ADD-ON plug and play features.

 

Rufus
  More recently Dassault's marketing department and of course an army of fanboys,

  This is a LIE.

  At Roll out of the Rafale C or D for Discreet, the EM and IR reduction work was obvious and already well advertised, nothing to do with marketing, what you are doing is called revisonism.

 
Rufus
95% untrue.

  Is the best way to describe what you keep writing about it now, sorry.

 

Rufus
 but it is grossly inaccurate to say that France had a clear requirement for reduced signatures.

  What is bovious is that you know litle about it and again the article i posted on the subject proves you wrong.

  AGAIN: S-shaped inlets, engine vanes, mid-fuselage mounted wings and large blended area are not add-on features, more to it the M88 IR reduction features are obvious too and all are coming from design stage of course.

 

Rufus
  There are numerous aspects of the Rafale's layout that would simply never have been designed the way they were if that were the case.

  Really?

Rufus
  (one of the best examples being the vertical tail)

  I wish you'd stop coming up with this example because in the case of ALL designed US aircraft since F-18, this particular design feature have been the source of problems and was never meant for stealth in the first place...

  F-18 design in no stealthier than that of a Mirage 2000, the twin fin feature is an aerodynamic arrangement inherited from YF-17, NOT a stealthy design.

  If you want REAL stealth with this feature, you end-up looking like YF-23 with a 45% angle from the horizontal plan...

 YF-23 was the ultimate stealh fighter and Rafale posses more than one of its most important features:

. Wing positioning.

. Leading edge sweep angles.

. Recessed inlet.
 
. S-shaped inlet gloves.
 
. Serrated areas.

  ALL of which were known to reduce RCS long before the 70's.

  For your information, F-18, F-22, F-35 ALL suffered from excessive structural fatigue due to aerody

 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/30/2009 7:20:56 PM
Quote: It has specific weaknesses relating to its ability to detect and process LPI signals. 
  NO it doesn;t. in the contrary, DGA tested it vs the most advanced LPI systems avialable at the NATO MACE-X exercise and it performed flawlessly. 
 
 
Quote:
 It was designed with the radars and radios of its day in mind, but with the incredible leaps that have been made with computers, and software driven radars and radios Spectra is looking at trouble down the road. 
 
  WRONG: It was designed specificaly for the generation of AESA Thales (Thompson Electronic) weree planning to put into service at the time.
 
  RBE2 AESA was always planned and Thales was working with Rayethon on AESA technologies for the US DoD aty the time.
 
 
 
Quote:
Another issue its reliance on "AESA" antennas.  While this offers some advantages, the MMICs used in Spectra are not particularly capable, the same handicap that has been holding back the French AESA effort for so long.( and also a limitation of using an AESA radar as a jammer as the US intends to do, although they mostly rely on newer generations of MMICs)
 
   You're more than welcome to bring us any firm evidence of what you allege, results of two years of testing against LPI AESA systems in the most demanding conditions proved you wrong. 

   Developement of specificaly European MMIC technologies was only a matter of industrial independence, NOT a technology gap in itself, as for the state of advance of European AESA technology you might not like to hear it but it is well on par with that of the US today.
 
  Ask the USN who tested Thales naval radars recently what they think of it, RBE2 AESA is quoted as one of F-35 possible fits.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/30/2009 9:00:55 PM
 
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/VLO1.jpg" />
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/VLO2.jpg" />
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/VLO3.jpg" />
 
  RAND know well what they are talking about, their work was not only sponsored by the USAF, but they also based it on classified datas they turned into all-public definitions for the purpose of publication.
 
  Considering this definition of L.O, and the work done on both engine and airframe at design stage, Rafale is fully qualifies as L.O accoding to this document.
 
  I can't see any reason to come and say otherwise, these guys are the most qualified and informed.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    The "aviation expert" brigade.   7/30/2009 11:01:13 PM
Wingman is what he is. Not that I can say what he is; because there are rules about that, but those who know me; know what I think about 1%ers.
 
 
Look to the left side of the graph.
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/30/2009 11:07:25 PM
12345: Go get help, counceling is cheap, but dont expect to be capable oflerning arout aviation boy...
 

 

 The myth of stealth

http://www.flightjournal.com/articles/stealth/stealth1.asp

By any measure, the introduction of stealth into U.S. tactical air-strike forces represents a quantum increase in combat effectiveness and surgical-strike capabilities. However, such unprecedented success as that achieved during the Gulf War brings with it certain dangers. The principal danger is the conviction in the minds of many of this country's decision-makers that stealth renders us invincible. In that regard, stealth is greatly misunderstood by the U.S. taxpayer, and its effectiveness is deliberately overstated by too many government officials—civilian and military—who know better.

The general public should know what stealth really is; but more important, they should know what it is not! To explain what it is not, we must dispel the six myths that surround it:
Stealth is purely a phenomenon associated with radar signature.
Stealth is a new phenomenon.
Stealth cannot be countered.
Stealth carries no penalties.
Stealth makes platforms invisible to radar.
Stealth is passive.
More than radar signature

Is radar signature the only aspect of a platform's observability to which stealth techniques can be applied? No, it may be the most important, but it is still only one aspect. All aspects must be addressed if real stealth is to be achieved. There are other aspects of the observability spectrum that are terribly important as well; they include infrared, acoustic, optical, magnetic, electromagnetic and probably others that include fluid wake effects.

? Infrared. Objects passing through a fluid medium generate heat, by virtue of the medium passing over the object's surfaces. This heating is detectable. For an airplane, surface heating occurs in the 8- to 12-micron range of the infrared spectrum. Thus, an existing infrared search-and-track system (IRST) designed for installation in a fighter-interceptor could detect a high-altitude, supersonic bomber at a distance of several hundred miles.

Platforms that develop propulsion through internal-combustion powerplants generate heat that causes their engine and exhaust systems to be detectable in the 3- to 5-micron range. For over 30 years, airborne IRST systems in fighter airplanes have been able to detect another fighter in afterburner at distances of more than 30 miles. IRST systems that operate in the 8- to 12-micron range have enormous potential, especially in the detection of air platforms. When the 8- to 12-micron technology has matured, it may well render moot most other aspects of observability.

? Acoustic. This has been pursued in the field of antisubmarine warfare for over 50 years. Submarines generate acoustic noise with their screws, by their passage through the water and by the sound of their equipment and crews. In the Vietnam War, the U.S. developed and deployed an acoustically stealthy airplane. It was called the "QT-2" (for "quiet airplane"). Even today's drone aircraft employ acoustic stealth.

? Magnetic/electromagnetic. Surface ships and submarines possess enormous magnetic fields because they are made up of thousands of tons of ferrous metal (steel). They also generate an electromagnetic field because of the power-generating machinery on board. These fields are minimized by a process known as "degaussing." For over forty years, antisubmarine aircraft have been targeting submerged submarines by using magnetic anomaly detectors (MAD).

? Wake effects. Submariners have known for years that subs' wakes generate turbulence that can be detected, often for hours after they have passed by. Work in this area has been going on for over 25 years and is still highly classified. However, the same laws of physics apply to airplanes, which also leave a telltale "wake" in the atmosphere.

? Optical. This has been with us ever since spear-throwers discovered the operational benefits of hiding behind trees. Ships wore camouflage paint schemes as early as WW I. It was only in recent years that the pro-active use of lights mounted on and in the airframe could reduce the effects of contrast in tactical airplanes. Using lights in this way had the effect of decreasing the optical detectability of aircraft, since their detectability was directly related to the contrasts in their optical signature against their background. Not surprisingly, F-117s were painted black because they were intended to be deployed exclusively at night.

Much more could be said about the abovementioned aspects, but the point is made. Stealth is not limited to radar.

The optical aspect of observability was saved until last becau

 
Quote    Reply

Wingman       7/30/2009 11:27:14 PM
Three visible stealth features on Rafale:
 
Serrated area (airframe, Inlets)
 
48* leading edge sweep.
 
IR Superssion for M88.
 
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/scattering.gif" />
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/irsignaturereduction.gif" /> 
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/EA_Rafale_Web.gif" /> 
Add to it: S-shaped inlet, M88 vanes, 5th generation core system architecture, PLI radar from day one, even more discreet with RBE2 AESA now in production, intensive use of IR sensors....
[linked image]http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/RafaleA-1.jpg" /> 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Cit and paste from people    7/30/2009 11:40:44 PM
who don't know what they discuss used by the likes of you (who doesn't understand the first thing about aircraft)  makes me bored.
 
Why don't you stop lying, Pierre? 
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    Follow up.    7/30/2009 11:49:39 PM
Exposed rivets, seam lines and inlet clutter plus a botched shock ramp puts the lie to your ;last post too, Piere. Your own pictures show this. (technical discussion)
 
When are you going to stop lying, Pierre?  (mental health assessment)
 
Herald
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics