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

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: Dassault VP : Rafale's successor will join Eurofighter Consortium-like Euro Consortium.
SlowMan 10/19/2009 4:07:06 PM

New York Times article < http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/20/business/global/20jets.html?_r=1&pagewanted=2 > "Dassault appears to be thinking along the same lines. Eric Trappier, executive vice president at Dassault Aviation, said that Rafale’s “successor will probably be designed through a European cooperation, from 2025.” " So this is the end of all-French fighter aircraft.

Quote Reply

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

jackjack 10/25/2009 9:28:17 PM

""It your goal is to achieve only a 0,1 or 0,05 m² RCS in front,""

ok, that would probably account for the fuel probe swinging in the breeze, but what about the rest of the plane ?

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/25/2009 9:31:56 PM

"if it is then its a woftam as any advantages are negated by the other sensor protrusions. you don't coat probes when the issue is design - thats why probes are either retractable or a flush and capped. in the case of Rafale, there is no room in the design to do either, so its the least preferred option to use - but has to be used. "

Initially Dassault prefered a retractable probe but french air force prefer a non retractable one.

Indeed it adds security on long range mission over sea or not, since a retractable probe can be blocked sometime.

and as I stated, it is a compromise due to ADA own assessments.

Now, for RCS reduction, it is a question of calculations of echo return which needs computing power, tolerance and materials including RAM materials.

A protusion can be optimized in geometry or can be transparent (for exemple using glass or kewlar fiber) or coated with RAM

Of course tou have to minimize protusions, but it depends what RCS you want.

It your goal is to achieve only a 0,1 or 0,05 m² RCS in front, you can accept some protuberances and external loads if not too numerous.

yes, and its something that you understand, but unfort your compatriot who pretends he does, actually does not

"besides, RAM is not coated on everything, its used on specific points to effect return events (eg on a join, or to reflect into another body shape etc...) there is nowhere for any signals to be redirected on that probe even if it was coated."

its a nonsense and demonstrates a complete misunderstanding about how RAM is applied and why and where it gets applied.

I have difficulties to understand that since it is right that no planes apply RAM everywhere.

Try telling that to your idiot compatriot. he clearly doesn't understand anything about RCS and yet continues to pretend to be knowledgeable. that is offensive to me. he's been busted oh so many times and can't help himself - still

RAM is applied where it matters and this is calculated by RCS simulation software.

exactly, and its not just applied where there are signal peaks - something that he does not understand. atypically it comprises less than 20% of total airframe - and usually significantly less. CREF his idiotic comment about how much is on the F-22.

an anechoic chamber used to test RF emissions on something like an extended probe is next to useless. thats why you run pole tests.

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/25/2009 9:32:42 PM

gf, you wouldnt have handy a close photo of a fa-18 bogged up would you ? just to show these trolls whats normal

i could do a google search and find ones i've seen, but i hope you have one at hand

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/25/2009 9:49:41 PM

gf, you wouldnt have handy a close photo of a fa-18 bogged up would you ? just to show these trolls whats normal

i could do a google search and find ones i've seen, but i hope you have one at hand

not handy, but one was posted on one of the Rafale threads that was deleted (for the very same reason). I would assume that someone will post one very soon though.

there is a vast difference in fit and finish between a super hornet and a rafale. blind freddy can see the difference.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/25/2009 10:04:41 PM

1. They may have chosen PESA for that reason, but they were wrong, weren't they as it can't even support air to grpind weapons delivwery as they thought? (Afghanistan again) AESA was the right tech jump, and they (Thales) did not take that path. The Americans DID as they introduced AESA into their legacy aircraft about the same time as the Rafale actually IOCed. Timing is everything when you make a decision and Dassault got that wrong too.

Europe lacked behind in AESA technology, but wanted to ensure to maintain or gain the required expertise on their own. Waiting until the AESA technology would have been mature would have meant that european fighters would have entered service even later.

Europe didn't gain anything on their own when it came to AESA, but neither did the Americans. There was cross-sharing of radar tech.inside NATO throughout the 89s, and among America's close allies as well, so where do you get the odd idea that somehow the EU couldn't do AESA? The Eurofighter Consortium planned for it at some point as soonm as a set was built for air warfare and tested in a fighter, but they didn't have the money or need when Tuphoon was designed. It was the FRENCH who chose the wrong radar path, (PESA) and I said this.

2. Eurofighter planned an AESA upgrade path as soon as they thought it might be practical. CAESAR waits because CAPTOR is good enough for the Typhoon's indicated air to air mission emphasis, and the Consortium doesn't have the money for it yet. If the Saudis insist, then CAESAR will be fitted. Its sort of what then French hoped they could do, get some one else to fund all the promised Dassault upgrades never delivered. Now France has to fund that herself, and she finds she lacks the Euros and the tech base to do it all. Just getting the jet engines fixed will eat a huge chunk of programmed Rafale funding.

CAESAR is just a demonstrator funded by the EuroRadar consortiums, it's actually not a production radar. A decision for Captor-E is yet awaited at the end of the year, when the T3A capabilities package is agreed on. France actually funded AESA development at the expense of 8 batch 3 aircraft and LRIP started a year ago.

And UJ've yet to see ONE French set flying. CAESAR flew, as you admitted.

Its NG, based on the same garbage that went into Werdgetail. As for Thales original research, that is a joke. CECAR is based on original research. AMSAR was more or less a tech share of that, with Thales holding its hand out and with little actual contribution. The chief contrbutors EADS (German branch) and BAE systems did most of the work and the research.

AMSAR was launched in 1993 and aimed for R&D of the required technologies for an airborne AESA radar for a fighter sized platform. It merely formed the base for any further development. CECAR is a government funded programme aimed at risk reduction for an AESA for the Typhoon.

EXACTLY as what I said, and what happened.

Want to tell me why acceleration + wingloading would not be an air combat factor, and why an engine that shows poor acceleration would not handicap a fighter designed as a bomber first and an air to air fighter second, as it applies the designed low altitude intrusion tactics for which that plane was deliberately designed?

And can you tell us how the Rafale's wingloading and acceleration is bad? What about providing data rather than claiming this or that to be fact without proper evidence or backup at all?

All I need is climb and service ceiling as well as wingload top see what kind okf acceleration the plane can do.

Rough rule:

The faster you can climb, the faster you can accelerate. The thinner air your jet engine can burn efficiently in the higher operasting core temperature that kernel can sustain. I've provided an article about the M-88's problems in that area.

The Rafale tops out clean at a lower altitude than Typhoon. It also is about 3~5% < across the board lesser in ALL performance parameters. That puts it closer to Grip

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/26/2009 12:18:06 AM

not handy, but one was posted on one of the Rafale threads that was deleted (for the very same reason). I would assume that someone will post one very soon though.

there is a vast difference in fit and finish between a super hornet and a rafale. blind freddy can see the difference.

well they must have shut their eyes and said, i cant see it ....i cant see it.... i cant see it

as to classic threads, they are too funny to delete and are only removed from index

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-63870/page1.aspx

*ttp://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-63870/page1.aspx

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/26/2009 1:55:31 AM

Initially Dassault prefered a retractable probe but french air force prefer a non retractable one.

I question whether that is possible. I don't think that there is enough real estate between the c0ckpit and the and the PESA gimble to pull it off. It would probably require a double yoked probe, and that would make it questionable. without changing fuselage dimensions between the pit and the steering gimble makes it highly unlikely. IMO it was a post legacy development and the only option left if it was required

Indeed it adds security on long range mission over sea or not, since a retractable probe can be blocked sometime.

in properly designed LO platforms (ie cradle to grave designs) the receptacle is flush for a reason. its not just about potential mech failure. articulated devices go through literally thousands of movements to ensure safety and reliability compliance.

Now, for RCS reduction, it is a question of calculations of echo return which needs computing power, tolerance and materials including RAM materials.

It's not asymetrical though. Its also signal impacted by the ball and spectra mount. There are 3 different angular surface types in front of that c0ckpit - all impact upon signal management and all impact upon each other. RAM is probably the most useless way to manage it.

A protusion can be optimized in geometry or can be transparent (for exemple using glass or kewlar fiber) or coated with RAM

It can, but again., look at the vortex point on the pit. and refer to above.

Of course tou have to minimize protusions, but it depends what RCS you want.

again, its like arguing RCS values on a dirty airframe. a proud probe, flanked by two ther sensor mounts with dissimilar structures is not going to be sympathetic. BW's commentary about RAM coating the probe to achieve same is abject nonsense. He might know it but you certainly should.

It your goal is to achieve only a 0,1 or 0,05 m² RCS in front, you can accept some protuberances and external loads if not too numerous.

see my prev. there are 3 minimum at the pit vortex point. the airframe is already dirty. I would suggest that a Rafale sans probe would have a visibly different RCS. Bear in mind that twice in 5 years I had to explain to BW about the impact of poor panel fit and exposed rivets - even though I made the same citation from an radar engineers handbook and reference on LO management he was still happy to make the same silly claims until I trotted it out again and linked the reference. at that point he admitted that he was wrong. he now expects to promote the fact that a Rafale with a probe standing out like a busted wing on a pigeon, and with 2 dissimilar sensor mount structures at the pit vortex point still maintains low RCS?

thats sheer nonsense - and you would know that as well as I do

Quote Reply

Godofgamblers 10/26/2009 6:25:46 AM

Gentlemen, let me thank for these very entertaining threads and offer a contrarian view on the whole Rafale issue.

I know nothing about aviatian (which is why i am but a silent observer) but if i had to crack open a book on aviation or on the Rafale, i probably would have dozed off after the first few pages. On the other hand, these threads have been so immensely entertaining that i have been regaling my office mates with bursts of unbridled laughter and fart-guffaws on a daily basis while reading the prose of some of the posts, the hyperbole, the personality wars, the personal jibes, the insults flying fast and furiously like so many Sidewinders hahaha, while never tiring of reading.

I thank you all for this didactic experience and am surprised that Sysops would delete such a mine of technical info and drama from its pages....

GoG

Quote Reply

StevoJH 10/26/2009 6:44:54 AM

gf,

How do Typhoon and Rafale compare in panel fit and general build quality?

Quote Reply

MK 10/26/2009 7:33:16 AM

Europe didn't gain anything on its own? So would you mind explaining us why there were programmes such as AMSAR etc.? Maybe we are talking pass each other here, my point is that Europe did its own research in that area since a long time. Claiming they got all from the US is nonsense and an outright lie, there might have been some collaboration, but that's it. AMSAR and CECAR were concluded at the end of 2008. CAESAR was launched in April 2002 as an industry funded tech demonstration programme as the related governments didn't fund the AESA tech for the Typhoon at that time, but the industry felt it might do research in advance particularly for the export market. The french were planning for an AESA radar as the Eurofighter partners did quite early in their respective programmes. It was clear that the AESA technology wouldn't be mature enough at the time the aircraft would enter service. Europe couldn't affort to outfit 18 operational aircraft with prototype AESA radars to gain operational experience with that technology. Because that is what the APG-63(V2) is, a prototype. The common view of the Europeans was to wait until the AESA technology would be mature and affordable enough and that the expenses would actually pay off.

The RBE2 made perfect sense for the french, as Captor made sense for the other Europeans given their respective requirements. The RBE2's emphasis was placed on LPI and multirole operations, the Captor on outright AA performance. In the end both are a dead end in the more or less long run. With the RBE2 the french gained first experience with the E-scan technology onboard a fighter aircraft and felt that a PESA could be upgraded more easily to AESA as the PESA already supports E-scan inherent modes and capabilities, such as interleaved AA/AG modes, combined TFR & TA modes or track here while scan there. Of course it is necessary to further develope the software to fully exploit the advantages offered by the AESA technology.

I agree that the Captor has a distinctive advantage as the Captor-C/D are perfectly capable to support the Meteor, something the RBE2 PESA can't do. So all Eurofighter's can fully exploit the advantages of the Meteor regardless if they are retrofitted with AESA or not. It is said that all Rafale's can be retrofitted with the AESA antenna, wheather this will happen or not remains yet to be seen. T1 Typhoon's for example can't be retrofitted with an AESA, at least not without some more comprehensive work being conducted.

And UJ've yet to see ONE French set flying. CAESAR flew, as you admitted.

You should update your sources on that. Thales and Dassault started investigating in an AESA solution for the RBE2 as early as 1999 (3 years before EuroRadar did). When the DRAA programme (active antenna radar demonstrator) was approved by the DGA in 2002 a first RBE2 AESA was flown onboard a Mysthere XX in december 2002! At that time the array was supplied by Raeython and the DRAAs aim was actually quite similar to that of CAESAR, which flew more than 3 years later. This early RBE2 AESA demonstrator was first flown on Rafale B301 in may 2003. In july 2004 the DGA approved the DRAAMA programme (active antenna radar demonstrator - advanced modes). That demonstrator used the UMS supplied GAa TRMs (european tech which is also used by CAESAR and which will be used by MEADS). DRAAMA aimed at developing modes and expoiting the full potential of the AESA technology. This RBE2AA demonstrator has been first flown for quite some years and LRIP was launched in autum 2008. The first 4 sets are scheduled for delivery in 2010 for OpEval and it is planned that batch 4 Rafales will be fitted with RBE2AA. Deliveries are planned for 2012, but this might slip as batch 4 still hasn't been ordered. We have yet to see if the Eurofighter partners will finally agree on a common AESA solution at the end of the year. If so Captor-E might be delivered as part of T3A from 2013. It remains yet to be seen if it will be more close to the CAESAR demonstrator as shown in the Selex brochure for Captor-E or if it will feature the swash plate antenna which will provide some serious advantages over fixed arrays as they are currently used on all AESA equipp

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