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

MK 10/26/2009 7:52:12 AM

gf,

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

I have seen both types a couple of times and assessed them close on. It appears that the Typhoon's manufacturing accuracy is a fair bit better. The Rafales I have seen (M F1 & F2) had quite loosly fitting panels, don't know if this was caused as they were somewhat worn or if it is the same for new built/land based examples as well.

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 10/26/2009 8:48:09 AM

Lynstyne :

""Now returning to the refuelling probe I just cannot believe that its RAM coated""

??? Can 't you see the RAM material around the probe ? It is of a different gray and is at least half a centimeter thick (look at the base) .

Now , if the posters think that they know better than Dassault who designed the probe and the RAM coating material , feel free to send them a mail . Do the posters have an anechoic chamber and a Rafale at home to dare discussing Dassault 's designs ?

gf :

""sweet mordred, rcs management is about reflection and refraction returns. you just can't add ram coatings to protruding body parts and expect a reduction in signal return.""

This is what RAM is for gf . You couldn 't be more wrong in fact ... You apply RAM material where your EM spikes are like wing edges , air intakes lips and along the first part of the "S" , protuding body parts , etc .

RAM don 't work against reflection but for absorbtion . Whatever the "EM hitting angle" is , RAM absorbs most of the radiation and diffuse the rest in every direction in a chaotic manner . This is why the F-22 is a real VLO aircraft , not only because of its shape but because of its almost complete coating .

Having a protuting refueling probe is not wise but adding RAM is the least we can can do and it works . If not , it wouldn 't be RAM coated , CQFD .

""there are 3 different types of protrusions in front of that c0ckpit - everyone of them will generate a return, one of them will be amplifiying more than the others - they cannot all be managed by ram. it is literally signal clutter city behind the radome.""

The OSF IR and TV cams are probably giving a 5 inches square increase in the RCS from the front at 25km . Even for the best Aesa radar , it would be a small signal return to take onboard . Surely , it adds a bit to the overall RCS of the aircraft at close range but not by much , not by much .

We also have to keep in mind that if the opposite fighter is flying lower than the Rafale , the OSF will not be visible on radar (if it can be detected) at close range because it is on top of the nose , if the opposite fighter is flying higher than the Rafale , the OSF will blend into the nose . In fact , it is a rather discret and secure design and when you know the usefuleness of the OSF , you don 't hesitate : you field it .

Cheers .

It is not my intent to call you a liar, but please understand you are saying there is a RAM coat (based on different colours - hell that could be grey plastic and a painted panel for all i know) what im asking is where you got this information.

Do you have documented proof I.E Dassault DOC, or is this just an assertion based on what you believe.

Without a physical document im inclined to ,based on my training and experince, to tell you that at the very least you are mistaken in your supposition.

Please note I am saying I believe you are Wrong - this is not the same as calling you a Liar I dont want a pissing contest cos all thatll happen is we both get wet feet.

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/26/2009 9:54:26 AM

Do you have documented proof I.E Dassault DOC, or is this just an assertion based on what you believe.

Without a physical document im inclined to ,based on my training and experince, to tell you that at the very least you are mistaken in your supposition.

Please note I am saying I believe you are Wrong - this is not the same as calling you a Liar I dont want a pissing contest cos all thatll happen is we both get wet feet.

gee you're nice, i would of just slapped the lying little troll
loos like a bit of dodgy fiberglass to me

h*tp://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin4/rafale_b_tlp/images/rafale_b_tlp_027_of_144.jpg

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/26/2009 9:59:21 AM

http://data3.primeportal.net/hangar/luc_colin4/rafale_b_tlp/images/rafale_b_tlp_027_of_144.jpg" width="2000" height="1500" />

Quote Reply

jackjack 10/26/2009 10:09:42 AM

""""??? Can 't you see the RAM material around the probe ? It is of a different gray and is at least half a centimeter thick (look at the base) . """

stop it, i'm wetting myself with laughter, you're a fcuken joke, so it isnt a bracket....it's a 1/2 centermeter of ram

http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Images/emembarrassed.gif" alt="" />

Quote Reply

Lynstyne 10/26/2009 2:41:47 PM

Has the above had a hard life or is that standard panel fit FXXK me ive seen 30 yearold Tristars with a better fit.

Surely the above is an aircraft along time since its last Ohaul.

Quote Reply

Hamilcar 10/26/2009 3:06:12 PM

From a French commentator putting the best face he can on the Squall.

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.

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.

Why don't you read the underlined again? I think you did not understand what I said at all. Change that to, you did not understand that at all.

The statement that the French planned for AESA was fallacious. They did exactly what I said they did, picked the wrong radar architecture for what they thought was its proven advantage for .simpler construction and for its phased array beam steering advabvatages over scan track for air to ground. They goofed up the vertical gating so that the side-lobe noise painted a bulls-eye on the Rafale with the Rafale's RBE2 screaming, "here I am, kill me!" .

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.

Underlined......that is humor, right?

Not actually so about bolting an AESA onto the front end of a PESA since its the entire ARRAY that has top be switched out . It turns out, that a active phased array can be bolted onto the front of an old conventional radar rather more easily than is erroneously thought. That was AN/APG-63, and AN/AN/APG 63(v) 3 in the F-15 Eagles for example. That shows me something about the misconceptions from which you argue.

French experience with PESA and phased array radar in general goes back as far back as their experiments with the 1960s ground based radars. Certainly they were aware of British experiments post WW II. They, therefore, knew, what they chose and why they chose it.

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/26/2009 3:31:49 PM

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

to be honest, NFI. Have only spoke to exchange pilots and some of the geeks here and have never discussed body shop issues.

I guess there will be some close shot images somewhere to give an idea

Quote Reply

gf0012-aust 10/26/2009 3:46:44 PM

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

Well, I guess I have to say that after seeing some posters trot out the same nonsense over 5-6 years, when the same rubbish has been comprehensively dismissed, when its apparent that some of the claimed expertise has come from technical luddites and when some of the other contributors do work in this environment or field - then my patience has gone to zero and my tolerance has gone cost negative. :) So when I see posters questioning the competency and technical abilities of people like warpig, then I'm more than happy to be the dragonslayer.

I'm in my 50's, whatever patience and suffering I have is reserved for those produced from my loins or friends and family, I'm becoming less tolerant as I get older. Maybe its the job. :) As such, I'm not wasting bandwidth anymore on trolls. tyhe colour of their money and their competency gets flagged very quickly, so their own capabilities don't need people with actual knowledge trotting out to hilight it everytime they make some silly claim and present it as fact. I have lots of time for people who are prepared to listen and understand, I have ZERO for those who pretend to be connected, or pretend to be subject matter experts and yet clearly don't understand some of the technical or factual interconnects.

OTOH, you have the patience of moses - something which I've always admired but never had the helix count to do it myself. its an admirable trait.

No-one is a complete expert on any of these matters in a public forum, but seriously, some of the trite nonsense trotted out in the aviation and special forces forums as empirical fact should make the dead hurt themselves laughing.

Quote Reply

MK 10/26/2009 5:06:52 PM

Why don't you read the underlined again? I think you did not understand what I said at all. Change that to, you did not understand that at all.

I actually red what you wrote. There might have been some collaboration at a given time, but the development went on more independently later on. Otherwise there wouldn't have been so much individual programmes aimed at research, development and risk reduction.

They planned for AESA in the long term as did Eurofighter. But at the time design decisions had to be made it was expected that the AESA technology wouldn't be available on time in an acceptable form. The each manufacturer selected the technology he believed to be adequate until an AESA solution would be viable for operational application.

Underlined......that is humor, right?

To my understanding the french aimed at lower detectability of the radar emissions and expected PESA to be the better approach for achieving that goal than a MSA.

True it has shown that MSA radars could be retrofitted with an AESA antenna without to much difficulties. Yet a PESA might require fewer software work as the modes are already in scope with agile beam sweeping inherent to ESA designs.

The Captor can "see" further. And why can't the Typhoon Tranche 1's be back-fitted? Its a physical change out at the power connections. Maybe you are afraid of software integration and coding for the family of delivered weapons that a change in radar would entail? Any change or upgrade in a sensor involves that software and coding risk. Why not fund and fit if the customer demands? I refer you again to the F-15 upgrades the Americans undertook.

It's the manufacturer which states that, though it's probably more leaned towards the incompatibily of Captor-C. Captor-D was designed with a later AESA retrofit in mind and the CAESAR was actually based on the Captor-D. T2 aircraft feature the required provisions, T1 examples lack them. It might still be possible with some more extensive work being conducted as DA5 has shown.

It didn't work. That is why MEADS is in trouble-not the rockets, but the GERMAN radars. (Not French) Swash plate indicates a FoV issue which I expected.

I haven't followed the MEADS programme at all so I can't comment/judge that. The TRMs seem to work however, otherwise CAESAR or RBE2AA wouldn't have worked either.

FoV is an issue for ALL E-scan radars due the small aperatur of the antenna at higher gimbals and power looses of phase shifting necessary to direct the beam. The swash-plate is meant to address these issues inherent to fixed ESA designs and even extend the max FoV.

Why don't you read your own previous paragraph? You just said so and what work share there was!

Did I? Where? There was work on the TRMs besides the germans and french. Any share in these or other areas isn't specified in any source I have seen.

I gave you a source for that data including some energy envelope performance curves as graphed. I don't think you have a case. You certainly have the propaganda pat.

You provided a link to a nice paperwork exercise, which is by no means official or verified in any way. The author him self states that the results are inaccurate due the lack of proper data. Some

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