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: UK Pilot flight test the Rafale F3
Bluewings12    11/9/2009 1:57:05 PM
By Peter Collins : Chapter 1 , the aircraft : "Most advanced Allied air forces now have operational fleets of fourth-generation fighters (defined by attributes such as being fly-by-wire, highly unstable, highly agile, net-centric, multi-weapon and multi-role assets). These Western types include the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG. The Boeing F-15E and Lockheed Martin F-16 have an older heritage, but their latest upgrades give them similar multi-role mission capabilities. Of the above group, only the Super Hornet and Rafale M are capable of aircraft-carrier operations. As these fourth-generation fighters' weapons, sensor systems and net-centric capabilities mature, the likelihood of export orders for such an operationally proven package becomes much more realistic. On behalf of Flight International, I became the first UK test pilot to evaluate the Rafale in its current F3 production standard, applicable to aircraft for both French air force and French navy frontline squadrons. The "proof-of-concept" Rafale A first flew in 1986 as an aerodynamic study, leading to the programme's formal launch two years later. The slightly smaller single-seat Rafale C01 and two-seat B01 for the French air force and single-seat M01 and M02 prototypes for the navy flew from 1991. The first production-standard Rafale flew in 1998, and entered service with the navy's 12F squadron at Landivisiau in 2004 in the F1 (air-to-air) standard. Deliveries of the air force's B- and C-model aircraft started in 2006 in the F2 standard, dubbed "omnirole" by Dassault. Since 2008, all Rafales have been delivered in the F3 standard, which adds reconnaissance pod integration and MBDA's ASMP-A nuclear weapon capability. All aircraft delivered in earlier production standards will be brought up to the F3 configuration over the next two years. The French forces plan to purchase 294 Rafales: 234 for the air force and 60 for the navy. Their Rafales are set to replace seven legacy fighter types, and will remain as France's principal combat aircraft until at least 2040. To date, about 70 Rafales have been delivered, with a current production rate of 12 a year. Rafale components and airframe sections are built at various Dassault facilities across France and assembled near Bordeaux, but maintained in design and engineering configuration "lockstep" using the virtual reality, Dassault-patented Catia database also used on the company's Falcon 7X business jet. Rafale software upgrades are scheduled to take place every two years, a complete set of new-generation sensors is set for 2012 and a full mid-life upgrade is planned for 2020 SUPERB PERFORMANCE The Rafale was always designed as an aircraft capable of any air-to-ground, reconnaissance or nuclear strike mission, but retaining superb air-to-air performance and capabilities. Air force and navy examples have made three fully operational deployments to Afghanistan since 2005, giving the French forces unparalleled combat and logistical experience. The commitments have also proved the aircraft's net-centric capabilities within the co-ordination required by coalition air forces and the command and control environment when delivering air support services to ground forces. Six Rafale Ms recently carried out a major joint exercise with the US Navy from the deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier the USS Theodore Roosevelt. The air force's B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy's Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter's navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples. Dassault describes the Rafale as omnirole rather than multirole. This is derived from the wide variety of air-to-ground and air-to-air weapons, sensor pods and fuel tank combinations it can carry; the optimisation of aircraft materials and construction; and the full authority digital FBW controlling a highly agile (very aerodynamically unstable) platform. This also gives the aircraft a massive centre of gravity range and allows for a huge combination of different mission stores to be carried, including the asymmetric loading of heavy stores, both laterally and longitudinally. Other attributes include the wide range of smart and discrete sensors developed for the aircraft, and the way that the vast array of received information is "data fused" by a powerful central computer to reduce pilot workload when presented in the head-down, head-level and head-up displays. The Rafale is designed for day or night covert low-level penetration, and can carry a maximum of 9.5t of external ordinance, equal to the much larger F-15E. With a basic empty weight of 10.3t, an internal fuel capacity of 4.7t and a maximum take-off weight of 24.5t, the Rafale can lift 140% of additional lo
 
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 32 33 34   NEXT
sentinel28a       11/20/2009 3:17:28 PM
Yes, BW, the Rafale scored second.  That's like losing a soccer match and claiming you came in second.  No, you didn't--you lost. 
 
One can be assured that, if the Rafale wins in Brazil, you--BW--will not be on here talking about how the Super Hornet or the Gripen came in second.  You'll be crowing how the Rafale won.
 
Moreover, you contradict yourself.  If the Rafale is so far advanced over aircraft of the 1980s--the F-teens, Tornados, etc.--then our British correspondent would be out of his depth.  Sure, BFM and tactics are the same, just as they have been since Oswald Boelcke.  But technology has changed a great deal in the past 20 years, a claim you and FS never fail to make when describing how the Rafale is a late 4th or low 5th gen fighter.  You could stick Steve Ritchie into a Rafale and he'd turn it inside out--but he might not be as familiar with the high tech doodads on the aircraft.  Maybe not a big deal in flight test for fun, but a lethal deal in combat.  If I can't figure out what the hell Spectra does, then it's not going to do me much good in a fight.
 
So if the Rafale is as advanced as you say it is, then Mr. Collins may not know what the heck he's talking about.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/20/2009 3:24:12 PM
Behind their keyboard , some posters are simply in total denial ...

thanks for reminding everyone about how you operate and about your own experiences - but this is about making unsubstantaiated claims and claiming to be knowledgable.

in your case I am happy to start a separate thread and line list everything you've said that is patently wrong - and where you've been countered comprehensively every time.

me - I know what I've done, where I've worked and my limitations.  there are others in here who could quite happily jump in and evsicerate me if I was making things up because they also know where what when I've done/do etc....

I reckon I have a better clue about these subjects than you do by a golden mile - and thats been self evident every waking day that you put finger to keyboard and start up that 2 stroke sitting twixt your ears.

again, I'm not pretending - you repeatedly do so, so again, don't pretend to be a subject matter expert when you get the basics wrong.

as for Collins, well either his bio is wrong - or his lying about parts of it.  either way, making unsuppportable and easily refutable claims about prior history is not a good look.  it brings your whole credibility into question..

btw I can drive fast cars - that doesn't make me michael schumacher
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       11/20/2009 4:22:00 PM



Behind their keyboard , some posters are simply in total denial ...

 

Cheers .


I was going to post some factoid or inciteful comment
unfortunatly the above totaly derailed my thought processes and caused me to spray beer accross the keyboard.
 
What was that about Pots and Kettles again.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       11/20/2009 4:49:39 PM
gf , I read your last post twice to make sure that I had it right .
 
You shoot at the messenger (me) all guns blazing . Bad shot , you missed , I 'm still here :-)
Beside that , you do or bring or explain or prove absolutly nothing . Not even a single fact about the matter at hand .
But you attack me personaly , as usual .
I couldn 't care less ...
May I remind you that this attitude is called flaming ?
 
gf , I have never said that I was an "expert" in aeronautic . You more or less know what my CV is as I have never hidden my military background (and some of my civilian jobs) . I hold the high ground gf , because I am honest .
Now , you can keep bashing Peter Collins and I all you want , it will not change a thing : Rafale is an outstanding fighter .
 
Sentinel , I am surprised . Your tone changed and I cannot grasp the reason why ...
What is ennoying me a wee bit is this :
 
""One can be assured that, if the Rafale wins in Brazil, you--BW--will not be on here talking about how the Super Hornet or the Gripen came in second.  You'll be crowing how the Rafale won.""
 
You are wrong on both accounts Sentinel about me . First , I wouldn 't brag about why the Rafale won the deal because the Rafale is a better aircraft than both Gripen-NG and late SH , then the only "bad" (?) thing I 've said about the SH is the aircraft is "poussif" as we say in France , understand lack of thrust . The Gripen-NG looks very fine on paper and I expect the end product to be excellent but not on the par with the Rafale yet .
Yes the Rafale finished second but who were the third , fourth , fifth , etc ? I am sure that you can tell me .
 
Do you know a pilot who understood everything and looked at everything during his/her first flight onboard an unknown aircraft ? 

Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Assertions are not facts.   11/20/2009 7:33:28 PM
That is for the benefit of someone who needs to understand the difference.

""A more powerful engine, a new air-to-air missile and cutting-edge radar systems are some of the requirements the UAE has made to Dassault and its French partners, Safran, Thales and MBDA, according to media reports in September.""
 
Everything that I said was wrong with that crap aircraft.
 
Missiles.
engine
radar. 

Word for word.
 
Now that is evidence HE supplied that I used against his assertions.
 
It is what every customer who looked at Rafale told the vendor We want missiles, engines and radar that works.  .
 
UAE is just the latest in a long line.

 
Quote    Reply

jackjack       11/20/2009 8:39:35 PM

gf , I read your last post twice to make sure that I had it right .
You shoot at the messenger (me) all guns blazing . Bad shot , you missed , I 'm still here :-)
Beside that , you do or bring or explain or prove absolutly nothing . Not even a single fact about the matter at hand .
But you attack me personaly , as usual .
I couldn 't care less ...
May I remind you that this attitude is called flaming ?
gf , I have never said that I was an "expert" in aeronautic . You more or less know what my CV is as I have never hidden my military background (and some of my civilian jobs) . I hold the high ground gf , because I am honest .
Now , you can keep bashing Peter Collins and I all you want , it will not change a thing : Rafale is an outstanding fighter .
Sentinel , I am surprised . Your tone changed and I cannot grasp the reason why ...
What is ennoying me a wee bit is this :

 ""One can be assured that, if the Rafale wins in Brazil, you--BW--will not be on here talking about how the Super Hornet or the Gripen came in second.  You'll be crowing how the Rafale won.""
 You are wrong on both accounts Sentinel about me . First , I wouldn 't brag about why the Rafale won the deal because the Rafale is a better aircraft than both Gripen-NG and late SH , then the only "bad" (?) thing I 've said about the SH is the aircraft is "poussif" as we say in France , understand lack of thrust . The Gripen-NG looks very fine on paper and I expect the end product to be excellent but not on the par with the Rafale yet .
Yes the Rafale finished second but who were the third , fourth , fifth , etc ? I am sure that you can tell me . 
Do you know a pilot who understood everything and looked at everything during his/her first flight onboard an unknown aircraft ? 

Cheers .


 
 
its funny when a lying deceitful troll plays the innocent
 
Quote    Reply

One Five Five Echo       11/21/2009 4:24:53 AM
The best for a 4 or 4.5 gen fighter is to keep a single supersonic central fuel tank . If the aircraft 's 3D numerical signature is manageable through active ECM , it is even better ;-)
 
This does sound like a great capability.  Can you tell us more about it?
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/21/2009 4:30:43 AM

But you attack me personaly , as usual .

I couldn 't care less ...


excellent. then I will continue to point out everybit of rubbish that you post.

btw, I don't pick on you at all - you set yourself up to be labelled a troll because of the cavalier way that you pontificate over things that you clearly know nothing about.

how soon do you think a post would fill up if we posted all the examples of nonsene comments you've made over the last 6 years?

Lets start with signature management and the new invention of french RAM to stop it from looking like a metallic version of rhinoplasty at work...  I believe there are still a few who are waiting for your response on how a flange plate has been coated in RAM goo....

btw, when a US astronaut writes a bio that says he landed on Mars then I'll critique that as well - you don't seem to get the point that its a credibility issue.  Collins bio states he was on JSF when he clearly couldn't have.

Do I need to spell all that out again or are you able to draw the dots for yourself?


 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       11/21/2009 4:44:59 AM

The best for a 4 or 4.5 gen fighter is to keep a single supersonic central fuel tank . If the aircraft 's 3D numerical signature is manageable through active ECM , it is even better ;-)

 

This does sound like a great capability.  Can you tell us more about it?



Just look at every fighter thread since about 2004.
 
He has been consistently spouting the same bollox and polluting just about every thread since then with his assertians about Rafale , Spectra, Rcs and irst oh and mica. And they are assertions because he knows nothing about the subject except sales brochures.
 
 
you will also see numerous posts debunking this -- and yes some are french/ rafale /BW bashing
but most are considered responses explaining why hes wrong.  closely followed by his repeated assertions as he ignores what doesnt conform to what he thinks he knows.
 
most of his detractors if you look back far enough started out civilised and tried to explain things -along the way theyve plain given up.
 
See recent comments on RAM on fuel probes , several people explained why it wasnt done, and why there would be no point fitting a half inch bit to the base.
 
his response every one is wrong  because DASSAULT clearly think differently.
Note he has no proof, he can find no evidence or documentation to this affect, but he insists this is what dassault do, his reasoning it seems clear to him this is what they do.
 
Unfortunatly no matter how much experience somebody has in the relevent field - he refuses to accept any but HIS facts.
 
i have no doubt I am about to be called a french or rafale basher because of the above so i will point out read my posts i have never said the rafale is a bad aircraft, I have repeatedly said that as a mud mover it should allways be better than the tiffy (weapons integration (US/NATO being its only downside - and no BW just because it uses the same hard points doesnt mean its capable of using these weapons - you youreslf have pointed out the customer has to pay for this- this i think is its biggest stumbling block for sales).
 
As for what i think of the french - i cant answer that with my french missus looking over my shoulder.
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       11/21/2009 4:49:13 AM
Ive just re read my post and think i may have been a tad aggressive and personal
 
So i will say my comments all stand I reckon im correct on all counts,
however i didnt perhaps mean to be quite so rude
 
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 32 33 34   NEXT



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics