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: Rafale Proves Itself
SYSOP    8/7/2011 7:59:23 AM
 
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 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54   NEXT
45-Shooter       12/13/2011 10:20:02 PM


Fifth; I was working for Boeing and then Micky-D back then and I know a great deal more than you do about what went on back then.

There were no published reports that stated that they actually looked at Compound delta wings! They never asked Boeing for any of their extensively researched data.

As far as I know, they never asked any one for it and there is no record of any single wind tunnel test of a cranked delta planform model! None what so ever! And I do know what they did do in that regard! ( NOTHING!)


H.

I read that report, but it is very clear that you did not or you would have noted who wrote it and where they were from. Exactly how does it proove that the French knew anything about it?
RIGHT!
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    Right on! You must be an old crow?   12/13/2011 10:29:16 PM




The most obvious area where this lack of vision is displayed is in the Rafale's overall layout and its notable lack of signature reduction design features. The Rafale exhibits numerous features that would simply never be

incorporated into any design intended to have a reduced RCS, including its prominent intakes, a huge vertical stabilizer, canards, a non-retractable refueling probe, and numerous other probes, protrusions, and other serious RCS offenders. What does this mean? Late in the Rafale's design process its engineers realized that they had failed to anticipate the key role RCS reduction would play in future designs and scambled to find ways to reduce the Rafale's RCS. With minimal experience with RCS reduction and an airframe that was already too far along in its design to be fixed, the end result was of course disappointing. Shaping is the single most important consideration in RCS reduction and the Rafale has too many major flaws to ever be considered stealthy. RAM coatings and last minute saw-tooth edge features are at best minimally effective on an aircraft that is otherwise designed all wrong from the start.

N

ot only that, but the Rafale's maneuverability proved to be disappointing, comparable to, but only marginally better than that already offered by earlier 4th generation designs and noticably lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter.


ike its airframe, the Rafale's pit and interfaces sought to close the gap with earlier 4th generation designs. Drawing its inspiration from the US, the Rafale design team sought to replicate the hands on throttle and stick interface the US had adopted by the time the Rafale entered its design phase. W
r. While the US launched fully funded AESA programs and prepared for a generational leap in radar performance, for some reason the Rafale was designed with a PESA radar, a technological dead-end. Worse, the Rafale was simply not designed to accomodate a radar of sufficient size to operate effectively autonomously. Now, although France is working to retrofit an AESA antenna onto its PESA back-end in the Rafale, the nose of the Rafale will simply not accomodate a competitive radar. The best the Rafale can hope to do is close some of its radar performance gap with aircraft like the F-16, but will never be capable of competing with designs like the Eurofighter or Super Hornet.





 

 

Part 2.




Right on all counts in both parts! Are you an Old Crow or Raven?
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/14/2011 2:51:36 AM



The original spec was for a 8-9 tonne plane with a MTO of 15-18T, but the other partners wanted a heavier plane and the dispute broke the partnership. Note that in the mean time it has grown to about 50% larger than the originally planned size!

Rafale C weighs 9.1 T empty, and has a 24T MTO
 
 
The original sales plan was to replace the thousand or so of Mirage fighter/bombers sold previously. But given the choice between a plane marginally larger and slightly more capable that the M-III, many former Mirage customers bought the F-16 instead.
 
ROFL there has been two generations between Mirage III and Rafale : Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000. You are confusing with  Mirage F1. The export log of Mirage 2000 isnt that bad and clients quite satisfied (ask UAE pilots that regularly spank F16 block 62 on their Mirage 2000-9, or Greek pilots daily mimicking fights vs Turkish F16)
 

So the French Government recast the Rafale into a much larger plane, about what the rest of the original consortium wanted, about the size of Typhoon. But the engine design was to far advanced and there were limits to the size of plane it could power and still meet the performance minima. Thus as the war load grew, the performance fell off until where it requires three tanks to equal the range/payload of the F-16 with two Mk-84 JDAMs

Give the data please i need a goo laugh! Range with three tanks is way better then F16 and slightly superior to F18 SH
 
 
 The Boeing plane had better numbers all around except range which was equal in spite of it's heavier weight.
. You see planes with higher aspect ratios and conventional tails have less induced drag and thus better range/cruise performance. Think about it. The USAF could have had any planform they wanted, but made the active choice to go with the conventional. Same story with the F-35
 
No they needed to buy US product. USAF wanted A330 MRTT for ex...

As to your question; The F-16, Block 60 is superior to the Rafale in more than a few of the many parameters! In a lightly loaded condition, with fuel for combat and RTB at range, ( Four missiles and CL Tank for the F-16 and four missiles and two wing tanks for the Rafale!)

CFT are available to export customer, if you wish i'll send you a photo of Rafale flying with CFT  
http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/rafale9.html," target="_blank">link for more info see Fox three n°2 Dassault publication) so your analysis is irrelevant.

 
T/W and aspect ratio
 
empty T/W ratio (the same will be with fuel etc.)
F16 (F11PW229 engine) :  8.3T , 106 kN using PC
Rafale : 9T, 150 kN using PC
I let you calculate
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/14/2011 2:52:13 AM
F-16 has about a 44-61 Nmi advantage in radius! This is a second fact that you have never acknowledged.
 
I still dont aknowledge as it is a wrong assumption.
 
T/W and Fuel Persistence where the F-16 has a significant advantage in ACM! This is not really relevant because of the reduced radius of action of both planes in this mission. So if we use the criteria above then the F-16 is the superior plane. But being an AVIONICs Weenie of the first magnatude, I like the performance of the proven radar in the F-16 over the less capable radar in the Rafale! This is a critical mission requirement! Your failure to realize these substantial defects such as small antennas in both planes, compared to larger planes like the F/A-18, F-15, F/A-22, F-35 and even the Typhoon! There is nothing that signal processing can do to overcome the lack of antenna area! Just one more failure of the French thought processes!
 
 Partly true (size too small). Please remember the range of a radar is dependant on the energy emitted, not the number of antennas (modules). It is surely easier to emit more power with a larger antenna allowing more modules (you need less cooling). Thats why France and other european countries recently developped GaN modules plants (5 in Europe to be precise). I agree its not present RBE-2 AESA technology although. The argument that its no use having longer range  then your best missile except to be detected is at best debatable, i agree.
 
Lastly they thought that it would be easy to transfer miniature model stealth to the real thing. Boy did they miss the boat there! Believe me when I tell you that if it actually had the least little bit of actual stealth, some one would have bought it by now! The ravings of test pilots
 
Not test pilots, operational ones (Cpt Romain, Lcl Granclaudon...)
 
and company engineers who have a vested interest in selling the plane feeds fan boys like you with BS into thinking that it is a much better plane than it is. If it was even half that good, why has no one bought it? (The ultimate question!)
 
Korea, Singapore : political reasons (US pressure) . Remeber a Korean officer was severely punished when he claimed that Rafale had won the tech eval vs F15.
Switzerland : money (even their MoD said so) Gripen was offering the best value for money for swiss requirements (air police)
 
 
I would also site the four missiles and no tanks, combined with the reclined seat
 
30° for each
 
make instantaneous maneuvers faster and sustained maneuvers longer.
 
Say that to Luke airforce instructor pilots that were spanked by Rafale rookie (about 250 hours on Rafale, and except two of them, they were all coming from A2G squadrons) pilots during pre RedFlag.
 
 
It is a fact of life and you continuously fail to perceive it! Then there is the haul two, or four big bombs to there and back where the
 it will have little trouble dealing with the Rafale! Higher


 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/14/2011 5:20:45 AM
This whole debate hinges around nationalistic French who wish to believe the Rafale is everything they've ever dreamed of and those from other nations who regard it as "meh". 
 
Like every other thread there is no resolution likely because the former class of debater is intellectually hobbled and has a preconceived ideal that they are absolutely unwilling to deviate from.
 
Can we leave it at that, we're actually at the point where it is more expedient (as H demonstrated) to simply cite examples of earlier threads that covered exactly the same ground.
 
French guys, bw and halloweene (if you are not the same person), if you are so convinced that you are right about the plane you so clearly love why spend so much of your life/lives desperately trying to sell it to the rest of us, surely this became frustrating to you several years ago?
 
The more the Rafale threads dominate the FBR board the less anything else gets noticed or discussed and the more boring and therefore pointless this whole place is.
 
R 
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/14/2011 6:45:37 AM
Reactive , there is only ONE Rafale thread and at the moment I only post here .
What you all fail to acknowledge is the sheer number of mistake you make when you talk about the Dassault fighter !
 
Let 's imagine for a moment that you come across a french site where people talk about a US bird  in the worse possible manner , bashing the thing and making mistakes at every line or so . This is what happen here on SP with the Rafale .
When French posters try to "educate" you , they get the stick and soon name calling begins . If we dare to respond in kind , it 's the ban . How fair is that ?
 
Just look at Shooter 's last 3 posts !
This gentleman is wrong at almost very line but still , he poses himself as a "expert" (?) .
 
He goes as far as saying that the F-16 Blk60 is a better aircraft than the Rafale !? In fact , he is very representative of what happen here on a daily basis : anything non-US is poor and when it is French , it is even worse.
Why StrategyPage died years ago ? Easy : it 's impossible to discuss anything non-US (or anything French) without the thread going pear shape . Please , go ask around on other military sites what is the reputation of StrategyPage , ouch !
Mr gf & Co (the Mods) banned me 4 times (!) because I keep trying to correct you all when you make mistakes . 
Hurray ! Let 's ban the French bast*rd ! So , I come back and carry on what I see as a duty . I have dozens of internet accounts and I can even use differnt ISPs , I will always come back as long as mistakes are made or when bashing is used .
 
The favorite thing to say is "the Rafale has a small radar" . Well , when asked the French pilots always respond by : "who cares as long as we have AWACs flying around , 8 times out of 10 we fire our weapons from thirs part coodinates , every airforce does it too ."" The RBE2 AESA has a 185km range against a fighter size target which is plenty enough for firing Mica or Meteor . Furthermore , the way Rafale works is vastly different than , say F-15 or SH . Top notch passive sensors do most of the job : bigger the adverse radar is , better it is for the Rafale !
Some like to have big eyes but in this electronic age , we prefer to have big ears and it makes perfect sense . For most of you , used to "bigger is better" (the US motto) , you don 't understand or you don 't want to .
Same with the LO concept , for you it means mostly stealth based on shape .Well , not for us . If you 're not radiating while listening everything when running a discret approach , you ARE low observable and if you get spotted by adverse radars , you "soft kill" them with electronic means (Spectra) .
It 's not that US posters disagree with that , it is just that they don't believe that the Rafale can do it when it has been designed for ! Surely , the French can 't do it , they say ... And when you post official reports stating the fact , they go "lalala , can 't hear you !" . Pathetic if you ask me ...
YOU are to blame , not us .
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Numbers are WRONG.   12/14/2011 8:06:01 AM










The original spec was for a 8-9 tonne plane with a MTO of 15-18T, but the other partners wanted a heavier plane and the dispute broke the partnership. Note that in the mean time it has grown to about 50% larger than the originally planned size!


Rafale C weighs 9.1 T empty, and has a 24T MTO

 

 

The original sales plan was to replace the thousand or so of Mirage fighter/bombers sold previously. But given the choice between a plane marginally larger and slightly more capable that the M-III, many former Mirage customers bought the F-16 instead.

 

ROFL there has been two generations between Mirage III and Rafale : Mirage F1 and Mirage 2000. You are confusing with  Mirage F1. The export log of Mirage 2000 isnt that bad and clients quite satisfied (ask UAE pilots that regularly spank F16 block 62 on their Mirage 2000-9, or Greek pilots daily mimicking fights vs Turkish F16)

 



So the French Government recast the Rafale into a much larger plane, about what the rest of the original consortium wanted, about the size of Typhoon. But the engine design was to far advanced and there were limits to the size of plane it could power and still meet the performance minima. Thus as the war load grew, the performance fell off until where it requires three tanks to equal the range/payload of the F-16 with two Mk-84 JDAMs


Give the data please i need a goo laugh! Range with three tanks is way better then F16 and slightly superior to F18 SH

 

 

 The Boeing plane had better numbers all around except range which was equal in spite of it's heavier weight.

. You see planes with higher aspect ratios and conventional tails have less induced drag and thus better range/cruise performance. Think about it. The USAF could have had any planform they wanted, but made the active choice to go with the conventional. Same story with the F-35

 
No they needed to buy US product. USAF wanted A330 MRTT for ex...

As to your question; The F-16, Block 60 is superior to the Rafale in more than a few of the many parameters! In a lightly loaded condition, with fuel for combat and RTB at range, ( Four missiles and CL Tank for the F-16 and four missiles and two wing tanks for the Rafale!)

CFT are available to export customer, if you wish i'll send you a photo of Rafale flying with CFT  
link... for more info see Fox three n°2 Dassault publication) so your analysis is irrelevant.
 
T/W and aspect ratio
 
empty T/W ratio (the same will be with fuel etc.)  BIG ERROR. Fuel weight affects ratio, kumquat.
F16 (F11PW229 engine) :  8.3T , 106 kN using PC That is a GE F-110 in the current iteration F-16; 125 kilonewton using reheat.@ standard 12,000 kg so its T/W = 1.04~1.1 depending on fuel load 
Rafale : 9T, 150 kN using PC The French piece of junk uses the M-88 rated at a laughable 70 kilonewtons per engine (2) for 140 kilonewtons total-NOT the 75, kN  per engine or 150 kN your claim because of core temp limits. Its standard loaded condition is 14,000 kg~ so its T/W is roughly 1.0-1.1 depending on fuel load
I let you calculate

I JUST did because you couldn't.
 
Hamilcar.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    Bw   12/14/2011 8:10:03 AM
Lol, 
 
That is the single most hysterical post from you yet.
 
Rafale is LO again? ...lol
 
Spectra vs LPI AESA?....lol 
 
Onboard Radar not important because of AWACS... lol
 
You will just keep coming back, even though no one can stand you and you've been banned 4 times? 
 
L   O   L
O   L  O 
L   O   L
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    You know NOTHING about radar.   12/14/2011 8:19:15 AM
Partly true (size too small). Please remember the range of a radar is dependant on the energy emitted, not the number of antennas (modules). It is surely easier to emit more power with a larger antenna allowing more modules (you need less cooling). Thats why France and other european countries recently developped GaN modules plants (5 in Europe to be precise). I agree its not present RBE-2 AESA technology although. The argument that its no use having longer range  then your best missile except to be detected is at best debatable, i agree.
 
 
Done in ONE. You are about ten years behind, kumquat.  Also a radar signal detection threshold is dependent on the RECEIVER array sensitivity. The bigger the receiver and the less 'local radio noise and interference' it has to see through? The better.
 
ROTFLMAO.
 
H.
\
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/14/2011 8:42:45 AM
Shooter :
""Again the inlet doors you circled were added after flight tests. The prototype did not have them because of their deleterious effect on Low Observables! You know so little about it that I can not continue this conversation!""
 
I am sorry but YOU know very little . Look at the VERY first prototype :
 
http://i44.tinypic.com/2zjky0o.jpg" /> 
 
Can you see them or you need glasses ?
Now , let 's correct few errors shall we ?
 
""The original spec was for a 8-9 tonne plane with a MTO of 15-18T, but the other partners wanted a heavier plane and the dispute broke the partnership. ""
Wrong . In fact , it is the other way around .
 
""So the French Government recast the Rafale into a much larger plane, about what the rest of the original consortium wanted, about the size of Typhoon. ""
Wrong . It is also the other way around . France always wanted a fighter-striker when the others wanted an interceptor .
 
""But the engine design was to far advanced and there were limits to the size of plane it could power and still meet the performance minima.""
Wrong . In fact , by switching from the General F404 to the Snecma M88 , Dassault was able to lighten the aircraft by ONE ton while having a higher T/W .
 
""Thus as the war load grew, the performance fell off until where it requires three tanks to equal the range/payload of the F-16 ""
Wrong . Look (T/W) :
 
http://i42.tinypic.com/5znrwh.gif" /> 
Range :
Rafale has exactly THREE TIMES (!) the range of F-16 in a penetration mission (Hi-lo-Hi) , 340 nmi for F-16 , 1000 nmi for Rafale . Check it
I could carry on correcting you for ages since you make mistakes at every line .
To the other posters , do you understand now why I am here ?
More later ...
 
Cheers.
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics