It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Rafale - As good as it can get. Stealth.Supercruise.Omnirole.

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 12:36 AM
link   
WOW StealthSpy in addition to the numerous pastes with little or no comment, you have managed to make a thread that reads like a Dassault promotional leaflet


IF the Rafale is all that please explain its vaunted sucsess in the export market. Perhaps it is politics, and in this case, its Frances politics working aginst itself




posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 03:55 AM
link   
I've always liked the RAFALE. Sweet looking aircraft.


What would of been??? If the french stayed with eurofighter AND ALL
of the parties got along?????


Maybe an awesome multi/omni role aircraft



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 04:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
Filed away on a word document, I ran across these numbers:
F-22 Raptor: minimal frontal RCS-0.0002~0.0005m2 [0.0005~0.001m2 class], -30 dB
Typhoon: minimal frontal RCS-0.05~0.1 m2
Rafale: minimal frontal RCS-0.1~0.3 m2


seekerof, clearly this post of yours does not do any justice to neither that medal you flaunt nor your condescending tone. The RCS values of airplanes are closely guarded secrets. Those values that you have posted sourced from a "Word document" account to nothing more than somebody's wet dream. Even the guys from Karachi's finest madrassa's wont fall for B.S like that.

It is close to impossible to assess the RCS of any airplane, and those who know it are sworn to secracy. There can be equivalent comparisions like "like a bumble bee" or "looks like a tricycle" , but your post about the RCS values correct to 2 decimal points is in every sense of the way "The Personification of Ignorance of the highest order".

*SNIP*

Even speculation by defence experts is quite contrary to your "Word document"'s claims. For example in the article by Michal Fiszer published in Janes and EDO, he says : It is very difficult to assess the Rafale's RCS due to the high level of classification, but sources have unofficially said that Rafale has a much lower RCS than the Typhoon, a fighter of roughly the same size.

In another article titled "Typhoon Arises - Genesis To Future" published in EDO, reads : One common aspect for all "Eurofighter countries" is that potential enemies do not posses the most sophisticated military equipment, and "full stealthness" is not required to confront them. Comparatively simple and less costly radar-cross-section-reduction measures are deemed adequate, such as radar-absorbing materials (RAM) and management of electromagnetic, infrared, and noise signatures. There are other "non-stealth" engineering features to reduce detection: for example, the air intakes are shaped in such a way that the engines' compressor blades are not visible to enemy radars from the front. At the same time, to increase aircraft survivability, an advanced self-protection system was developed. It is also emphasized that, in the F/A-22 and F-35, a low RCS has been achieved at the cost of weapons-payload reduction, mostly due to the lack of external ordnance. One Typhoon representative said to the author: "What is the use of stealth if you don't have weapons?"

But at the same time, the Typhoon has a relatively large radar cross-section (RCS) as compared to its peers. Some low-observability features were used but not to the extent employed on the F/A-22 Raptor or F-35 Joint Strike Fighter (JSF), or even the French Rafale. Detailed figures are classified, but an unofficial source says that the Typhoon has about a 1-square-meter RCS. Such a figure is quite a good achievement, since it is only about 0.13% of the RCS of the Su-27/30/35 and about 0.2% of the RCS of the MiG-29.


This too is only unverified speculation and not worthy being taken too seriously; however it seems more creditable than a "word document" or an unreputed internet link.

Let me also add that i have a .txt file that says that a JF-17 can take out an F-22 just by looking menacingly at it !

[edit on 30-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]

Mod Edit: Removed Drug Reference.

[edit on 30/12/2005 by Mirthful Me]



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 06:12 AM
link   
So what you are saying then is that you can believe this one because it says what you want it to about the Rafale whilst the other one does not, hence you find it more 'creditable'?

Interestingly, the one you seem to believe most may also give you the reason for the Rafales international failure, because if what it says is true then France has made the Rafale unnecessarily expensive.

Unless you believe your other 'source' that somehow reckons the Rafale, with all its stealth goodies, is magically cheaper than a fighter with not only less sophisticated stealth attribues (allegedly- don't forget much of Typhoon is actually highly classified) but also a much bigger production run ahead of it. For instance the Saudi order order now means that BAE alones work on the Typhoon is longer than Dassaults run on the Rafale, besides what the other partners will make.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 07:51 AM
link   
Politics plays a massive part in military procurement, so I wouldn't necessarily dismiss the Rafale soley on the basis of contracts gained - although it certainly does not help its cause.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 08:11 AM
link   
How can an airplane with junk hanging all over the wings, and a huge single vertical stabilizer be stealth in any way shape or form??? That plane is about as stealth as an F-16. Just look at it, compared to REAL stealth planes, and the lengths that engineers go to just to make a plane stealth, and you can clearly see that there is nothing stealthy about it.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 08:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by mxboy15u
How can an airplane with junk hanging all over the wings, and a huge single vertical stabilizer be stealth in any way shape or form??? That plane is about as stealth as an F-16. Just look at it, compared to REAL stealth planes, and the lengths that engineers go to just to make a plane stealth, and you can clearly see that there is nothing stealthy about it.




What is so unstealthy about a vertical fin? Think of the reasons why the fins on the F-22 are canted and you'll see the Rafale has no need for it.


If radar reflections and signatures are anything like aerodynamics, its impossible to merely look at an aircraft and say, "thats stealthy" or "thats not stealthy" in the same way its impossible to say "that has better aerodynamics than this" etc



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 08:31 AM
link   
thats true, something doesn't have to look like it comes from a sci fi movie to be stealthy.

Also it is worth remembering that there are degrees of stealthiness, nobody (even stealth spy) is claiming any of the eurojets go as far as the US stealth planes.

The argument here is that as we wont be fighting Russia there's no point going all the way for all out stealth. Of course this argument has been applied retrospectively and there is another which says you can't uninvent something.



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 08:54 AM
link   
S2,

>>
The Dassault Rafale has it all - Stealth, Supercruise, Omnirole, the best sensor suites, naval variant, great looks .... it could not get any better.
>>

Stealth dies the instant you put external stores on something. This because the /interactions/ between the munitions (Creeping waves, Surface Waves Corner Relfectors, Edge/Material Discontinuities) all go from 'hard to unnumerable'. My question is why Dassault try-to-lie when they have SCALP to take care of the S-300 class and AASM to kill off anything in the 20-60km residuals.

Oh, /that's right/ they don't advertise a major suport jammer, overhead or drone based targeting, or standoff assets. Because they know that that is what you NEED to have if you plan on blundering into a step-on-snake scenarior of effective TACTICAL as much as technologic IADS usage. Hell, the French don't even have a hypervelocity /ARM/ to respond to such a scenario with (nor could the Rafale carry it without sacrificing fuel or wing loading or primary attack munitions).

To my knowledge, the M88-2 is useless for much the same reason that the F135 is: Steel front end which cannot soak for long periods of intermediate supercruise ABOVE 1.4.

Now, add to this the certain reality that IF YOU DON'T HAVE TRUE VLO, all's supercruise does is impale you on multiple other-guy poles. And the reality of life becomes simply: Supercruise is only effective in getting you TO the fight. In the transit phase between launch and fence in at the combat area.

Now, given the types wingloading at a typical loadout of say six AASM, 4 MICA and 2, 2000 liter tanks plus one 1,700 liter tank (which is what you will _have_ to have to make more than 400nm radius in the absence of tankers).

Can you give me the lift at drag, IN THE AIR TO MUD CONFIGURATION NAMED by which to delineate it's sustained SSC point?

My bet is that it is no better than the F-15 and 16 jets in Desert Storm which, according to Smallwood's _Strike Eagle_ were themselves doing 1.1-1.15 as they came over the fence.

At 30,000ft. GOING DOWNHILL so that they could get some lift under their wings to have a hope in hell of fighting the local defenses around their respective targets.

While transonic behaviors actually persist up to about 1.35 or so, they are at their worst at in the region I named and actually create additional stresses on both the airframe and the engine which are specifically placarded against in most Dash-1s.

It is effectively like doing 60mph in 2nd gear with a plow attached to the trailer hitch.

OSF and Damocles are an overlap and thus a major wa$te in comparison with either AIRST or EOTS. Since we know now that targeting pods have had an A2A role for at least the last 10 years. And since the Damocles position under the Rafale inlet is at another high drag, high signature point which costs the F-15E supersonic performance, I have to admit to wondering what you are buying into here.

It's not like systems such as Falcon Eye and Falcon Knight haven't been under test since the later 80's so you cannot claim that the technology bed for UNDERNOSE STRIKE CAPABLE systems was not in place.

Indeed, I would say the positioning of OSF is as much an admission of inability to 'fight up' into the true supersonic @ 40K regime by which the majority of future (pole position and hotside lookdown) AAW will be determined.

>>
Stealth was a major priority for the Rafale. This led to designing the fuselage in the way it is, which has produced Rafale's characteristic shape.
The radar-absorbent materials initially used caused the dark color of the Rafale C prototype.
>>

Blah-blah-blah. The only thing I see is a large aperture associated with the supposed active cancellation mode of the Spectra suite. Since Tamara has proven BOTH sides are able to track specific micro-flux ether changes inherent to /any/ emission with cueable if not fire control levels of accuracy, 'lighting up remains the surest way to get smoked'.

Furthermore, to avoid large decible buildup and wavefront overlaps which can resonate RAM and 'shed' large, random-aspect, EM spikes in the RF equivalent to Coanda Effect, _true_ VLO assets which use curveature as part of their LO control do so with continuously /varied/ slope and bevel equivalent changes in their sculpting. Rafale _can't_ because it's 'just a fighter' and thus compromised by it's role performance and size into some very specific shapes.

>>
But later special electromagnetic-transparent paints were developed so the aircraft could receive any color scheme.
>>

Whoopy. SWAM paints ONLY effect the 'fuzz not the quills' of what has to be a basically sound VLO design to begin with. Furthermore, they are almost unnaturally heavy. So much so that it takes two men to lift a 5 gallon can and they are straining to do it.

Rafale lost the VLO-wannabe battle the instant they sized it to an F-18 and stuck it with external carriage as an ACX Jaguar replacement.

Furthermore, with the ever increasing emphasis upon OPTICAL tracking (IR-OTIS on the JAS-39, /as a testbed/ has tracked targets at up to 120% of PS-05 range when used at altitude), the question I have is why you justify a black paint scheme on a day fighter 'intended for operations in the middle and far east' (the only places that can afford such extravagant waste). Instead of trying to esplain-Lucy the 'teflon' and 'mirrorback' Topcoat systems on the F-22 and now some V-22s.

>>
Very very low RCS :

Dassault engineers claim that they have been able to reduce the signature of the Rafale cross section by a factor of 20 to the Mirage 2000-5.

>>

With what load? An S530D and R550-2 themselves add up to a considerable RCS penalty. And the Rafale is a 'multirole from start' which effectively means (15 years on) they are trying to do what we did with the AIM-120 and AIM-9 as 'self escort' on the F-16. The laughable reality then being that the Rafale can't carry as many MRM as the LGPOS while continuing to haul primary target ordance because it has, wait for it, all of TWO weapons stations per wing suitable for heavy ordnance. Those on the fuselage being stress and fuel compromised when carrying centerline/auxilliary station stores or operating off a carrier.

And Pssst, you _still_ don't have an ARM. So while the little ol' Viper has theoretically gained the ability to /also/ 'suppress as she goes' with the Camelback CFT; you just look uglier.

>>
Stealth Through Electronics & Software :

The Rafale carries, for the first time in aviation history, an integrated electronic survival system named SPECTRA which features a software-based virtual stealth technology.
link


Thales Group and Dassault Aviation have mentioned stealthy jamming modes for the SPECTRA system, to reduce the aircrafts apparent radar signature. It is not known exactly how these work or even if the capability is fully operational, but it may employ 'active cancellation' technology, such as has been tested by Thales and MBDA. Active cancellation is supposed to work by sampling and analysing incoming radar and feeding it back to the hostile emmiter slightly out of phase thus cancelling out the returning radar echo.
link


The Spectra [Système de Protection et d'Evitement des Conduites de Tir du Rafale] self-protection suite of the Rafale has been integrated by Thales, but it consists of elements built by various companies. The Spectra consists of a radar-warning receiver (RWR), missile-launch-warning system (MLWS), laser-warning receivers (LWS), a management computer, four chaff/flare dispensers, and a built-in jammer, all integrated into a single automatic system. The RWR and active jamming system were developed by Dassault Electronique (presently Thales) and are integrated as the Détection et Brouillage Electromagnétique (DBEM) system.

In the F1 standard, the DBEM can detect transmitters over the frequency range of 2-18 GHz, but this was increased to 2-40 GHz on the F2 standard. The system has a very high accuracy of up to one degree in azimuth. The DBEM automatically detects, classifies, and identifies emitters and inputs information about them into the computer. The Spectra's active jamming subsystem uses phased-array antennas located at the roots of the canards. The antennas can produce a pencil beam compatible with the accuracy of the receiver system, concentrating power on the threat while minimizing the chances of detection. It also uses other low-probability-of-detection techniques, so the Rafale's electronic-countermeasures (ECM) capability is also compatible with its stealth requirements.
link
>>

And spectra is so old that elements of it have been installed in the Mirage 2000D/S and even 05 mod as part of ICMS 3 or whatever it is they are calling it now. IDECM planned for this multiple threat-defense system back in the mid-80's when they were trying to implement a workable survival suite for the A-6. ALQ-156, ALQ-165, TAAED, ALR-67V3 all wrapped up in a sock. ASPIS and similar (export) systems on the F-16C50+ and 60 now achieve the same effect.

Flubber does the same with it's integrated RHAWS/CrossEye/TRD/Plessey-AMAWS suite. Again, whoopity effing do. Everytime you have to go 'electronic' to justify your survival, you are admitting a BUNCH of things:

1. They can see you well enough 'naturally' that you have to further spike your signature to keep from being FC'd.
2. You have NO ARM by which to suppress their emitters from 100-200km out.
3. You have NO standoff/standforward jammer asset by which to network softkill energy at 10 times the wattage count so that the threat is looking at NOISE thresholds on their auto-gain so high you could drive a frelling /train/ over their emitter and they still would not see it. *
4. You are too stupid and/or embarrassed to admit that a defense in depth against an aerial raider involves SHOOTING BACKWARDS since there is no occupational-force effect to worry about overrun. Tactically, this means I can use Ding Hao teams with 1,000 dollar binoculars and echo-phones to SEE you inbound during the day. Or 10,000 dollar aerostat tethered IRST to do so above the haze level at night. And then once your wonderbra is lift-and-thrust beyond the 3-9 o'clock on those FQ emitters, I can shoot you like a rabid dog, from behind.

*In Vietnam, the USN went with the ALQ-51 internal deception jammer and chaff/flare buckets. And a good thing too because the tricky-poo _did not work_ even though the expendables were pretty handy, while they lasted. Meanwhile the USAF, with nominally the same F-4 airframe, didn't install ANY internal ECM. But used raw numbers plus dedicated suppression aircraft and NOISE jammer pods to white out the enemy radar networks. Their systems /did/ work because they employed basic physics of 'know the band channel and pulse rate and you're all over them like stink on an ape' with each additional jammer in a cell only increasing the total azimuth fan by which even 'dumb' airplanes cooperatively synergized their rollback. The reason was not due simply to specifics of electronic advancment in the sixties. It was because things like manufacturing errors _within tolerances_ for operation, often made one radar susceptible to one (deception) technique but not another. Even as a wilely operator who knew how to jiggle the knobs and read the goats entrail results could change the results yet again. Add to this the dead certainty that both Russian and Chinese engineers were making /weekly/ adjustments in the 'wizard war' of EW and there was no 'EOB map' of fixed emitter characteristics upon which to rely for softkill on the sly, even way back when.

Comparitively, Spectra will need to have /very/ specific thumbprint data (modulation, phase, channel steps) in a world where major mode changes can happen within days via software-only alterations and indeed the difference between Go To War and Peacetime modes can be as if with entirely different systems. As long as you have the total bandwidth to make the enemy chase your hopping/SS and PRN CCM effort hard, the likelihood that an offensive-airpower nation will be able to stay abreast of local threat defenses it can only sample on Day 1 is zero. Because, at best, they will get a tape update on the 'knowns' of enemy aperture behaviors on a quarterly basis as whatever ELINT jet the French send around the globe (like we do) makes another quick pass back through their neighborhood.

It won't help of course that the Frenchies are well known to give _nothing_ away relative to source/object code modifiers for their EW systems so that local ingenuity cannot stand in for absent OEM tech support.

>>
Cold and Stealthy :

>>

Show me a millimeter radiometic graph of that signature against a variety of sky 'brightness' backgrounds. Then we'll talk science.

OTOH, you shoot yourself in the 'rear quarter' every time you show a jet, from below, at visual distances, FROM BEHIND. I mean even /John Wayne/ knew he was fried when girlie-ace got him there. Not to mention that even a Russian IRST become 'suddenly competitive' when you showed them two glowing holes (60km+ detection ranges) worth of mountable retreat.

>>
M88 engine Infrared Reductions :


>>

More dim and dingy pictures of multiple, near-90 BLUNT back ends. Stop selling the jet's figure by show us it's a$$. I myself see no extended tailpipe section to elongate the run up to the turbine afterstage and thus shut down viewing aspects. I see no square-nozzle to put out an unstable and rapidly mixed flow stream. I see no petal faceting of the axissymmetric nozzle to make /some/ amends for the multi-material, multi-contour, broken-edged RQ signature. Heck, I don't even really see the potential for vectoring.

Stop and THINK about what your fancy photos /really/ depict. And then take a look at the Neurone and ask yourself, 'if the existing method is good enough' why are they tail-chasing the lead dog /again/ with the followon?

The irony being the the Neuron will cost less than the gold-plate manned jet and yet it will also be undeniably BETTER because it doesn't in fact /need/ all the self protection gear and munitions to justify it's emperiled approach.

I would rather put a pylon system or ramp-rolloff on a midsized commuter or cargo aircraft (C160 or BAe-146) and use the difference to buy more SCALP than trust to this concoction of 'spend more money and we'll write another press statement!' idiocy. Mind you, ground launch aeroballistics with separable multi-strike warheads are probably the wave of the future, even with 'cruise'.

>>
Rafale L.O > Blended wing fuselage, decreases transonic drag, increases internal fuel volume decreases RCS >
Click for large pic >
>>

Baaah. Can't get buy stochiometrics and thermodynamics sonny. You got what, 9,800lbs of gas onboard feeding two engines? In the Hornet that was all of about 190nm with a heavy CAS load or 320-360nm with a variable profile (hi-hi-med) PGM sortie with two wing tanks and guarantee drop of heavyweight, high-drag munitions. Strip 15% of the weight for the navalization. Add another tank worth of no-bringback-penalty. And you are probably still talking under 500nm.

The BIG question (and one which is equally applicable to the U.S. jets, if only the morons were smart enough to see it) is what thee heck you plan to do in your in-out profile with 'both pylons today I tell'ya!' and all of 20 minutes, tops, in the target area.

Kill a building did'ya? Well good on you son. I'm sure it fought back /real/ hard. Note to self, add another 50 million to the rebuilding fund after we 'win'.

The reality of life is that the only targets worth hitting in Warden's fifth ring-becomes-loop of 'moral intimidation' that is 4GW; are those which wander about on an hourly basis. And modern airpower can only hit those if it can persist in 'areas of interest', developing a travelpattern picture of ALL movements while holding hostage those SMALL target sets which are so time-critical fluid as to be associated with certain places and times for only minutes. 'By the shine on their SUV'.

Here too, the Rafale is a piece of crap because even if it can reach, it cannot stay and it's massive aural and visual signature (in the conband) at medium-high altitudes only scares away the fish. Comparitively, I have yet to see anyone even /try/ to compare any 4th generation fighters 'prowess' at taking down a UCAV or similar no-empennage, no-canopy, no-gaping-maw inlet, no hogs-nose radar, VLO ENDURANCE asset. Which is light=cheap enough to loiter in the 40Kft altitude band /above/ the conlayer. On a flight idled fraction of it's full thrust.

One thing I guarantee you is that it will make far better use of those 10,000lbs of fuel than your dinky little toy warplane will.

>>
Supercruise

The present M88-2 that churns out 76kN (x 2 engines) of thrust can make the Rafale supercruise at Mach 1.2 .The M88-3 that produces 90kN (x 2) of thrust will power the Rafale starting 2007 and is said to be able to make the Rafale supercruise at 1.4 Mach
>>

And everyone knows that the Frogs cried golden tears when they lost in Korea AND Singapore because those were their last chance to do with the Rafale what the Swedes did with the JAS. Namely develop a Mk.2 'on the buyers wallet' with the 88-3 engines and the AESA based radar. And the COTS based digital gateway architecture for netcentrism without going /backwards/ to NATO STANAG compliance.

No buyer and the French have a notorious reputation for not developing the toys that make their pretty fighters into effective /warfighters/. Since this was all over AvLeak and Flight International, I have to assume you just don't care to acknowledge the realities of political economics as being ten times a harder hill to take than the technical/engineering ones.

In any case, if the F119 runs at about 1.5 times the SFC of the F100 in achieving these kinds of speeds and the F-22 has 20,000lbs of go-further. I will be very interested in hearing about the persistence factors of SUSTAINED supersonic cruise.

Not least because, as I have said before, if you cannot guarantee all-aspect LO, you are taking a running leap at a spear thicket by trying to play boost-lofting games with what are effectively SRM/ISRM to begin with (what /git/ decided to put 242lbs worth of motor fraction into a nominally BVR weapon facing threats anywhere from 350 to 700lbs? Especially when the Super 530D, itself a 500lb class weapon, really works?)

>>
Infact the Rafale-M (which is heavier than the other Rafale variants by 650kg) demonstrated supercruise with 4 Air to Air MICA missiles installed on it in addition to a central 1250 L fuel tank.
>>

Sigh. Rafale M is a strike fighter. That's /why/ there is a boat rower and duck shooter separation of cockpit responsibilities. You DO NOT risk a 50-60 million dollar fighter, loaded down with upwards of EIGHT THOUSAND POUNDS more air to mud munitions (to make the GIB useful) in air to air combat! I have /never/ agreed with the notion of 'self defense' on the part of a conventional-signature fighter. And now you want to make it happen twice as fast with a weapon that has half the total motor impulse seconds.

>>
Progress in electronics enabled a reduction in the size of the Rafale's airframe. This resulted in an even lower RCS. It is also worth emphasizing that the smaller and lighter airframe used in production Rafales enables them to fly in "supercruise" mode – supersonic flight without the use of afterburners. Supercruise enables the aircraft to execute a part of the ingress and/or egress route at supersonic speed without serious penalty to its tactical radius
link
>>

Since we don't have a realistic figure for the Rafale's radius, the presence of buddy or dedicated tanking, what it's supposed to /do/ when it gets to radius or how many and what type of threat systems will object to it's attempt upon arrival, this is ludicrous.

>>
The Rafale is called an "omni-role," fighter which means that Rafale can perform ground-attack and air-combat tasks in one sortie.
>>

Multirole and Omnirole are just semantic differences. The reality of life is that you fly the profile you are intending to FIGHT because you cannot waste time nor cripple yourself with munitions/fuel that are not relative to prosecuting another mission.

Surprisingly given the Dassault's too-snooty-for-you (sung to the theme of too-sexy-for-my...), the REAL definition of operational FREEDOM of action is inherent to _COE_. Contempt Of Engagement. Don't seek combat with threats that cannot see or touch you. By trying to pretend their airshow sextoy is "Equal to all comers, no really! Please, won't /someone/ come?". They have merely underlined their lack of understanding and sophistication in this deadly art.

What is truly damning however are the continued lags in French acquisition which gives them a decidedly Rotten Tigershark Too Long On The Hook stench of desparation.

>>
It even has a carrier borne variant > The Rafale Marine :



>>

Snort. And, even assuming there are no structural penalties in the landbased version, every Rafale customer will pay for that variant.

Just as the U.S. will undoubtedly make every FMS F-35A player pay part of the R&D amortization on the F-35C.

>>
Its FBW/FCS :

The Rafale’s “carefree” handling fly-by-wire system has been cleared from 100-750kt (185-1,390km/h), and the aircraft can be flown at a 29.5º angle of attack and perform manoeuvres up to 9g or 5.5g with a heavy load.
>>

Whoopy. The F-4 was a 4G fighter with externals. A 6G fighter with (internal) wingtanks full. An 8G fighter with only internals. But only about a 3.5G fighter in a nose low loaded condition for /changing/ it's maneuver state. The difference between maneuverability and agility being...

Unimportant.

Because, BVR, according to Janes, 90% of all fights happen UNDER 3G. With both sides conserving energy and deflected airframe (flat plating) signature state for the get-out-of-town and last ditch missile step.

OTOH, where and how many times you take away from that conserved energy and aspect will largely detemine the point at which knots and altitude cross for useful EM performance. And in this, I would be vastly surprised if the Rafale comes within 30% of the F-22's 'carefree' 9G at 800knots breakaway turn.

>>
Its ability to conduct networked operations with F2 software have also been proven following a demonstration of the type’s Link 16 datalink while operating with an air force Boeing E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System, navy Northrop Grumman E-2C Hawkeye airborne early warning aircraft and the French navy’s Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. The Rafale distributed synthesised data from its on-board sensors during the trials.

>>

And here I thought you were through shining the dunce cap. i.e. NEVER advertise /someone else'/ C4ISR platform as if it was your own!

A. Because it is a continual reminder that you too are only riding the Ameritrain.
B. Because the majority of your customers will not have access to U.S. systems if they 'buy French'. Even if they were friendly before.

>>
More on the Link 16 :


>>

L16 is dated. It is JTIDS with a funky designator. TTNT and a whole host of other systems operating under the CDL or Common Data Link architecture. And satcomms with wide-open bandwidths on the order of 240 mpbs are what drives the game today. Something which only further highlights how the 'French, so much better than everyone else, are ready to be part of the team, as soon as they are asked'. Because they don't in fact HAVE the elements of common netcentric architecture (separate shooter-RST assets) the make offboard targeting work to begin with.

NOW you are telling your potential customer that he must not only pay for the Rafale. But also buy all the assets which make it sneakier, silenter, but no less costly.

>>
It is also one of the best looking modern day jets ... Take a look ..
>>

Believe it or not, this is actually important. People often underestimate the It Factor of sex-appeal requirements in selling to a LOMD obsessive fighter pilot cultur looking to 'stand out from the crowd', without a Frankenstein effect.

Unfortunately, the reality here too is that any UCAV on the planet will look ten times sleeker than any manned airframe and it only takes ONE nation to add sex appeal to zero training costs and /chuck/ the worthless gits in the cockpit, no matter their opinion.

Boeing lost the JSF CDA bid with a bullfrog looking X-32. But they may yet win the JUCAS worth /hundreds/ more A-45 airframes. At which point the only question will be what will hunt the cow bombers. And I guarantee you it won't be a manned fighter.


CONCLUSION:
Stealth Spy, you and the French need to think politics and licensing if you really want the Rafale to work. What's more, you need to do it FAST while the furor over the U.S.' 'global imperialism' is still a hot enough topic that you can effectively break free from any arms proliferation restrictions while still pot:kettle deflecting criticism.

If you do not, given the likely (



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 09:53 AM
link   
"given the likely (



posted on Dec, 30 2005 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
seekerof, clearly this post of yours does not do any justice to neither that medal you flaunt nor your condescending tone. The RCS values of airplanes are closely guarded secrets. Those values that you have posted sourced from a "Word document" account to nothing more than somebody's wet dream. Even the guys from Karachi's finest madrassa's wont fall for B.S like that.


You know, StealthSpy, I can always tell when one gets the best of you, cause you resort to posting such garbage. I find it interesting that you have membership and post at a couple of well-established and very reputable aircraft forums, two of which are regularly commented to by those who fly and work in the military aircraft industries [ie: otherwise known as industry insiders], and yet, you say what you do concerning the RCS values given. Ironic, eh?

Those RCS values are not exact nor military given, but they are the best viable and best estimates outside of actual official numbers. I am surprised that you do not recognize the numbers and further surprised that you are refuting them as you are. Maybe you need to hang around and pay a bit more attention to them folks at those two reputable aircraft forums you do hang at and are a member of and post at? Then perhaps you will learn more than simply posting the PR stuff you post, which incidentally, you do the same at those two boards........but how would I know, eh?





seekerof

[edit on 30-12-2005 by Seekerof]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 01:18 AM
link   
Sure the Rafale and the Typhoon can supercruise, but they can't cruise while in supercruise like the Raptor. The Raptor can supercruise up to mach 1.5 but it's cruising supercruise speed is mach 1.2 .



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 04:45 AM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy
Comments from Harlequin and longbow never cease to amuse me.





You still haven`t answered the charge : IF the Rafale is just so amazing , then why hasn`t India cancelled the MCA programme and bought it??


And why are they still throwing money at the Teja , when the Hawk 200 can do the same job and can be bought for far less money.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NWguy83
Sure the Rafale and the Typhoon can supercruise, but they can't cruise while in supercruise like the Raptor. The Raptor can supercruise up to mach 1.5 but it's cruising supercruise speed is mach 1.2 .


WHAT?!?!?

What exactly does that mean?


If its under military (non afterburning) power, its effectively cruising no matter what way you cut it.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 07:37 AM
link   
well, seeing how 'supercruise' means nothing more than cruising at supersonic speed I reckon that they are 'cruising at supercruise'.

Surely to say that a plane 'is not cruising at supercruise' is a contradiction in terms?



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:10 AM
link   
Although the term "supercruise" in it's purest sense means to cruise supersonically, the US Air Force classifies supercruise as the ability to cruise at or beyond Mach 1.5.
I can recall several threads over the last couple of years that covered this subject...



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 09:27 AM
link   


I remember some wags suggesting all the chopping and changing of the definition was to find a way of saying the F-22 was the only aircraft that could do it.



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by Seekerof
I find it interesting that you have membership and post at a couple of well-established and very reputable aircraft forums, two of which are regularly commented to by those who fly and work in the military aircraft industries [ie: otherwise known as industry insiders], and yet, you say what you do concerning the RCS values given. Ironic, eh?

Those RCS values are not exact nor military given, but they are the best viable and best estimates outside of actual official numbers. I am surprised that you do not recognize the numbers and further surprised that you are refuting them as you are.


Whoa, if one thought nukes were the only things that were profilerated out of Lahore, they would be oh so wrong. It appears that logic from Lahore has spread to worlds far and wide. This is perhaps the pinnacle and the crowning glory of Lahori Logic from its world renown madrassas.

If folks on fancyboy aircraft forums knew about the RCS values correct to over 3 decimal points of 3 latest airplanes, which also happen to be closely guarded secrets of, how different the world would be


Alas and Acak !



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 12:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
You still haven`t answered the charge : IF the Rafale is just so amazing , then why hasn`t India cancelled the MCA programme and bought it??

And why are they still throwing money at the Teja , when the Hawk 200 can do the same job and can be bought for far less money.


Must i answer this jibberish


Instead enjoy these pics










Main Landing gear :





Frontal landing gear :


Engine :


Sensor installation :


[edit on 31-12-2005 by Stealth Spy]



posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stealth Spy


Must i answer this jibberish


Instead enjoy these pics



*snip* all the pics



You STILL haven`t answered the question , so that makes me think that you haven`t got a clue what you babbling on about.


If Rafale is that good , why are India still throwing money away with MCA.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join