Space Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
 Latest
 News 		  Most
 Read 		  Most
 Commented		  Hot
 Topics
Rafale Converted Into A Satellite Launcher
   Next Article → COLOMBIA: Army Incentive Program Backfires Badly

November 5, 2008: Following the example of Russia and the United States, France plans to use its Rafale fighter to launch small, low orbit, satellites. The ten ton launcher would be hung from three of the Rafales hard points (one on the fuselage and two on the wings), and be able to put a 300 pound satellite into an 800 kilometers orbit.

The U.S. and Russia pioneered this sort of thing three decades ago. Russia developed an ASAT (Anti-Satellite Missile), in response to the United States program that actually resulted in the destruction of a low flying (555 kilometers up) satellite. Russia has since revised this system to launch low flying satellites using Su-30s fighters or Tu-22m bombers.

 The United States ASAT program used a specially equipped F-15 to zoom to a high altitude, and launch a 1.2 ton ASM-135A missile, which then homed in on the satellite and destroyed it. The missile had two stages, plus a homing warhead. Development began in 1977. The first, and only, live test took place in 1985, when a worn out communications satellite was destroyed by the missile. Shortly thereafter, Congress shut down the program, believing that ASAT violated treaties regarding the military use of space. This did not discourage the Russians, who began working on their own ASAT after the U.S. program was cancelled. Progress on the Russian ASAT was kept secret, although it was known (or believed) to exist.

When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, many previously secret Russian weapons projects were revealed, if only briefly, and often in little detail. One of them was the Russian ASAT. Now, the Kazcosmos company, in Kazakhstan, which developed the Russian ASAT (in cooperation with a Moscow based research institute), is putting together a satellite launching operation. The Russian ASAT used a MiG-31 recon aircraft to test launch the missile. Such a system can only launch small satellite (no more than a few hundred pounds.) But such "microsats" have become quite popular, due to cheaper and more effective miniature electronics. Many regular satellite launches now include one or more microsats as part of a multi satellite package.

 

Next Article → COLOMBIA: Army Incentive Program Backfires Badly
  

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
StobieWan       11/5/2008 7:19:41 AM
I'm assuming the "ten ton" figure for the launcher is a typo as that'd be a substantial chunk of the all up weight of the aircraft itself.
 
Ian
 
 
Quote    Reply

FCUS       11/5/2008 11:00:12 AM
HA! now France can (try to) sell a fighter/bomber/satellite launcher !
 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       11/5/2008 6:41:31 PM
Gee, no Harold commentary on a new trick for the French warbird.
 
Quote    Reply

franceOFman    Because there is no argument...   11/5/2008 10:03:38 PM
The plane is proving itself to be much more capable and sophisticated than people probably thought.  The Rafale will sell in the near future and finally compete in the export market.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/6/2008 4:04:57 AM
Creative, but only a small advantage.
Once again the Rafale is being treated like a quick-response bomber.
It's a great feature, but noone is going to sign a substantial contract for 100 million dollar fighters to launch satellites.
If it does turn out to be economically superior to other alternatives (and I seriously doubt it, with it being third in the row to achieve such technology) most nations will rent it out for less sensitive project, and only a few will keep some of their own around.
This sounds more like a good episode of 'pimp your fighter aircraft' to hopefully pick up a few sales then a revolutionizing strategy.
 
What can I say? It's a good idea.
But it's
too little,
too late.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       11/6/2008 4:30:10 AM
Though I suppose treating the Rafale as such in regard to satellites is the right thing to do. Fighters seem to be catching up with bombers in their class specifications.
Good for the Rafale, but its still not a decent fighter in the fighter-bomber part.

 
Quote    Reply

JP Bergerac    Not a typo   11/6/2008 6:15:47 AM
No, the ten ton figure is probably not a typo. The Rafale is a ten ton class fighter with a max T/O weight of 24.5 tons. Which means, from a mass perspective (notwithstanding geometric or hard point limitations) there would still be still be room for 4.5 tons of fuel. Which happens to be approximately the amount of internal fuel the aircraft can carry. QED.
 
I often obviously biased comments on the aircraft's virtues - not - as a fighter. People should exercise more critical sense when reading commercial, gloss paper brochures by EADS. Having taken part as a pilot in the Rafale's development for 6 years, I can testify that this aircraft is by no means a second tier air defender. This is not a bomber turned in a fighter, this is an aircraft which was designed from the start to replace all types, air-to-air, air-to ground, air-to-surface, recce and nuke, and to surpass all the existing types in the French inventory. A few points to ponder:
 
- Easy answer to the above: "jack of all trades, master of none". It wouldn't be right to say that no compromise was made to accomodate all these missions. But Rafale's compromises were between differing operational requirements, to offer what is very much in demand by air forces all over the world, i.e. one fighter for all combat missions. Versus the Typhoon, point designed for air defence, but with compromises based on very different criteria: industrial workshare, technology transfer (i.e. the least qualified in one area gets the job, so he can learn), prestige (every country gets its assembly line, its prototypes etc.). The result is disappointing performance at a humungous price.
- Thrust-to-weight doesn't do it all. Aerodynamic efficiency is a big part of the equation of an aircraft's overall performance.
- the French experience in fly-by-wire dates back to the early '60s with the Mirage III (yes, single chain and non redundant, but in augmented mode the Mirage III had no mechanical connection between stick and elevons), the Typhoon is the first attempt bt the partricipating countries. Anybody having followed the development knows what a success story that was - not.
- the same goes, to a lesser degree, for systems: the Tornado is half a generation behind the earlier Mirage 2000 (it was designd and introduced earlier), and the man machine interface was totally overhauled in the latest generation Mirage 2000-5, making it very comparable to that of the Eurofighter. The systems architecture and MMI of the Rafale are closer to those of the F-22 than to those of the Typhoon. In data intensive aircraft such as all the above, user friendliness is not a "nice to have", it really gives you the edge in combat. It cannot be put in equations as easily as Mach points or turn rates but will it help you to kill the opponent and to survive.
 
Quote    Reply

JP Bergerac    Not a typo   11/6/2008 7:17:56 AM
No, the ten ton figure is probably not a typo. The Rafale is a ten ton class fighter with a max T/O weight of 24.5 tons. Which means, from a mass perspective (notwithstanding geometric or hard point limitations) there would still be still be room for 4.5 tons of fuel. Which happens to be approximately the amount of internal fuel the aircraft can carry. QED.
 
I often obviously biased comments on the aircraft's virtues - not - as a fighter. People should exercise more critical sense when reading commercial, gloss paper brochures by EADS. Having taken part as a pilot in the Rafale's development for 6 years, I can testify that this aircraft is by no means a second tier air defender. This is not a bomber turned in a fighter, this is an aircraft which was designed from the start to replace all types, air-to-air, air-to ground, air-to-surface, recce and nuke, and to surpass all the existing types in the French inventory. A few points to ponder:
 
- Easy answer to the above: "jack of all trades, master of none". It wouldn't be right to say that no compromise was made to accomodate all these missions. But Rafale's compromises were between differing operational requirements, to offer what is very much in demand by air forces all over the world, i.e. one fighter for all combat missions. Versus the Typhoon, point designed for air defence, but with compromises based on very different criteria: industrial workshare, technology transfer (i.e. the least qualified in one area gets the job, so he can learn), prestige (every country gets its assembly line, its prototypes etc.). The result is disappointing performance at a humungous price.
- Thrust-to-weight doesn't do it all. Aerodynamic efficiency is a big part of the equation of an aircraft's overall performance.
- the French experience in fly-by-wire dates back to the early '60s with the Mirage III (yes, single chain and non redundant, but in augmented mode the Mirage III had no mechanical connection between stick and elevons), the Typhoon is the first attempt bt the partricipating countries. Anybody having followed the development knows what a success story that was - not.
- the same goes, to a lesser degree, for systems: the Tornado is half a generation behind the earlier Mirage 2000 (it was designd and introduced earlier), and the man machine interface was totally overhauled in the latest generation Mirage 2000-5, making it very comparable to that of the Eurofighter. The systems architecture and MMI of the Rafale are closer to those of the F-22 than to those of the Typhoon. In data intensive aircraft such as all the above, user friendliness is not a "nice to have", it really gives you the edge in combat. It cannot be put in equations as easily as Mach points or turn rates but will it help you to kill the opponent and to survive.
 
Quote    Reply

FCUS       11/6/2008 11:13:35 AM

Creative, but only a small advantage.

Once again the Rafale is being treated like a quick-response bomber.


It's a great feature, but noone is going to sign a substantial contract for 100 million dollar fighters to launch satellites.


If it does turn out to be economically superior to other alternatives (and I seriously doubt it, with it being third in the row to achieve such technology) most nations will rent it out for less sensitive project, and only a few will keep some of their own around.


This sounds more like a good episode of 'pimp your fighter aircraft' to hopefully pick up a few sales then a revolutionizing strategy.


 

What can I say? It's a good idea.

But it's


too little,

too late.





1) it's more like 70 millions dollars now. please put your feature in EUROS because with the currrency effect you won't have a precise price in dollars.
 
2) you obviously have something against the Rafale. Im gonna ask my roomate if norvegians have issues against the Rafale (he is from Norway obviously)
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       11/6/2008 12:30:15 PM
I was referring to the quoted line "The ten ton launcher would be hung from three of the Rafales hard points"
 
Which seems to indicate that something weighing ten tons would be dangling from a hard point on the wing of a ten ton fighter.
 
I suspect that this is not the case.
 
Ian
 

No, the ten ton figure is probably not a typo. The Rafale is a ten ton class fighter with a max T/O weight of 24.5 tons. Which means, from a mass perspective (notwithstanding geometric or hard point limitations) there would still be still be room for 4.5 tons of fuel. Which happens to be approximately the amount of internal fuel the aircraft can carry. QED.

 
 
Quote    Reply
1 2