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
Kovy       11/10/2009 6:28:11 PM
13 carrier based rafale M were deployed to Afghanistan between  2007/02/11 and 2007/05/24
 
That's a bit more than 2 aircrafts.
 
Quote    Reply

Bluewings12       11/10/2009 6:30:44 PM
gf , I don 't pretend to anything . I am just myself .
Is MK having a better knowleadge than mine ? Possible , probably , but this is not the point .
 
You don 't want to deal with me , fine , stop answering me . problem sorted . If you still want to discuss and share things with me , stop your looking down attitude and argue the facts I provide rather than attacking the man .
Your "system response" bla-bla is totally irrelevant and shows a great deal of "I don 't know what to type" attitude , sorry to say . Furthermore , the Rafale 's "system response" is one of the best there is .
Then , the "system response" in dogfight is almost irrelevant since an early Mig-21 with old Archers could get a very nice kill on a careless late fighter .
 
""It''s not changing topic, what you spectacularly do again is ignore the complexity of how combat works, of how systems work and try to dumb it down to a level that is acceptable for simple solutions but ignores reality.""
 
Excuse me again but I am talking about WVR fights and all the technology in the World , not even stealth , will not stop dogfights to happen . In fact , many observers including myself (humble) think that dogfights will likely be the end game of many fights because of heavy use of ECMs and various means of long range counter-mesures .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

Kovy       11/10/2009 6:34:50 PM

Altitude kills. Speed kills. Radar first look kills.

 

Energy advantage kills. 


... overconfidence kills.  
 
Quote    Reply

warpig       11/10/2009 6:40:38 PM

Another thing very important in my view is the agility , acceleration and dogfighting capabilities of the Dassault fighter .

The jet is probably one of the best if not the best right now in this regard .

Then , the IR Mica 's specs (IRST and high gimble angle) gives the Rafale an outstanding off boresight capability and a decisive edge even against the F-22 .

The F-22 missiles are stored in a pitch black bay , no LOBL possible and you need 3 to 6 seconds to fire a missile from closed bays , depending on the situation at hand . Same with the F-35 unless both aircraft are flying bays open during dogfights which will reduce the"shoot" time but the IR seekers will still be blind . The RCS is obviously irrelevant in such situation , bays open or not .

The Rafale IR missile seekers are in the open and can lock anytime and the missile(s) can be fired in a split second .

End game .

In a closing dogfight , a late Flanker is far more dangerous than a US stealth platform ...
 
Yet , the Rafale has been made to kill it .


I agree that the Rafale is an outstanding fighter, including being an outstanding dogfighter.  If an F-22 is magically plane shifted into an alternate universe where it gets matched up against a Rafale (since they can't seem to sell any to anyone we might actually fight in this universe) and also was magically teleported into the middle of a dogflight where the alien Rafale pilot already has the F-22 visually spotted, then the F-22 is at a serious risk of getting killed.  This is particularly true for now because so far there has been no operational need to equip the F-22 with an HMS or the AIM-9X, and instead available supplies of those systems have been going to the legacy jets that can gain a greater incremental benefit from them than can the F-22--i.e., the F-22 is already so far ahead of all our real-world threats (as opposed to insecure fanboys' imaginary scenarios) in capability that it makes more sense to upgrade our other jets first.
 
You are repeating something you've said before regarding the F-22's IR missiles.  In fact, the F-22 currently only uses AIM-9Ms.  By definition this means the F-22 currently only fires its IR missiles with a lock-on *before* launch.  AIM-9M does not have a datalink and can not be fired LOAL.  However, if you had watched some of the many videos out there showing Sidewinder launches, you'd see that the doors open and the missile swings out in less than a second, and it seems to me that they are routinely launched a second or two later.  Of course, it closes back up right after that.  I'll also point out that RCS is certainly not necessarily irrelevant in a dogfight if the enemy does not have an HMS, as then typically threat systems other than the most modern ones will need to use his radar to cue the missile seeker toward its target, and since many of those threats can't lock up an F-22 even when they are looking right at it only a few miles away, they will still have trouble locking even their IR missiles onto the F-22.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       11/10/2009 8:11:08 PM
The basic point of the Rafale is not well understood even P Collins mentionned it.
In the nineties after the Rafale A aerodynamic demonstrator, we had to made a choice:
-Either go to passive stealth level of USA which imply having internal bay (and to accept price)
-Or to carry external loads with a LO RCS and rely on active systems to achieve right level of survivability.
Calculation show that having 0,001m² of stealth need an internal bay but it increases by 50% mass of plane and so its engine and accordingly its airframe cost (and fuel consumption and so owning cost) .
Alternative was to achieve saying a 0,1m² then improving to 0,01 m² maybe later while taking opportunity of increased super computing power for RCS calculation and design, and compensate by state of the art and outstanding ECM active systems to get proper level of survivability.
Moore law show that increase of the performance of computers per unit cost—or more colloquially, "bang per buck"—doubles every 24 months (and so improve active signature management systems).
 
What makes more sense?
Adding 20 millions $ per airframe to achieve 0,001 m² RCS or invest in a 10 millions $ outstanding ECM system combined to a LO 0,1 m² RCS then less in the futur by incremental improvement?
Plus some special ammunitions like AASM to extend survivability against state of the art air defense.
For the systems and captor Rafale follow 5th generation roadmap and approach.
 
I consider that Rafale F4 will be a 5th generation aircraft since it is survivability which matters and not the way you achieve it.
Maybe USA have done a system engineering mistake with F35 approach.
 
 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       11/10/2009 8:42:32 PM
An interesting fact on Peter Collins bio:
 «During his RAF career Collins rose to the rank of squadron leader, completing two frontline tours of duty flying Harriers in Germany and serving in the Falklands in 1982, flying Sea Harriers while on detachment with the navy on Illustrious. Following two years as a pilot and later team leader with the Red Arrows, in 1989 he qualified as an experimental military test pilot and was appointed Officer Commanding of the Aerospace Research Test Squadron at DRA Bedford where he worked on the Joint Strike Fighter?»
 
Quote    Reply

StevoJH       11/10/2009 9:07:37 PM

The basic point of the Rafale is not well understood even P Collins mentionned it.

In the nineties after the Rafale A aerodynamic demonstrator, we had to made a choice:


-Either go to passive stealth level of USA which imply having internal bay (and to accept price)

-Or to carry external loads with a LO RCS and rely on active systems to achieve right level of survivability.


Calculation show that having 0,001m² of stealth need an internal bay but it increases by 50% mass of plane and so its engine and accordingly its airframe cost (and fuel consumption and so owning cost) .

Alternative was to achieve saying a 0,1m² then improving to 0,01 m² maybe later while taking opportunity of increased super computing power for RCS calculation and design, and compensate by state of the art and outstanding ECM active systems to get proper level of survivability.

Moore law show that increase of the performance of computers per unit cost—or more colloquially, "bang per buck"—doubles every 24 months (and so improve active signature management systems).

 

What makes more sense?

Adding 20 millions $ per airframe to achieve 0,001 m² RCS or invest in a 10 millions $ outstanding ECM system combined to a LO 0,1 m² RCS then less in the futur by incremental improvement?
Plus some special ammunitions like AASM to extend survivability against state of the art air defense.


For the systems and captor Rafale follow 5th generation roadmap and approach.

 

I consider that Rafale F4 will be a 5th generation aircraft since it is survivability which matters and not the way you achieve it.

Maybe USA have done a system engineering mistake with F35 approach.

 


Spending 30 million and getting both.
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/10/2009 9:29:01 PM

An interesting fact on Peter Collins bio:
......... in 1989 he qualified as an experimental military test pilot and was appointed Officer Commanding of the Aerospace Research Test Squadron at DRA Bedford where he worked on the Joint Strike Fighter?»

ok, now who else has worked out that there is a problem in this claimed part of his bio?



 
Quote    Reply

french stratege       11/10/2009 9:35:45 PM




The basic point of the Rafale is not well understood even P Collins mentionned it.



In the nineties after the Rafale A aerodynamic demonstrator, we had to made a choice:






-Either go to passive stealth level of USA which imply having internal bay (and to accept price)



-Or to carry external loads with a LO RCS and rely on active systems to achieve right level of survivability.






Calculation show that having 0,001m² of stealth need an internal bay but it increases by 50% mass of plane and so its engine and accordingly its airframe cost (and fuel consumption and so owning cost) .



Alternative was to achieve saying a 0,1m² then improving to 0,01 m² maybe later while taking opportunity of increased super computing power for RCS calculation and design, and compensate by state of the art and outstanding ECM active systems to get proper level of survivability.



Moore law show that increase of the performance of computers per unit cost—or more colloquially, "bang per buck"—doubles every 24 months (and so improve active signature management systems).



 



What makes more sense?



Adding 20 millions $ per airframe to achieve 0,001 m² RCS or invest in a 10 millions $ outstanding ECM system combined to a LO 0,1 m² RCS then less in the futur by incremental improvement?


Plus some special ammunitions like AASM to extend survivability against state of the art air defense.






For the systems and captor Rafale follow 5th generation roadmap and approach.



 



I consider that Rafale F4 will be a 5th generation aircraft since it is survivability which matters and not the way you achieve it.



Maybe USA have done a system engineering mistake with F35 approach.



 






Spending 30 million and getting both.
Yes you are right.Or spending 30 millions on a superior ECM systems (a radar cost between 4 and 6).

 
Quote    Reply

MK    Re: RWR ranging   11/10/2009 9:38:20 PM
It certainly is a possibility using triangulation and amplitude measurement. Albeit I'm not aware how well it works on SPECTRA against aerial targets it's certainly accurate enough to target AASMs. And azimuth, elevation and range is actually 3-D. Claiming the Rafale is to small for such things is nonsense, the Tornado ECR was capable to do so back in 1990, F-16 blk 50D/52D were capable to do so and afaik the F-4G as well. It's definitely not impossible. When it comes to PC I wouldn't give to much on his statements with regards of aircraft like the F-22, Typhoon or other modern types. There is a difference between being a bit informed and having flown that aircraft. He made comments he felt the Rafale deserves and it certainly is HIS opinion.
 
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