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
french stratege       11/10/2009 9:42:53 PM

Maybe USA have done a system engineering mistake with F35 approach.Does F35 compromised AtoA performance still make sense since less than 200 F22 would support them instead of 700+?

I think a problem of USA programs are the way they manage contractual relations between DoD and aircraft manufacturers with rigid internal rules (plus cost plus contracts).
In France Dassault define and proposed largely by itself specification what should be the design of Rafale and invested 25% of program cost itself (to be recovered on export contracts).

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/10/2009 9:56:47 PM

gf ,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 .

 

 for goodness sake man. of course it does.  you are pretending to be knowledgable about combat and sensor issues and don't understand the basics.  there is a vast difference in engaging in debate with people who have a clue and those who chbuck out words and concepts and yet don't understand the basics and fundamentals.

 

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 .

 

I'm engaging you because you are making idiotic and extrapolated claims in the complete absence of how some of know how systems - esp weapons systems work.  All your bluff and bluster doesn't alter the fact thatb you can't engage in serious debate if you don't get the basics right - period..  Thats why you're pilloried as a troll.  If you didn't behave as such then the engagement would be different. 

 

Note that you and slowman are part of a select group of company who are treated like trolls - for a reason

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 .

 

and this is the kind of immature nonsense that you trot out when you have no idea about the fundamentals.  you're a technical joke if you believe that systems are irrelevant. talk about a weapons response and then close with Rafale systems response being the best there is.  Stop wasting peoples time or go to a kids forum where the teenagers are less discriminating

 

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 .

 

 and what modern esensor and ewarfare capabilities in  todays climate are relevant to that.  CREF your other stupid claims.  Don't resort to a temporal flux if you're trying to have serious debate.

 

 

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 .


look you cretin, do you think that WVR is sans esensors or systems engagement.  go out and learn before you trot out this rubbish.  its not biggles out there.

 

 


gf , I don 't pretend to anything . I am just myself .

 

Quote    Reply


gf0012-aust    grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr   11/10/2009 10:15:05 PM

I wish this site would move into the 21st century and get a decent frontend

Is MK having a better knowleadge 

than mine ? Possible , probably , but this is not the point .

 for goodness sake man. of  course it does.  you are pretending to be knowledgable about combat and sensor issues and don't understand the basics.  there is a vast difference in engaging in debate with people who have a clue and those who chuck out 

words and concepts and yet don't understand the basics and fundamentals.

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 .

I'm engaging you because you are making idiotic and extrapolated claims in the complete absence of how some of know how systems - esp weapons systems work.  All your bluff and bluster doesn't alter the fact thatb you can't engage in serious debate if you 

don't get the basics right - period..  Thats why you're pilloried as a troll.  If you didn't behave as such then the engagement would be different. 

Note that you and slowman are part of a select group of company who are treated like trolls - for a reason

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 .

and this is the kind of immature nonsense that you trot out when you have no idea about the fundamentals.  you're a technical joke if you believe that systems are irrelevant in modern combat. talk  about a weapons response and then close with Rafale systems response being the best there is.  Stop wasting peoples time or go to a kids forum where the teenagers are less discriminating.  don't talk about things that you are clueless about - its blindingly obvious

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 .

and what modern esensor and ewarfare capabilities in  todays climate are relevant to that.  CREF your other stupid claims.  Don't resort to a temporal flux if you're trying to have serious debate.

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 .


look you cretin, do you think that WVR is sans esensors or systems engagement.  go out and learn before you trot out this rubbish.  its not biggles out there.

the discussion is not about dogfights, its about modern enagement and how systems work.  its about dictating the fight.  nobody has declared the end of dogfights.  read the responses properly first and stop blurring the debate 

 

 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust    grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr   11/10/2009 10:24:24 PM

I think a problem of USA programs are the way they manage contractual relations between DoD and aircraft manufacturers with rigid internal rules (plus cost plus contracts).

In France Dassault define and proposed largely by itself specification what should be the design of Rafale and invested 25% of program cost itself (to be recovered on export contracts).

FS, thats an unworkablemodel.  Industry should never dictate how platforms are designed.  

The stakeholders  (Air Force) know their requirements better than the private sector.  They define the requirements.  The vendor has the opportunity to make suggestions on meeting the requirement, or modifying the requirement, but they should never define the requirements.  They are not the warfighting community - and their interests are commercial.  Govts role is to ensure that the warfighting community gets the best value for money and capability against what they need.  Letting industry determine that invites conflicts of interest - and from where I've been involved overseas - often a degraded capability whicjh has been geared to maximising the vendors margin.

as a cost model though, if that was Dassaults intent, you can now understand why they are so nervous about success, they're on a reduced local build and their export plans have not come through on at least 4 occasions.  That model failed with GIAT, so I am surprised that anyone would do business analysis on that model and regard it as viable.  At some stage when it fails it means that the State must step in if the company starts to see the risk curve head south. (and GIAT is a the perfect example of this)




 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/10/2009 11:22:03 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.



Not at the same time in theatre. Check your facts, please.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/11/2009 12:03:58 AM

For cry out loud Hamilcar , re-read what you just posted !

Nothing holds water , nothing ! I mean a-b-s-o-l-u-t-l-y nothing !
There is nothing technical there.

You want me to loose my time answering your bulls ? I just did for the past 4 years .

There is nothing technical there.
 
gf , you walk the same path than Hamilcar . It leads nowhere . Yes , I don 't have the same "diplomacy" than MK but the idea is the same : proof the truth .

You said :

""the last combat aircraft that he flew was in 93 - and was a Harrier.""

Maybe but he flew almost any type of F-teens , Tornados , Hawks , Mirages , Alpha jets , Harriers and God knows what else . Did you ? Any of us did ? I don 't think so ...

""4 post previously you said he was a Blue Angel""

No . I knew that he was a British pilot and an ex Red Arrows Leader . I only asked posters here (mostly Americans) to make the "link" and think twice before bashing an excellent pilot . This is why I took the Blue Angels as a reference .

The error stands as printed.

""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 .

based on what - the french admit that the PESA (you need systems not weapons in isolation as part of the acquisition and firing loop) is 40% slower than AESA""

Plus the fact that the noisy sidelobes blank the RBE2's peripheral FoV.  

??? I am talking about the Mica 's IR seeker and you respond to me with radar technology ? In dogfights a fast radar is obviously a bonus (RBE2 IS fast) but a IR lock is even better (the missile can chase behind you after launch) .

Huh? RBE2 radar range and track function fails you until you are well within known enemy SARH missile NEZs and then you have to fall back on a clunker IR dogfight missile and a so so IRST that only is effective at 1/2 the same myopic range as the radar?
 
 
""for goodness sake man, do you understand anything as to what other reasons why bays are recessed?  pause and think.  this is just schoolboy commentary - make the effort to understand principles forst.""

I understand that it is a bad move if you have to go dogfight . Period gf .

But that is to what a Rafale is reduced.  If you cannot lock up a fighter until you  are 55,0000 meters away and you merge at a combined 600 m/s and the Adders come at you at ~ 1100 m/s  and they have a 25,000 meter radar and missile cushion on you, they can fire whwn you are just entering the outer envelope of your effective flyout. He has fifty unanswered tracking and missile seconds on you. If the other guy has altitude on you, then its worse. Parity is assumed onlt in maneuverability, but the other numbers don't lie. Rafale drivers will move deep into a Sukhoi's sensor and missile envelope before they get track solution on the Sukhoi and this HOLDS AT ALL ALTITUDES AND ASPECTS where the  Sukhoi holds bear equal or superior altitude.To win, a Rafale driver has to get altitude and energy and make it a knife fight. That is no longer the way a smart Sukhoi driver fights. To try to argue that a Rafale flight with those sensor and missile defects can  even fight an American or British heavyweight fighter flight with AMRAAMs is a JOKE    

""you do understand that the principle is to close the gap before detection, that the primary shooter doesn't have to be illuminated as its partner is doing the acquiring and hand off, and that LO means that you can dicate the fight through other systems.""

Of course I do understand but don 't change topic . If you have to fly over enemy territory , you are bound to face a close incoming opp
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/11/2009 12:15:03 AM



Altitude kills. Speed kills. Radar first look kills.



 



Energy advantage kills. 






... overconfidence kills.  

Not to the man who works to get the radar first look, altitude, and energy advantage. If his machine has the advantages built in to exploit, then all the better as he maximizes a previous technology edge that he knows he has.
 
Understand clearly? Rafale drivers who don't understand their aircraft have severe limits and try to fight an American's style of fight will DIE against Russian or Russian trained pilots flying good Russian gear. They don't have any technology cushion at all to exploit.
   
That is the overconfudence.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/11/2009 12:36:43 AM

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.

 

But the EW system doesn't work that way does it? All Spectra actually does is warn the pilot that he is about to DIE.  Once the Rafale is radar locked up the missiles chase it and it dies. The Raptor not allowing an usable signal emission or return at all until at point blank gun range is almost IMMUNE to radar homers. The Rafale like most radar billboards out there is NOT. No warble, retransmit, or signal phasing tricks (all known since WWII) can save it from lockup and endgame.
 
Don't invoke Moore's Law when you don't understand it offensively . Defensive system signals processing speed cannot overcome a positive coded echo return onto a missile receiver that only has to drive into that signal to kill.  
 
Got it? 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/11/2009 1:09:29 AM

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.Not from a siongle pla
1. Not from a single platform.
2. Amplitude measurement can be easily foxed and you know this. The signal can be compressed and measured but it does not give you RANGE. Plus I don't think the French actually have the clocks.
3. AASM is an air to ground missile that is designed to hit a fixed target. It is useless against maneuvering aerial targets. Let's be clear on what we discuss. 
4. Yes it is. Tell that to BW who cannot seem to understand that range is the depth component to search volume as you establish a vector. I wasn't the one who made the error.
5. Tornado  ECR was used against ground targets as described 6. 
6. For long base range measurement in one second or less it is. A single receiver works as you make a measured baseline run. You can do that timed interferometry run against a ground target using a passive sensor against that fixed target and lob a missile at it; NOT against a moving aerial one and not to guide a weapon into a drop basket against it. Its almost impossible The baseline is TOO LONG, the necessary runtime too long to generate anything bit a useless smear of emoty sky. To get a baseline for a maneuvering target you have to use two widely separated sensors and a clock that can match signal reception times. For a passive missile launch against an AWACs about 200,000 meters away you need a signal separation of 1/2 second and a two sensor separation of at least 1000 meters just to solve for a range error of 5000 meters.
 
The weapon has to end chase and for that you need a better RANGE solution to drop the weapon close so it can acquire a signal from the target or the weapon has to chase a signal it receives in its antenna from the target all the way as it flies out from its launch point.
 
That is why the best air to air  missiles are RADAR GUIDED or short-ranged IR chasers. Why long rabged IR chasers were/are failures and why nobody really uses baseline interferometry for targeting, but uses bearing only (gun-sight) or radar ranging solutions even for aerial gunnery.
 
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/11/2009 1:09:57 AM

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.
1. Not from a single platform.
2. Amplitude measurement can be easily foxed and you know this. The signal can be compressed and measured but it does not give you RANGE. Plus I don't think the French actually have the clocks.
3. AASM is an air to ground missile that is designed to hit a fixed target. It is useless against maneuvering aerial targets. Let's be clear on what we discuss. 
4. Yes it is. Tell that to BW who cannot seem to understand that range is the depth component to search volume as you establish a vector. I wasn't the one who made the error.
5. Tornado  ECR was used against ground targets as described 6. 
6. For long base range measurement in one second or less it is. A single receiver works as you make a measured baseline run. You can do that timed interferometry run against a ground target using a passive sensor against that fixed target and lob a missile at it; NOT against a moving aerial one and not to guide a weapon into a drop basket against it. Its almost impossible The baseline is TOO LONG, the necessary runtime too long to generate anything bit a useless smear of emoty sky. To get a baseline for a maneuvering target you have to use two widely separated sensors and a clock that can match signal reception times. For a passive missile launch against an AWACs about 200,000 meters away you need a signal separation of 1/2 second and a two sensor separation of at least 1000 meters just to solve for a range error of 5000 meters.
 
The weapon has to end chase and for that you need a better RANGE solution to drop the weapon close so it can acquire a signal from the target or the weapon has to chase a signal it receives in its antenna from the target all the way as it flies out from its launch point.
 
That is why the best air to air  missiles are RADAR GUIDED or short-ranged IR chasers. Why long ranged IR chasers were/are failures and why nobody really uses baseline interferometry for targeting, but uses bearing only (gun-sight) or radar ranging solutions even for aerial gunnery.
 
 
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