Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Fighters, Bombers and Recon Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Rafale Proves Itself
SYSOP    8/7/2011 7:59:23 AM
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: PREV  1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54   NEXT
heraldabc    Welcome to the 1990s   12/16/2011 6:59:05 AM
As Pratt had those features in the F-100. When will you get a clue?
 
And as Afghanland  proved, Core temp could not exceed  1750 K. without serious blade deformation and melt.
 
 
Our pilots don't have much respect for yours. 
 
Sheesh.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/16/2011 7:23:51 AM
Herald :
""And as Afghanland  proved, Core temp could not exceed  1750 K. without serious blade deformation and melt. ""
 
False . (try to prove your case)
 
""Our pilots don't have much respect for yours.""
 
False . Btw , the video you posted is a known fake Herald . You want a TRUE video where OUR pilots (US and French) , then watch this :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZfm2dtyyPI
" target="_blank">link
Check the debrief after 4:31 . Btw , the French Chief squadron in the video is the well known Cmt GrandClaudon .
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/16/2011 7:25:12 AM
Bloddy site software :
h*tp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZfm2dtyyPI
 
Cheers .
 
 
Quote    Reply

StobieWan       12/16/2011 7:32:21 AM
From another board, quote by a rabidly US-centric right wing anti-french poster
 
"The CdG has been deployed for over seven months.  

The last few have been very high tempo ops, with no relief to speak of.
I, for one, think the CdG and the MN did a very creditable job.  NoOne but the USN could manage that and it is unlikely we would ever be dependent on just one deck!  The CdG crew and the MN have shown real professionalism.  FWIW I salute them.   "
 
That's from someone who thinks anyone outside of the US is a communist and is slightly to the right of Ghengis Khan politically and can't stand the French in particular.
 
Fair play- Rafale demonstrated it's reliable in combat and the CdG kept up a tremendous ops tempo. I think they done good.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

MK       12/16/2011 9:45:11 AM

I don't think anyone's said that specifically, just that the advantage is generally on the side of those with the more advanced antennae designs and bigger development budgets, LPI is a term that's been in use for several decades to define endless ways of obfuscating detection and jamming and includes radar designs that are undoubtably now vulnerable, it's an evolving picture and always will be, I just find it bizarre that SPECTRA is always claimed to be something it isn't, it's primarily a self-protection suite and not an offensive jamming system. Exploits for jamming in radar designs are worked out through espionage and analysis, not performed on the fly, the software has to know what it's dealing with and if it doesn't it's got very little chance. Russia is very protective over the latest S-400 probably for this very reason. 
 
I agree, but the opposite claims about SPECTRA aren't less dubious. A protection suite is there to protect you against threats, if it can't it fails. That's about as much what a herald and others here are claiming. But from where do they want to know this? The truth is no one here has all relevant data/information at his disposal to claim this or that in the first place. No one can seriously confirm or deny that a SPECTRA is capable of dealing with an AN/APG-77 in any way for example. One might make assumptions but that's it and that's true for all sides. What I miss are people who are more objective and not just pro A con B or the other way round. Everyone is just arguing one side either hyping or bashing, but virtually no one in the middle. I don't even mind to increase my participation here given the nonsense spread by both sides, though the French are doing somewhat better by bringing up some credible sources at least. What they make out of them is yet another story, but what a herald or shooter come up with is to a large extend complete bull, often made up out of hot air. The M88 = 70 kN claim for example brought up by herald is a complete invention and the link he posts doesn't bolster his point by a mile. Then you see shooter coming up with bogus numbers claiming an F-16E blk weighs less than 8.6 t, when the very link he gives states an empty weight of more than 8.9 t for a non-CFT equipped blk 50/52 for example. That someone like BW doesn't even figure this is testimony to has narrow focus on the Rafale only, being ignorant towards other (in this case non-French) platforms doesn't help people to make their case. But assuming that we are all adults, everyone should know himself how to behave. Unfortunately discussions like these look like a teenager rant fest. 
 
Just my 2ct on this
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/16/2011 11:11:58 AM

 

Who destroyed those SAM sites?

 

Timeline.......

 


21 March: SA-2......, SA-3...... and SA-5...... air defence systems in Libya have been destroyed by Italian aircrafts during a raid near Tripoli.
Only SA-6......, hand-held SA-7s...... and SA-8...... mobile SAMs remain a possible threat to aircraft.[14]
...... A spokesman for the National Transitional Council.... said Gaddafi's forces were using human shields in defence of their military assets,
bringing civilians to Misrata...... to surround their vehicles and troops to deter airstrikes.[15]...... RAF Tornados aborted a planned airstrike
due to information that a number of civilians were reported close to the intended target.[16]...... Among the buildings hit late on 20 March and
early 21 March were parts of the Bab al-Azizia......
compound often used by Colonel Gaddafi.[17]...... Further strikes on Tripoli and, according to Libyan government spokesmen, Sabha...... and Sirte......,
 took place on late 21 March.[17]......

If you check the source of this wikipedia article (ref 14) you will see that It is not what the US officer (VA  Gortney) said. He only quoted that air defence
had been significantly impacted. Not destroyed.

 

Again if an article says that Ignacio Ramonet is director of Le Monde Diplomatique is wrong (he isnt anymore for years now).
This article also states that France bombed Tripoli March 19th, wrong again...so how would i trust the rest of the article?


NATO provides the bombs ROFL

If you read the full text there isn't any mention of US providing euro countries for bombs, It is just a style effect in the title. Furthermore,
the journalist is a revolutionnary communist director of a micro journal noone reads (Le Grand Soir).
It is washington post that asserted that European countries were going short on ammos.
please read the argumented answer of Jean Guisnel in Le Point

http://www.lepoint.fr/chroniqu...
it is in french, but a quick google translation should do it.


Reading the "analysis of Rufus", i understand better why this name is traditionlly used for clowns. Just a bunch of uneducated assumptions.

 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/16/2011 11:12:36 AM

About your "famous link" about M88 real performance, THERE IS NOT A SINGLE WORD IN IT ABOUT POWER REDUCTION DUE TO HEAT ISSUES. "In that Nato report I cited about the M-88 management
 life extension problem.  Core engine temperatures had to be reduced to save the compressor blade spools and allow the engine to operate as designed safely. Less thrust than claimed.
Even KNOW exactly how much less.
I guess you didnt even read it. Its only as to evaluate and manage different stress (including thermic) so as to have better maintenance program. Your core temp limit is just laughable fantasy
(and would anyway be already fixed with M884E). You can have a sentence mean nearly everything if you take it out of its context.

Rating M88 to 125-130 kN is simple plain ignorance. You haven't any clue of that claim. Keeping saying that you know better then snecma about it is plain stupidity. Entry Temp  of M88-2 is 1577°C.
A demonstrator has been shown to go to 9T, but would need redesign of air intakes (slightly bigger)

.You can find easily the data here http://www.snecma.com/-m88-.ht... (M882-4E and 9T demonstrator)

Poussée avec PC (kN) 75 90
Poussée sans PC (kN) 50 60
Consommation spécifique avec PC (kg/daN.h) 1,70 1,70
Consommation spécifique sans PC (kg/daN.h) 0,80 0,80
Débit d’air (kg/s) 65 72
Température Entrée Turbine (K) 1 850 (1 577°C) 1 850 (1 577°C)
Taux de compression 24,50 27
Taux de dilution 0,30 0,30
Longueur (mm) 3 538 3 618
Diamètre d’entrée (mm) 696 790
Masse (kg) 897 985

Now lets compare to your so vaunted PW100 IPE
T/W ratio 8.1 (M88) vs 7.8 (PW)
dry fuel consumption : 76kg/kN.h (M882-4E) or 80 (M88-2) vs 77.5 (PW)
wet 175 kg/kN.h vs 198 kN/h

 

"France's semiconductor and computer industry was simply incapable of providing the necessary components to create a truely cutting edge system"

I think you should go and explain that to Bull engineers that built one of the most powerful supercomputer in the world (ranked ninth at ISC conference, june 2011)

In June, the TOP500 (published in the ISC 2011) has again awarded the title of most powerful supercomputer Tera 100. Already elected No. 1 in Europe in the previous ranking in November 2010 established the United States,
100 Tera confirms in a highly competitive market the progress of the technology developed by Bull with the CEA-DAM (Military Applications CEA).

from http://news.bull.com/bulldirec...

Ever heard about ST microelectronics? (5th mmic constructor in the world)


 

 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/16/2011 11:14:39 AM

About cranked Delta, here is a drawing of ACX prototype from Dassault do you notice anything?

 

Again, Rafale C weighs 9.5 tons not more then 10!Its carrier variant that weighs 10.2 tons. Not that different from F16 8.6 tons


That is a LIE.
 \

Article.......

So again you deny manufacturer data (CFT) because you know better? With all these informations you have about french stealing secrets and the real data about planes, you must be the head of CIA?


Hate to say it, but we put you where you could do NO harm in Afghanland and in Iraq on the rare times we used you.We actually respect the Dutch in battle more than you.
oh Kapisa valley is a quiet place? For an army that need 20k bullets shot/neutralized insurgent, you are quite funny

 

Diem bin Phu-HOW did France do?
Considering the spanking Vietnamese gave you i wouldnt cite that particular example.


like letting a foreign pilot prove the so called "Supercruise" RIGHT! What do youthink  happened in India? Supercruise was one of their requirements. (btw both F16 and F18 were found NOT to fulfill those)
Would you need a foreign pilot to supercruise with a F22
to believe its able to supercruise? NO. So you think Dassault will do it just to please forumers? Or Jon Lake?

The Rafale's 9.1-9.3-9.5 Tonne EEW is pure fantasy! See the EEW of the Naval version that is suppossedly only 500 KG heavier! It weighs >11 Tonnes!
 500 KG My bright red b*tt! It does not include much of the equipment required like Spectra, EW suite, many antennas ( See Photos YOU POSTED with out the chin side sets(2) RIGHT!)
 The real numbers in your idea are: Rafale EEW >10T+ 4*112MICA+150 rounds 30mm*.735= 110Kg+Pilot = 90 Kg 4.7 tonnes of fuel = GRAND Total 15.348T/2*70Kn ( temp limits!) = .93/1!
 I will not discuss the effects of toting around four large bombs or the three DTs required to equal F-16 radius with two!


ROFL so when you wheigh Rafale it doese not include spectra, EW suite but when u weigh a F16 it doese???
Wrong move. I'll give you an example : when Rafale is not using OSF, it has to fill the place with a ballast in order to keep the proper balance.
Btw our pilots are not 90 kgs heavy, they keep fit in order to support Gs. And in your example Rafale is having 4.6 tons of fuel vs 3.2 for F16. All your calculation is biased when you are not using
imaginary numbers (Rafale weight).

F16 is an excellent plane that deserved to be widely sold. The fact that Rafale wasn't exported yet do not mean it is not an excellent plane either. Political pressures from US can be very strong,
preventing for an ex the deal in Korea where Rafale had been better rated then F15...And see how US biased the tanker market while USAF had chosen Airbus A330MRTT...

Sry, checked on GE site, last F16 engine is 32000 lbs, aka 142 kN and you can add 300 pounds of weight to PW engine i dont know the exact consution tho.

 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/16/2011 11:19:42 AM
 
 
An old view of ACX prototype from dassault. Do you notice the wings shape?
 
 
Quote    Reply

breaka    Engine Comparison   12/16/2011 6:00:12 PM
Numbers mostly from Jane's 
 
Name         Weight  DryThst MaxThst  DryT/W&SFC   Max T/W & SFC  Mx
F110-132    4,050lb 19,100   32,130     4.71 / .64             7.9/2.09               TBO 4,000 TACs
F100-232    4,065lb  22,000   32,500    5.41 / .73?          8.0 / 1.91              6,000 cycle depot insp
- Numbers are for ideal inlet, installed thrust less 
M88-2-4     1,978lb  10,950   16,404    5.54 / 0.8            8.29 / 1.72            Hot section TBO 600hrs
EJ200         2,180lb  13,490   20,250    6.19 /.74-.81       9.29 / 1.66-1.73    Mx interval >400 hrs
F414          2,470lb   14,756   22,000    5.97/.85?            8.9 / 1.85?            2,000hr hot section  
  - est SFC with F404-400 numbers
 
Standard caveat - these are all standard day, sea level, 0 airspeed.  I've generally gone with the higher performance numbers versus derated efficiency settings.  Bottom line, the F100 & F110 have some lower engine T/W ratios, which seems to largely be the result of more robust construction for a longer lifespan.  The also enjoy better Mil SFC, but worse Max SFC.  The EJ200 and F414 seem to have a performance edge, although F414 SFC numbers aren't published.  With the M88 having quite a bit shorter TBO cycle, and having twice as many engines, the F-16s should enjoy an engine in engine mx time, although at the loss of redundancy.
A F-16blk60 and Rafale C have virtually the same empty weight, fuel (w/CFTs for Blk60), and very clue thrust to weight.  The F-16 should enjoy a slightly longer radius at Mil power on internal gas only, but will burn thru his gas quicker at high AB settings.  The Rafale enjoys a 60% greater wing area, so it should have a large advantage in instantaneous turn and probably a sustained advantage, while the smaller frontal area and wetted wing of the F-16 may give better unloaded acceleration.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics