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       12/20/2011 10:07:49 AM
I quote this because you quoted and DID NOT UNDERSTAND what it REALLY meant.
 
""The canard geometry (surface, profile and shape) and its location with respect to wing and air intakes were mitigated to optimize the interaction on wing’s apex (lift increase +30%) and to lower the interference with air intakes in supersonic. For Air-to-Ground missions, the canard does not hide the down visibility of the pilot .""
 
Its a compromised bird
 
ROTFLMAO.
 
H.
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/20/2011 10:38:19 AM
Herald , you don 't have to ROTF since there is no reason for .
 
You say that the Rafale is a compromised bird and you are correct , it is indeed . But to what extent is the question .
Do you know that you look stupid when you say that the Rafale is a "pedestrian bomb-truck" ?
 
This "pedestrian bomb-truck" accelerates and climb faster than all your Teen fighters ! Not bad , isn 't it
Also , it has better instantaneous turn rate than all your teen fighters and only the Eagle can match its sustained turn rate in supersonic . Not bad , isn 't it
What a hell of a "pedestrian bomb-truck" ! 
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc       12/20/2011 11:50:21 AM

Herald , you don 't have to ROTF since there is no reason for .
 
With you trying to explain anything (see above) there is always a reason.

You say that the Rafale is a compromised bird and you are correct , it is indeed . But to what extent is the question .
 
I just demonstrated to what extent, and provided you with resources to see why.

Do you know that you look stupid when you say that the Rafale is a "pedestrian bomb-truck" ?

Not very stupid, actually as observed FACT trumps your nonsense.. On the other hand, how are you doing here?  
Not very well there, either....
This "pedestrian bomb-truck" accelerates and climb faster than all your Teen fighters ! Not bad , isn 't it
 
You got it wrong there, too.
 
RE: Rafale vs F-16 Block 60 in a sustained fight.

The F-16 is a sustained high speed turner, not an instantaneous turner.Its wingplan is optimized for high wing loading and excellent T/W ratios ratio. That makes for a fair to good (depends on loaded condition, altitude band and speed)  saber dancing American jet, not a clumsy one shot French epee, as a dogfighter, if you understand at all where I go with this explanation. The F-16 creates large but very fast arcs which translates into superb radar looks and more opportunities for missile shots at aquisition of detected fighter-sized objects which typically are a LOT closer than most people expect (50,000-100,000 meters..) So General Dynamics in the beginning when they designed this sustained dogfighter; simply set the g limiter at the maximum a human can endure: (9g), gave it a reclining seat for the SUSTAINED gee load that the Human (not the plane) can stand and a rigid stick all tailored to the 'saber dance'. The Rafale can be yanked into higher angles of attack at the cost of sustained energy bleed (see above). Note that the canards have extreme problem with L/D drag?
THAT is why the Americans chose and continue to STICK with tailplanes .I KNOW that canard failure affects sustained Squall airspeed in a turn.
 
If the Squall misses its first lock against an F-16 at all, at any altitude bands, its in TROUBLE  Combine that with a CRAPPY second look radar and a dud missile that is worthless in the RH version and only adequate in the IR version, and its dead meat in the dogfight.
 
That is why the Squall loses competition after competition. in op-evals. 
 
With that out of the way, I want you to understand, that the Rafale was designed to shoot and run. The American fighters were designed to shoot and STAY as sustained energy missile throwers. Even the F-22 and the F-35 are designed this way Your claim all the WRONG parameters, don't understand the RIGHT parameters and totally misunderstand WHY the Eurocluck designers made the WRONG choices they did.
 
One last thing, GROW UP.
 
H.
 
 
 

Also , it has better instantaneous turn rate than all your teen fighters and only the Eagle can match its sustained turn rate in supersonic . Not bad , isn 't it

What a hell of a "pedestrian bomb-truck" ! 

 

Cheers .

 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/20/2011 12:02:51 PM
pedestrian bomb truck seem a compliment from someone thinking with his feet ;)
 
btw did you ever think that empennage also drags?
 
As you like to cite sources you dont read, here is one you wont read
 
http://ia700503.us.archive.org/2/items/nasa_techdoc_19870001405/19870001405.pdf
 
" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

heraldabc    Fix your vroken link, incompetent.   12/20/2011 12:22:35 PM
Before boundary layer disturbance, as opposed to after lift generated...
 
You won't understand that concept at all, Hollow. Of course if you knew anything about how shock-waves form on a winged cylinder you would understand IMMEDIATELY.
 
H.

pedestrian bomb truck seem a compliment from someone thinking with his feet ;)

 

btw did you ever think that empennage also drags?

 

As you like to cite sources you dont read, here is one you wont read

 


link


 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/20/2011 3:39:24 PM
Show me ONE data showing F16 able to support better sustained turn rate then rafale, then i'll listen your babble. None of these planes are cylinders +wings.
Now i wonder how Rafale usually spanks F16 ass in dogfight exercises (not talking about M2K-9 doing it daily in UAE) as it has so crappy aerodynamics. Googling canards drag, reading the introduction of a paper then spamming it as a clue wont bring you anywhere. Plz try first to understand the concept of close coupled canards, then we can talk.
 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    More Proof of ignorance!   12/20/2011 4:23:26 PM


Of course you can do that on a flight simulator, like claiming you flew on FRONT seat (aka main pilot)...

The FRONT seat is for students and the back seat for instructors! I am amazed that you did not know that?

ROFL Only on training jets, or were F14 as an example pilots sat on rear seat ?

That is wright! The front seat is For Students, "Check rides" and weapons tests for trainees launching their first real weapons on space restricted range! The Student rides and flies from the front and the instructor/safety officer rides in back. (Just to make sure the student does not kill anybody he's not supposed to!)
The second piece of work that absolutely demonstrates your ineptitudeness! ( I just made that word up by adding the "ness" at the end to maximize the impact of the word!)

The Pilot and Commander of the plane, any time there is more than one crew-person, one is always the Commander, sits in the front of the F-14! And any other two place combat jet but the F-111 where they sit side by side! The GIB, or Guy In Back is the REO, or Radar/Electronics Operator. That you did not know this is absolute proof that you are completely inept!

Finally, the time I spent in various flight sims was purely recreational! What else are you going to do on three years worth of days off in Saudi Arabia? The main purpose of the sim is to teach "Switch-ology" and tactics to pilots. As anyone knows us old AVIONIC Nerds got the switchology down pat, better than almost any pilot! After all, we might go through it more times in a day than they do in a year! The tactics are harder for some of us, but if you had had a PPL and conducted some informal "Rat Racing" over the corn fields in the summer, read some books and most importantly played some serrious games, the tactics come easy and you can more than hold your own in the Sim. The crush of "G" load makes the real world an entirely different thing, WHICH I NEVER CLAIMED TO BE! But you can bet your bottom dollar that I have held my own more often than not in the dome!

 
Quote    Reply

45-Shooter    More Proof of ignorance!   12/20/2011 4:29:58 PM

Pure deltas have some advantages over a mixed control surface aircraft:

-parasitic drag is low.

-straight line acceleration from delayed onset of wingtip vortices is good.

-good instantaneous turn rates at subsonic speeds which is where most ACM takes place.

It comes with a HIGH COST.

-poor planform for effective sustained energy.

-very high induced drag. (drag generated by lift-greater wing area to barrel lift=greater induced drag in simple English [polar drag]. ) What that means is that a plane that has to turn tight at high G will bleed energy as induced drag art incredible rates such as a Rafale compared to a Fighting Falcon.

A Delta Dart can snap turn with eye blink speed, but as it turns, it will lose energy rapidly for the sustained turn. Its great for Sidewinder missiles and a close firing pass on a Bear, but lousy for dealing with a MIG 21 where the Phantom II actually has the decisive sustained turn edge with the Sparrow, Sidewinder combo..

So the more delta you are, the lousier a close in dogfighter you are in the hosizontal and the vertical.

Now what is the Rafale again? Oh yeah, a cranked delta with canards.

 
For more on this:
 
 

Learn 3.......

 
The Rafale was designed as a bomb truck.

H.



I wish that I could have stated all of this as well as you did! All very good and valid points! I know a -106 jock and he claims it will win any A2A encounter! He always gets first shot and no-one ever survives the Blivit!

 
Quote    Reply

Reactive       12/20/2011 5:08:36 PM
Bw is getting intellectually raped as usual. 
 
  Dassault has designed a very effective airframe at all regime(s)
 
It's as if he's just said "I'm an idiot". 
 
BW, properties of Deltas are not magical, not unknown, not mystical, they have an energy-bleed penalty on sustained turns, even the EF has shortcomings in this regard.
 
Dogfighting is a failure mode, it's what happens when your primary strategy goes badly wrong and its outcome is completely unpredictable, because you have no idea what BVR engagement requires on any level you don't understand the kinematic trade-offs that are made to achieve this, the Rafale was designed in such a way as to maximise low-med altitude performance for A2G roles before US sensory advances made those optimisations less relevant. 
 
R  
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack    @Herald   12/20/2011 5:45:32 PM
It would be nice if you could stop posting your opinion as facts .
Very little of what you say is actually correct .
 
Like Halloweene said , you should first read some studies on coupled canard design FROM Dassault and not from any other sources and certainly not from a US source . Saab can also be trusted .
Those people are the ones who know (they also designed tailplanes aircraft) . What I find really stupid is the way you pose yourself like if you knew more than them ?! You are wrong on so many basics that it is a disgrace .
I tell you that in the USA , only Boeing would be able to build a "decent" close couple canard design fighter .
 
Now , whatever you say and whatever you think , the Rafale is a better flyer than the Viper at all the regime you can think of and here again , numbers talk , not me .
Everything favor the Rafale , acceleration in both subsonic and supersonic , better sustained turn rate in both subsonic and supersonic , better instantaneous turn rate at all regimes and altitude , better wing loading , better T/W , better engines (by the way , I found the max sustainable core temp of the M88-2 ECO :
"The technologies developed are, among others, thermal barriers in monocrystalline blades to withstand temperatures of 2100 ° C" ) .
 
One thing you never talked about Herald , is the fact that the Rafale has the best Flight Control System Worldwide . The French are known to everbody to make the best FCS and the Rafale was the first fighter to use CDVO (Commande De Vol Optique) : Fly-By-Light (as opposed to fly-by-wire) . It is lighter , more reliable , not prone to corrosion (salty air) and impervious to nuclear blast . All the Rafale pilot praise the FBL and they say that that alone is already giving them an edge on older fighters . No F-Teen is equipped with FBL .
Then , you come here exposing your opinion , saying that it is facts when you only use debatable links (which sometimes are from other forumers) , etc ...
8 times out of 10 , a M2000 (-5 or -9 , up to you) wax a Blk 52/60 in dogfight and 9 times out of 10 a Rafale wax a M2000 in dogfight . What 's your conclusion ?
Why do you think the Rafale gave such a hard time to the F-22 for the later to be able to score ? Take a Viper and the same F-22 and see how it goes , ouch ...
 
Btw Herald (and others) , here is a small bit of an article from the Garuda IV Joint exercise in France with India and Singapore . The aircraft involved for 2 weeks were :
- India Su-30MKIs
- Singapore F-16Ds Blk 52+
- France M2000C/RDIs
- France M2000-5s
- France Rafale F3s
It is about Spectra :
""One cannot fail to speak also about the Spectra system of protection and warning established on Rafale, which aims to identify threats to 360 ° around the plane in active or passive mode. It also suppresses the waves around the plane, which hampers its location even with the aid of the most powerful radar. ""
 
"it also suppresses the waves around the plane " . This is from July last year (2010) .
It is interesting . The entire article is really a good read since it wasn 't a NATO excercise :
 
"""In this regard, the exercise does not use any of NATO strategy , that gives participants a certain freedom in the preparation and conduct of operations." Such an opportunity to go beyond the standard training alliance falls pilots rarely. "For us it is also a way to make an optimal use of precious flying hours," adds General Clermont. According to his Indian colleague, Marshall K. Nohvara, participating in training operations on another continent is for the Indian Air Force "is a real challenge and the opportunity to train together with experienced pilots in a different philosophical and ideological level, climate and more restricted airspace." This view is shared by Singaporeans who have been trained by American standards, which in some parameters differ significantly from NATO. ""
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
 
 
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics