Rafale Proves Itself

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

breaka TAC vs Hours 12/21/2011 12:34:58 AM

Shooter,

A bit delayed response, but in fairness to the M88 I wanted to make sure you understand the difference between using hours for an inspection and TACs (total accumulated cycles). Cycles count the cycling of power on the aircraft (i.e. from burner to idle or vice versa, or some smaller amount) that cause a lot of wear and tear. How many hours you can get out of it can vary quite a bit - if flying cross country or in a CAS wheel, you may only get a couple cycles over several hours. If however, you go and do a BFM hop, with you may get 6 or 7 cycles in an hour.

Also, the eventual goal for the M88-2 was 1,000 hours time between overhauls. Not sure if they are there yet with the step 4 mod. The M88-4 is supposed to extend life further. It's a lot like the initial teething pains the F100-100 went through, which led to the -220's which were a bit heavier but more robust.

Quote Reply

LB 12/21/2011 4:09:20 AM

Three quick comments:

1) Last I looked this thread was around 20 pages so interesting it's still going on.

2) If the Rafale is to really prove itself someone else needs to buy it. It's clearly a very good strike fighter (others can argue exactly how capable) but clearly it's too expensive- the UAE comments are instructive.

3) The Nimitz class can't put up 340 sorties sustained. The Nimitz did put up about 250 a day for 4 days straight following a 16 hour break (real world replenishment) after putting up around 700 sorties over 6 days.

As an aside one analysis of the Nimitz surge noted that continuous operations where the number of aircraft on deck was kept at 30 or below actually is easier to manage than operations with pauses and more aircraft on deck. Also the analysis indicated that lessons learned indicated they could have gotten up around 150 more sorties in the 4 say period or around 280 per day. Given that the new CV design, supposedly able to do 25% more sorties could probably do the 340 mentioned for a few days.

Quote Reply

Aussiegunneragain An advertisement I was recently inspired by ... 12/21/2011 4:49:25 AM

... second attempt.

Quote Reply

Reactive 12/21/2011 4:53:53 AM

Oops, how ironic..

... and I reckon it might be of interest to some of you boys too.

link

I was going to say the link is broken, any chance you could repost? : D

Quote Reply

Reactive 12/21/2011 4:54:39 AM

Wow, bucketloads of irony, you appear to be psychic...

Quote Reply

halloweene 12/21/2011 6:07:04 AM

FOFL you give fanboy sites as data (mirage 2000 unknown dash vs F16C, and btw it seems way better), and Rafale vs Typhoon...As SOURCES ???. The you give an interesting but completely irrelevant pilot instruction for F16 MLU.

Please give SERIOUS sustained turn rate data (i dont know where your F16 is fromm , and your Rafale one is from a fan website). Pathetic armchair warrior!

Anw topic is how Rafale served in Libya and i notice you carefully avoid to answer to that with serious sources!

Quote Reply

heraldabc The references I supplied and explanations include energy maneuver charts. 12/21/2011 7:43:49 AM

I understand also that the data points compared are clear thick wet air at sea level (EU flight conditions).

I even supplied a DASH-1 for the various to look at and read.

OK, talking about performance and you are throwing out a bunch of numbers without reference. When talking about what the maximum turn rates are for an aircraft, it is very dependent on altitude and configuration. All aircraft will have a much slower turn rate at 20k ft then at sea level, whereas their maximum and minimum speeds will both be higher - but the amount of change varies with each aircraft. To point to one data point is just as deceptive as stating the RCS for an aircraft is one specific number.

Second, when talking airspeeds, it helps to know if you are talking True or Calibrated. At sea level, not much difference, but at altitude True can be considerably higher than Cal. Mach number also comes in to play, especially for swept wing aircraft with "thumbprint"s in their allowable G.

Third, when talking about the "max speed an aircraft can maintain while cornering" I assume you are asking what it's sustained corner velocity is? If so, then the question is really is a combination of highest G's for lowest speeds in order to get the best sustained turn rate/radius. For a given G, rate decreases proportionally with speed increase, and radius increases as a square function. Over at F-16 net there are some good F-16 and F-4 EM diagrams...... to show this point. It's also good for showing to some people that don't understand how an airshow max rate and min radius turn demos are apples and oranges for comparing capabilities. There may be times to be above sustained corner velocity in a rate fight, but either you will have to pull more Gs (which will bleed off speed) or you will open up your turn and slow your rate.

Quote Reply

heraldabc The references I supplied and explanations include energy maneuver charts. 12/21/2011 7:53:14 AM

Never claimed the Nimitz put up 340 sorties a day. MAX I calculated for SIX carriers over a week sustained operations at 3333 sorties was 80-120 sorties per day. WHERE did you get 340 sorties per day? Not from me.

Same with aircraft acceleration and turn data numbers. I reported accurate numbers and conclusions.

The fact of the matter is, their is a lot of missing details on the chart to put it in context and I find quite a bit of it questionable.

I told you that as long as I was going to be there , BS would not be tolerated .

You have nothing but hot air , nothing but hot air .

Same wrt aerodynamism , you know jack . The Rafale beats the F-16 in all the flight enveloppes you can think of . Its acceleration (the part where drag is very important) is better than the F-16 . I will go as far as posting a stuff from the Eurofighter team :

http://i41.tinypic.com/xft66h.jpg" />

I could have posted Dassault numbers , they are very similar .

Now , are you trying to tell us that a Nimitz can launch 340 sorties per day ??! And that for a week ??!

You 're a sad clown

Cheers .

Quote Reply

BWisBack 12/21/2011 8:15:58 AM

Data :

aircraft clean @15.000ft , 50% fuel

ITR (Instantaneous turn rate)

- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 degree , M 0.7 , 8 Gs

- M2000-5 : 23 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs

- Rafale : 25 degree , M 0.65 , 9 Gs

(Note the Gs)

STR (Sustained turn rate)

- M2000-5 : 17 deg/s , M 0.7 , 6 Gs

- F-16C Blk 50 : 18 deg/s , M 0.75 , 7 Gs

- Rafale : 19 deg/s , M 0.7 , 7 Gs

Conclusion :

- Better nose pointing ability for the French fighters

- F-16 in sustained turn turns inside the M2000-5

- Rafale in sustained turn turns inside the M2000 and the F-16

Cheers .

Quote Reply

heraldabc Incorrect. 12/21/2011 8:34:01 AM

You can't claim that on the basis of those numbers at all.

Nose point is a combined yaw/pitch stability issue, it is NOT a simple turn issue. There are other vectors and (mass distribution over lift) factors involved.

For example, nose wander during a ROLL.

Sheesh.

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 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 NEXT