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
45-Shooter    If true, mia culpa again, but there are so many # out there!   12/16/2011 11:32:45 PM


Shooter :

""Finally; You never addressed the 13 degree Vs 30 degree seat back issue ""

 

?? Rafale 's seat is inclined at 29 degree . 

For God sake , check your numbers !!! 

 

Cheers .


The video you posted never mentioned the W/L numbers. All I do know for sure is that that video does not show the Rafale tracking or locking the F-16D/40 with either missiles or guns and that the Rafale pilot was looking over his shoulder from about 1:20 to 2:45+-! If the F-16 is behind his 3-9 line for over one minute, the only reason he was not dead is the "Be polite to the new guys" rule to stop them from going home mad. Also it was a training mission to teach them all how to fight, not a contest of who's butt got waxed. I find the second Red Flag video posted by ??? (Brain Fart) about the 9:38 briefing to be much more instructive!
Do you even know what "snoof" is?
 
Quote    Reply

Reactive    embed video etc.   12/17/2011 2:46:55 AM
Shooter , I don 't know how to put links or videos on SP . I 'm using Firefox .
Can someone teach me , please ?
 
 
Dear BW,
 
I guess until you're banned again and in the interests of fairness I will give you the secret tools to achieve the above, though I am sure i'll soon regret it : p
 
Youtube/Video, go to youtube, click share underneath the video then get the embed code.
 
Come back to strategypage, find your I <3 Rafale thread, hit reply then at the bottom of the reply window you will see it has normal and html, go into html mode and paste the embed code, go back to normal and voila!
 
For links I've recently found that the quickest way to drop them in is to paste the link without "http:// www."  part and the newer browsers (chrome etc) should see it as a hyperlink if the forum software doesnt.. You can also paste links into the html but you need to add a tag either side, I forget what it is now but the above tip should work.
 
Ps, could we just agree that Rafale is very nice and so are other planes but that it is impossible/pointless/boring to make definitive judgements as to which is "better" and stop talking about this? 
 
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/17/2011 3:18:20 AM







Shooter :



""Finally; You never addressed the 13 degree Vs 30 degree seat back issue ""



 



?? Rafale 's seat is inclined at 29 degree . 



For God sake , check your numbers !!! 



 



Cheers .






The video you posted never mentioned the W/L numbers. All I do know for sure is that that video does not show the Rafale tracking or locking the F-16D/40 with either missiles or guns and that the Rafale pilot was looking over his shoulder from about 1:20 to 2:45+-! If the F-16 is behind his 3-9 line for over one minute, the only reason he was not dead is the "Be polite to the new guys" rule to stop them from going home mad. Also it was a training mission to teach them all how to fight, not a contest of who's butt got waxed. I find the second Red Flag video posted by ??? (Brain Fart) about the 9:38 briefing to be much more instructive!

Do you even know what "snoof" is?

Here is the video mentioning the results, aswell as a F16 pilot interview. I didn't want to post it as it is widely known but...
This viideo you are talking about is not official and full of errors (technical wrong details about sukhoi engines for ex. It was originnally posted by a retired officer who did not have access to the results of the exercise was talking to praetorians retired officers. USAF did official excuses to India for example (France didnt ask anything). Anyway, if you read between the lines french planes did their job in a sneaky manner, which can be frustrating i admit.


 
Quote    Reply

breaka    Engine Comparison   12/17/2011 9:28:22 AM
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.
 
 
http://www.strategypage.com/CuteSoft_Client/CuteEditor/Load.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);" target="_blank">link
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack    @Reactive   12/17/2011 10:25:25 AM
Thank you for taking the time to explain to me how it 's done
I hope not to be banned again and I avoid posting BS and calling people names .
 
""Ps, could we just agree that Rafale is very nice and so are other planes but that it is impossible/pointless/boring to make definitive judgements as to which is "better" and stop talking about this? ""
 
Agreed (as long as others do it too) .
Have a nice day , Dear Reactive .
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/17/2011 4:46:57 PM
I post an interesting article from a French source . It is a bit off topic but I don 't want to start a new Rafale thread .
I need to split the article in two .
1st part :
 
""This is the new cliche of [french] commentators, more or less informed, more or less well-intentioned. The Rafale is too expensive, so it is not selling abroad and if France buys it anyway, that's to please Mr. Dassault. Welcome in bar room talks!

"What is it?" As Marshal Foch said.

Yes, the Rafale is expensive. On the basis of parliamentary reports, one can estimate its price, by dividing the payments by the number of aircraft delivered in the period 2006-2011, around 116 million euros the unit.

This price is all taxes included, it integrates the 19.6% VAT. A VAT payed by the Department of Defense, but which at the end come back in the state's pockets : for the taxpayer [ the only one that counts in the end], the net price of the Rafale should be expressed net of tax. We are therefore at a price of 94 million euros.

A recent Senate report estimates the total cost of the Rafale program for public finances to 43.567 billion euros (taking into account inflation since 1989) and that, on the basis of a planned order of 286 aircrafts . All taxes included , it is 152 million each. The difference compared to our previous calculation is due to the fact that this price includes the development of the aircraft, now paid for the current version (F3). Remains an uncertainty in this calculation: the final number of aircraft to be built. Fewer aircraft , higher price - this is the well-known principle of economies of scale. Originally, 320 Rafale should be ordered by France. Currently, the target is 286 units, but the only thing certain is that 180 were actually ordered. And there is still no export order.

But expensive ? does it mean too expensive? And too expensive compared to what? To the absence of a credible national defense? To the abandonment of one of the most successful industry in a country hit by deindustrialization? To less performant foreign competitors which would lead our country into a political dependence? [...]

Overall, and it is rare enough to point out, the prices originally planned (in constant currency) were held: the court of accounts speak of a drift of 4.7%, compared to +51% for the Tigre helicopter or +29.1% for the Armoured Infantry vehicle (VBCI). As for the A400M, its price increased by 25% before the first flight ... Abroad, the Eurofighter has drifted about 70% according to the NOA, the british Court of Auditors while the U.S. F-35 is a bottomless pit. The plane is still not in service and it is risky to advance a serious price. One thing is already certain: it will be the the most expensive combat aircraft program in history! The latest available data suggest a total cost of 323 billion dollars for 2443 devices only for U.S. forces (USAF, USN, USMC). (Either 101 million euros each) - knowing that development costs have exploded by 40% and the production of 60 to 90% depending on version. There is no evidence that this wild ride is over.

Yet countries comparable to France will buy it ... Whatever the cost. The United Kingdom, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark, Canada, Israel, Australia, Turkey, Singapore - and maybe soon Japan will embark on this program. Contrary to the Rafale, it is not a multi-role aircraft, but an aircraft primarily designed for ground attack. Besides all the senior Air Force plans to keep, next, an air-air interceptor not necessarily cheap either as the F-22 or the Eurofighter Typhoon ... ""
 
Cheers .
 
Quote    Reply

BWisBack       12/17/2011 4:52:43 PM
2nd part :
 
""Five European countries of the Atlantic Alliance will choose the American F-35: This shows that the acquisition of a combat aircraft is above all a political choice. Sometimes the price is the issue, for example in the case of Switzerland which just prefer the Swedish Gripen . The plane is cheaper but, in fact, for good reason: it is less efficient than the Rafale. Dassault propaganda? No, estimation of the Swiss pilots themselves. But Switzerland probably did not need a plane in the range of Rafale. For its air defense, it has excellent F-18 and he had to replace only its old F-5 ... a light fighter of the generation of Mirage III.

The Rafale is certainly an excellent plane - probably the best ever produced by our aviation industry in a century of existence. The hundred of aircraft delivered to date (104 exactly, 4 were lost and 10 of the first standard are mothballed in the Navy) can get to an accurate picture. The Rafale has been involved in two wars (Afghanistan and Libya) and ensures daily air defense missions (permanent Security Posture) and nuclear deterrence. Its versatility is its strength: it can carry out missions of air-air interception, reconnaissance, ground attack and strategic strikes, from the ground or from an aircraft carrier. The only comparable aircraft in the world is the F-18 E/F.
 
There is, in our country, a true national masochism, to denigrate our success .. It's strange. Would we prefer to be on the side of the Eurofighter ?, a plane that costs more money to the taxpayers in the concerned countries and which is struggling to be truly operational, as the British saw in Libya (and never seen in Afghanistan .. .)? Would we prefer to buy F-35 at a completely unpredictable costs of acquisition and ownership , with the guarantee to never access the source code of the aircraft and to be always dependant of Washington (think to the Franco-American crisis in 2003)?""
 
 **************************************
I don 't know about you , but I agree with what is said . 
 
Cheers .
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

halloweene       12/18/2011 7:05:52 AM
The article is discussed on air-defense. Plz note the senate/assembly took in account the 25% of plane dev paid by Dassault. So you can minorate the price for tax payers by 25% of dev cost
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       12/19/2011 3:05:50 AM
He was banned? I thought he had the sense to leave.
Ps, could we just agree that Rafale is very nice and so are other planes but that it is impossible/pointless/boring to make definitive judgements as to which is "better" and stop talking about this?

The ones of us who are best informed are able to make judgments that cover most angles, but you're right it is pointless and boring.
At any rate extolling the Rafale is a big, important part of his life and no amount of sane, polite argumentation, proof, blunt/rude explication or outright flames whether based on science, specifications or actual conflicts are ever going to change his mind.
 
Let us just ignore him. Anyway it will be interesting to see whether India goes with the EF or Rafale. Personally I think they dropped the Hornet because they don't trust America as a supplier.
 
Quote    Reply

cwDeici       12/19/2011 3:06:51 AM

The ones of us who are best informed are able to make judgments that cover most angles, but you're right it is pointless and boring.


 I wasn't referring to myself of course, just the people who have generally been right about things the last ten years on this board.
 
Quote    Reply



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics