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
gf0012-aust       11/14/2009 2:07:50 PM
I think there is a reason why Peter Collins said :
""It is worth remembering that stealth-optimised, or fifth-generation fighters such as the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are not only likely to be hugely expensive, but they can only preserve their stealth characteristics by carrying a very limited weapons load in their internal weapon bays.
Therefore, in the current and predicted financial defence climate, it could well be that so-called fourth-generation fighters will remain the aircraft of choice for most nations - perhaps even including the UK.

LOL another hallmark moment from BW.

lets see, Peter Collins has considered all the tactical  reasons why european countries have gone to STOL raher than CTOL?
so Peter Collins has factored in the considerable difference in through life support for the entire acquisition - ie through life on tactical fleet elements  means the vessels and the aircraft?
so Peter Collins has ignored the fact (from your interpretation) that internal carriage is subject to the timeline of the events?  eg "nn  days of war" matrix - and that depending on theatre or "nn days" that external carriage may not even be an issue for blue force?
so Peter Collins has ignored the entire history of British procurement - ie that when pounds are short, the first thing to get cut is training, then assets and that usually the big ticket items or early lead projects get the chop - and that there is no parallel with JSF because its the first major co-operative program where UK firms have too much stake and that the govt wants to maintain stake as its at least revenue and keeping industry involved with minimal grief. (far easier to cut major sole programs than partnered programs)
so BW's is now inaccurately referencing UKGov positions when they've already clarified since (repeatedly) the build conditions for their carriers?

so someone without a clue has now started citing Collins for procurement and tac insights without having a royal clue as to the real time issues involved.

and he wonders why he's regarded as a troll....
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/14/2009 2:14:52 PM
The UK wanted to put some pressure on the US but failed to do so and now , the British find themselves trapped by the US . It 's already costing them an harm and a leg just to participate at the crappiest program in history of fighter aircraft .

CREF my previous on why he's a troll.  again, for something that is so busted how many tier 1 airforces are in the queue and committed to JSF?  How many have dropped out?  (and there is a difference between delayed buys and terminated buys)

in parallel, how many tiers ones outside of France (let alone Tier 2's or 3's) have committed to Rafale?  

crickets chirping
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar    Its easy when others so do the technical rebuttal work.   11/14/2009 2:38:59 PM
Sips coffee and enjoys the read.
 

 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       11/14/2009 3:02:42 PM

Lynstyne :

 


""I was happily aware that you dont have to transfer 20 tonns of fuel at a time.""

 

I know :-)

But if you have to transfer 6.5 tons (!) of fuel and you don 't have an available Tanker nearby , you can use a Rafale :


 

http://img30.imageshack.us/img30/5452/rafalesupernounou.jpg" width="640" /> 

 

Two 2.000l , two 1.250l and a "buddy-buddy" refueling pod , 2 Micas . For a total take-off weight of just over 22 tons , hehe :-)

 

Cheers .




Or Sea Harrier , Or A6 Intruder or S3 Viking,  Or tornado Or Buccaneer (AAHH Bucaneers) Or Typhoon (Will If It doesnt yet) and so can countless others and a pound to a pinch of dog shit so will the JSF.
It aint new it aint Unique.
 
 
Still say an L1011 looks more natural
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/14/2009 3:13:15 PM
Or Sea Harrier , Or A6 Intruder or S3 Viking,  Or tornado Or Buccaneer (AAHH Bucaneers) Or Typhoon (Will If It doesnt yet) and so can countless others and a pound to a pinch of dog shit so will the JSF.

It aint new it aint Unique.

yep, and the USN has been doing it for decades.  scooters, phantoms and OMG - hornets and super hornets... :)
of course what BW hasn't factored in is that buddy refueling is the least preferred mode because there are projection limitations on both - principally the buddy tanker.
add in radius of action, load out issues and the tactical cost benefit analysis starts to make it worthwhile only for essential projection missions.
everyone (maritime air) knows that - so one would assume that the french do to.
its a standard NATO/US buss - as long as the wingloading can take it and as long as the softwares loaded, then anyone can do it. (even blackhawks)
another cricket chirping moment from BW



 
Quote    Reply

One Five Five Echo       11/14/2009 3:41:49 PM
Very unique capability, yes.
 
http://ericpalmer.files.wordpress.com/2009/06/800px-f-18f_refueling_f-18e.jpg" /> 
http://sitelife.aviationweek.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/2/9/92634fa2-650c-4de5-a953-989d30efb24e.Large.jpg" width="440" height="314" />
 
http://www.freewebs.com/keithwarner/sm_a-7%20buddy%20store.jpg" width="500" height="335" /> 
 
http://aeroweb.lucia.it/rap/MAKS97/mak97ag_su24_30.jpg" width="647" height="299" /> 

http://www.military.cz/usa/air/in_service/aircraft/f14/pics2/f14refuel.jpg" width="636" height="404" /> 
 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       11/14/2009 3:43:16 PM
I may be mistaken but i seem to recall being told that back in the day the RN kept a few Bucs permanently configured for the job - bomb bay tank -  
 
The Buccaneer A truly unsurpassed aircraft - in some respects superiour to its replacement.*
 
 
 
* In my somewhat uninformed opinion having never worked on either.
 
 
 
Quote    Reply

gf0012-aust       11/14/2009 5:30:00 PM
The Buccaneer A truly unsurpassed aircraft - in some respects superiour to its replacement.*

although logistically and financially  impractical. I certainly wish we had used bucs instead of converting half the mirage fleet to strike roles....

apart from the fact that RAAF were going to arm our F-111's with nukes (before the US guaranteed nuke coverage if we signed NPT) - they would have performed the bulk of the pig roles at a fraction of the end cost.


 
Quote    Reply

Lynstyne       11/14/2009 6:13:43 PM
And carrier capable, if youd gone with replacing the melbourne.
 
With its internal weapons bay and RCS of  0.001 KM all it would need is Spectra and 2 x mica and it would be the best 4.8 gen carrier capable aircraft today. providing we bought french RAM technology for the refuelling probe.
 
Quote    Reply

Hamilcar       11/14/2009 6:24:12 PM

And carrier capable, if youd gone with replacing the melbourne.

 

With its internal weapons bay and RCS of  0.001 KM all it would need is Spectra and 2 x mica and it would be the best 4.8 gen carrier capable aircraft today. providing we bought french RAM technology for the refuelling probe.


Please quit doing that. I spilled tea all over me. Now I have to change pants.......again.
 
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