By: danrh
- 4th May 2005 at 07:52Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Puffadder]Yes but also before that. But as I said, things have changed.
Um okay. Just to be clear here is the original statement
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aurel
In favour of the Rafale is the MICA IR as medium range IR-missile. Unknown factors are the effectiveness of their respective ECM/ECCM systems.
Indeed true. The same goes for the AMRAAM which to date has been used against aircraft piloted by 2nd banana pilots belonging to the 3rd banana airforces of 4th banana countries.. I’m keen to remind you that originally the RAF were fairly underwhelmed by it’s capabilities. Obviously it has been improved over the years. When it is used against a trained opponent we’ll know more.
So you're saying that the true effectiveness of both AMRAAM and Mica in a high ECM combat environment is unknown. Okay I'll accept that but whats with the bit about the RAF though. The problems with the AMRAAM in RAF service have been due to the aircraft not the missile, namely the Tornado F.3 lacked a datalink to enable the provision of mid-course updates, thereby severly limiting the missiles engagement range and/or making the missile a threat to nearby freindly aircraft. This deficiency has now been rectified. To reiterate this was a platfrom fault not a missile fault. The only other concerns I've heard of was the slight range advantage held by the Skyflash over the early AMRAAMs and some comments about the added safety from the man-in-the-loop SARH.
Daniel
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 17th May 2005 at 15:09Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nevermind my question was already answered. Sorry.
By: sferrin
- 18th May 2005 at 01:04Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Phil, nationalism aside, you are not being objective this time.. Brits only had several high-performance aircraft of their own design, all being obsolete by the time, Lightning, Buccaneer, TSR-2. I shall leave subsonic Vulcan, Harrier and Hawk out.
Seeing how the debate was about Mach 2 aircraft I should hope so. Throw the Buccaneer in there while your at it. So that leaves. . .the Lightning and the TSR-2. On the other side of the coin it should be noted that this is due mainly to the infamous "White Paper". If you've ever had a chance to take a look at the book "British Secret Fighters" (or something like that) you'll see they had some pretty interesting aircraft in the pipeline when it all got shut down. I've often wondered if life were out there somewhere and they'd designed jet fighters at some point what would they look like? (Okay not often but you get the idea). The first time I opened that book I no **** thought "probably something like that".
New
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297
- 18th May 2005 at 09:40Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seeing how the debate was about Mach 2 aircraft I should hope so. Throw the Buccaneer in there while your at it. So that leaves. . .the Lightning and the TSR-2. On the other side of the coin it should be noted that this is due mainly to the infamous "White Paper". If you've ever had a chance to take a look at the book "British Secret Fighters" (or something like that) you'll see they had some pretty interesting aircraft in the pipeline when it all got shut down. I've often wondered if life were out there somewhere and they'd designed jet fighters at some point what would they look like? (Okay not often but you get the idea). The first time I opened that book I no **** thought "probably something like that".
The British had some absolutely brilliant ideas and strangely shut everything down to prefer the most ugly and most conservative designs they got. Pity, pity.. Honestly, I wonder how Kestrel managed to get thru this all, being probably the sole example of something really interesting.
By: sferrin
- 18th May 2005 at 18:53Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The British had some absolutely brilliant ideas and strangely shut everything down to prefer the most ugly and most conservative designs they got. Pity, pity.. Honestly, I wonder how Kestrel managed to get thru this all, being probably the sole example of something really interesting.
Not really strange (okay strange definitely but not unknown).
"Even so, it was clear by the mid-1950s that modern aircraft were too costly for Britain to pursue on its own. Nor was there need for them; American warplanes were the world's best and could easily be purchased. In 1957 the British minister of defense, Duncan Sandys, issued a White Paper, a formal document that announced a new policy: Great Britain would build no new fighter aircraft for its Royal Air Force. The industry was free to build airliners, sell fighters overseas, and collaborate with the United States and with France. Even so, this policy brought a sharp cutback in the prospects for Britain's planebuilders."
Kestrel survived most likely because it was perceived as a research aircraft.
New
By: Anonymous
- 20th May 2005 at 05:28Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To bad the Indian Navy didn't purchase the Rafale! The next question is will France ever find a export cusotmer for there canard fighter???
By: Shadow1
- 20th May 2005 at 08:48Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To bad the Indian Navy didn't purchase the Rafale! The next question is will France ever find a export cusotmer for there canard fighter???
Singapor is carefully reviewing the offer made by Dassault for 20 Rafales and Saudi Arabia recently announced they werer thinking of contracting Dassault for 49 aircraft with forty more on options. I am sure that other countries are presently looking at the aircraft for future orders.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 20th May 2005 at 14:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's an interesting copy of an article about the Rafale, in case anyone is interested:
An intresting read. The Rafale is a capable fighter out of question.
Not carried away, I looked into the first demonstration flight.
The F2 standard Rafale has an empty-equipped of ~10,5 tons.
It was flown in a fighter configuration of 16,4 tons with an available max thrust of 15 tons. All the other ground-attack capabilities were shown virtually only. The Rafale was demonstrated low and not in speeds above 450 kt. The F3 standard Rafale will not weight-in lighter.
To claim a better t-w-ratio in relation to the Typhoon is not verified as long as it is not equipped with 9 tons engines. Not available till today.
The radar alone gives the Rafale a lead of two years in development time, impossible for EADS to catch-up. In its more matured avionik-suit the Rafale has its real strong-points. The other claims are less convincing.
To do no injustice to both. The Typhoon was designed as an air-superiority fighter for the Cold-War-time and AG was a secondary capability. The Rafale was designed as a replacement for all Mirage 2Ks at home and the export market from the start.
New
By: Anonymous
- 21st May 2005 at 03:16Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody seem to be rushing to buy the Tyhpoon and/or Rafale? What is everyone waiting for the JSF.................... :mad:
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 21st May 2005 at 03:24Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well nobody in his right mind will dogfight with 2/3 fuel tanks and 2 storm shadows under the wings, so in that regard the thrust ratio under high load is totally irrelevant in my opinion. I would look at the max cruising speed/alt in those configuration as being much more important.
Anyway I have no clue why people focus on that T/W ratio. I find it very doubtfull that a combat occurs where this T/W ratio will be the decisive factor. I'd say both planes will sure have enough thrust compared to their weight and I'd leave it at that.
What's important is the sensors performance, the sensors fusion, weapons, ECM suite... they even state in the article that they count on off boresight targetting cues and super agile missiles like the Mica EM instead of increased manoeuvrability.
That said, if the Rafale could kick the EF's ass in T/W ratio, I'm all for it :D
By: Shadow1
- 21st May 2005 at 07:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess the easiest way to put these arguments to rest would be to take a Rafale from the French Navy and a Typhoon from the RAF and pit them against one another under tight test parameters. Select pilots who are qualified to fly both (I realize there probably aren't too many if any for that matter) and allow them to put these wonderful machines through the ringer.
On a serious note. There is no doubt in my mind that both aircraft can execute the missions to which they will be assigned with great ease. As far as the French are concerned, the Rafale is the best aircraft for their needs while the Eurofighter is the best tool for the needs of the RAF. In the end, during a conflict, it won't be the numbers or how fast the aircraft can go when it carried such and such equipment but rather how well the pilots will be able to use the machines to the best of his abilities. Only the man behind the controls will make the difference.
By: Kovy
- 21st May 2005 at 08:51Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess the easiest way to put these arguments to rest would be to take a Rafale from the French Navy and a Typhoon from the RAF and pit them against one another under tight test parameters.
Are the RAF typhoon cleared to use the aim-120B ?
I ask that because in the may issue of AFM, they say that the typhoon was only about to get her aim-9 clearance :rolleyes:
With only AIM-9, the Typhoon would be no match for a rafale M F1 with mica EM :diablo:
By: Sens
- 21st May 2005 at 12:26Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well nobody in his right mind will dogfight with 2/3 fuel tanks and 2 storm shadows under the wings, so in that regard the thrust ratio under high load is totally irrelevant in my opinion. I would look at the max cruising speed/alt in those configuration as being much more important.
Anyway I have no clue why people focus on that T/W ratio. I find it very doubtfull that a combat occurs where this T/W ratio will be the decisive factor. I'd say both planes will sure have enough thrust compared to their weight and I'd leave it at that.
What's important is the sensors performance, the sensors fusion, weapons, ECM suite... they even state in the article that they count on off boresight targetting cues and super agile missiles like the Mica EM instead of increased manoeuvrability.
That said, if the Rafale could kick the EF's ass in T/W ratio, I'm all for it :D
Nic
You forget, that those F2 demonstrator (B302) was flown with just 2 Magic2, 2 Mica and a single 1250l supersonic tank under the belly = 16,4 tons TOW.
Do a similar load-out to the Typhoon and compare T-W-ratios.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 21st May 2005 at 12:32Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Kovy, GHT and all the rest of the small minded, tedious little @$$holes who can't get laid, put your d!cks away and get a life. You are the most pathetic bunch of losers I have ever had the misfortune to witness in action. At the very least try to be a little objective. No sorry, that would be far too much to ask. "My dad's bigger than your dad", "my plane is better than your plane.........." Its pathetic, you are embarrasing French people everywhere.
Phil :rolleyes:
It would be very nice if you could make a post without insulting the other posters. This is getting tiresome.
Edit: and you talking about objectivity is actually hilarious.
Nic
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 21st May 2005 at 12:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You forget, that those F2 demonstrator (B302) was flown with just 2 Magic2, 2 Mica and a single 1250l supersonic tank under the belly = 16,4 tons TOW.
Do a similar load-out to the Typhoon and compare T-W-ratios.
No I did not. I agreed that the T/W ratio would be different in a plane that was really loaded compared to the plane it was simulating, however I just said that if the flight limitations of 5G/180°s roll/25AoA limits were engaged, it wouldn't change between a fully loaded plane and that simulated plane.
And besides, my point was just that it wasn't really important anyway in my opinion.
By: Cliff Barnes
- 21st May 2005 at 14:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Anyway I have no clue why people focus on that T/W ratio. I find it very doubtfull that a combat occurs where this T/W ratio will be the decisive factor. I'd say both planes will sure have enough thrust compared to their weight and I'd leave it at that.
They focus on thrust to weight because they don't have any in-depth knowledge in flight dynamics. There are several other important parameters which are never going to be official, drag figures and grade of instability to take a couple of example.
By: Sens
- 21st May 2005 at 21:30Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No I did not. I agreed that the T/W ratio would be different in a plane that was really loaded compared to the plane it was simulating, however I just said that if the flight limitations of 5G/180°s roll/25AoA limits were engaged, it wouldn't change between a fully loaded plane and that simulated plane.
And besides, my point was just that it wasn't really important anyway in my opinion.
Nic
"There was not enough friction to keep the Rafale with brakes..."
How do you simulate weight and drag of a Rafale load-out with real SCALPs?
What will be the real powersettings for that and the real fuel-consumption?
Please do not twist and stay serious.
The Rafale is an excellent fighter and will be so despite some weaknesses. But we do not sell a perfect fighter, so we can look to both sides of the coin. Strong-points and weaker points. At least, when we blame the Typhoon.
New
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10
- 21st May 2005 at 22:34Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"There was not enough friction to keep the Rafale with brakes..."
How do you simulate weight and drag of a Rafale load-out with real SCALPs?
What will be the real powersettings for that and the real fuel-consumption?
Please do not twist and stay serious.
The Rafale is an excellent fighter and will be so despite some weaknesses. But we do not sell a perfect fighter, so we can look to both sides of the coin. Strong-points and weaker points. At least, when we blame the Typhoon.
Mate; I have already agreed twice that the T/W wouldn't be the same as in the article in a real scenario! What else do you need?
My only point was when it came to the OTHER variables (5G, 180° roll and 25° AoA), because the way I understand it, the limits are programmed in the FCS, so there the actual weight of the plane wouldn't matter if the plane is limited to 5G and so on. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we're arguing about wording more than about real performance issues.
Nic
New
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT
- 22nd May 2005 at 00:27Permalink- Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
""The F2 standard Rafale has an empty-equipped of ~10,5 tons.""
nope, the rafale B F2 is 9.6t the F2 BM will be the heavier 9.8t!
i was wrong, the last pdf of eurofighter tests quote a weight empty of 11.7t and the datas about the plane was done on the first version 9.7t in early 90's!
so my dad isn't better than your dad, he just look the facts with the good glasses!
AMSAR isn't a program , just a progect, and since 10 years no one want to put one penny on it to develop it, so thales and french gov go his own way!
all that remind me the singaporians who was impressed by the typhoon, and all the money british put on the evaluations, there was sounds about singapore close to buy it, it seems that BAE pricks just don't know how to caputures vibes from clients, after the greece and saudies "close to buy" for years! lol
Posts: 661
By: danrh - 4th May 2005 at 07:52 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
[QUOTE=Puffadder]Yes but also before that. But as I said, things have changed.
Um okay. Just to be clear here is the original statement
So you're saying that the true effectiveness of both AMRAAM and Mica in a high ECM combat environment is unknown. Okay I'll accept that but whats with the bit about the RAF though. The problems with the AMRAAM in RAF service have been due to the aircraft not the missile, namely the Tornado F.3 lacked a datalink to enable the provision of mid-course updates, thereby severly limiting the missiles engagement range and/or making the missile a threat to nearby freindly aircraft. This deficiency has now been rectified. To reiterate this was a platfrom fault not a missile fault. The only other concerns I've heard of was the slight range advantage held by the Skyflash over the early AMRAAMs and some comments about the added safety from the man-in-the-loop SARH.
Daniel
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 17th May 2005 at 15:09 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nevermind my question was already answered. Sorry.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 18th May 2005 at 01:04 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Seeing how the debate was about Mach 2 aircraft I should hope so. Throw the Buccaneer in there while your at it. So that leaves. . .the Lightning and the TSR-2. On the other side of the coin it should be noted that this is due mainly to the infamous "White Paper". If you've ever had a chance to take a look at the book "British Secret Fighters" (or something like that) you'll see they had some pretty interesting aircraft in the pipeline when it all got shut down. I've often wondered if life were out there somewhere and they'd designed jet fighters at some point what would they look like? (Okay not often but you get the idea). The first time I opened that book I no **** thought "probably something like that".
Posts: 10,217
By: flex297 - 18th May 2005 at 09:40 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
The British had some absolutely brilliant ideas and strangely shut everything down to prefer the most ugly and most conservative designs they got. Pity, pity.. Honestly, I wonder how Kestrel managed to get thru this all, being probably the sole example of something really interesting.
Posts: 9,683
By: sferrin - 18th May 2005 at 18:53 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Not really strange (okay strange definitely but not unknown).
"Even so, it was clear by the mid-1950s that modern aircraft were too costly for Britain to pursue on its own. Nor was there need for them; American warplanes were the world's best and could easily be purchased. In 1957 the British minister of defense, Duncan Sandys, issued a White Paper, a formal document that announced a new policy: Great Britain would build no new fighter aircraft for its Royal Air Force. The industry was free to build airliners, sell fighters overseas, and collaborate with the United States and with France. Even so, this policy brought a sharp cutback in the prospects for Britain's planebuilders."
Kestrel survived most likely because it was perceived as a research aircraft.
By: Anonymous - 20th May 2005 at 05:28 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
To bad the Indian Navy didn't purchase the Rafale! The next question is will France ever find a export cusotmer for there canard fighter???
Posts: 1,583
By: Shadow1 - 20th May 2005 at 08:48 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Singapor is carefully reviewing the offer made by Dassault for 20 Rafales and Saudi Arabia recently announced they werer thinking of contracting Dassault for 49 aircraft with forty more on options. I am sure that other countries are presently looking at the aircraft for future orders.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 20th May 2005 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Here's an interesting copy of an article about the Rafale, in case anyone is interested:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/thread?forumid=211833&messageid=1094722874&lp=1095031744
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 20th May 2005 at 23:00 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
An intresting read. The Rafale is a capable fighter out of question.
Not carried away, I looked into the first demonstration flight.
The F2 standard Rafale has an empty-equipped of ~10,5 tons.
It was flown in a fighter configuration of 16,4 tons with an available max thrust of 15 tons. All the other ground-attack capabilities were shown virtually only. The Rafale was demonstrated low and not in speeds above 450 kt. The F3 standard Rafale will not weight-in lighter.
To claim a better t-w-ratio in relation to the Typhoon is not verified as long as it is not equipped with 9 tons engines. Not available till today.
The radar alone gives the Rafale a lead of two years in development time, impossible for EADS to catch-up. In its more matured avionik-suit the Rafale has its real strong-points. The other claims are less convincing.
To do no injustice to both. The Typhoon was designed as an air-superiority fighter for the Cold-War-time and AG was a secondary capability. The Rafale was designed as a replacement for all Mirage 2Ks at home and the export market from the start.
By: Anonymous - 21st May 2005 at 03:16 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Nobody seem to be rushing to buy the Tyhpoon and/or Rafale? What is everyone waiting for the JSF.................... :mad:
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 21st May 2005 at 03:24 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Well nobody in his right mind will dogfight with 2/3 fuel tanks and 2 storm shadows under the wings, so in that regard the thrust ratio under high load is totally irrelevant in my opinion. I would look at the max cruising speed/alt in those configuration as being much more important.
Anyway I have no clue why people focus on that T/W ratio. I find it very doubtfull that a combat occurs where this T/W ratio will be the decisive factor. I'd say both planes will sure have enough thrust compared to their weight and I'd leave it at that.
What's important is the sensors performance, the sensors fusion, weapons, ECM suite... they even state in the article that they count on off boresight targetting cues and super agile missiles like the Mica EM instead of increased manoeuvrability.
That said, if the Rafale could kick the EF's ass in T/W ratio, I'm all for it :D
Nic
Posts: 1,583
By: Shadow1 - 21st May 2005 at 07:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
I guess the easiest way to put these arguments to rest would be to take a Rafale from the French Navy and a Typhoon from the RAF and pit them against one another under tight test parameters. Select pilots who are qualified to fly both (I realize there probably aren't too many if any for that matter) and allow them to put these wonderful machines through the ringer.
On a serious note. There is no doubt in my mind that both aircraft can execute the missions to which they will be assigned with great ease. As far as the French are concerned, the Rafale is the best aircraft for their needs while the Eurofighter is the best tool for the needs of the RAF. In the end, during a conflict, it won't be the numbers or how fast the aircraft can go when it carried such and such equipment but rather how well the pilots will be able to use the machines to the best of his abilities. Only the man behind the controls will make the difference.
Posts: 1,403
By: Kovy - 21st May 2005 at 08:51 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Are the RAF typhoon cleared to use the aim-120B ?
I ask that because in the may issue of AFM, they say that the typhoon was only about to get her aim-9 clearance :rolleyes:
With only AIM-9, the Typhoon would be no match for a rafale M F1 with mica EM :diablo:
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 21st May 2005 at 12:26 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
You forget, that those F2 demonstrator (B302) was flown with just 2 Magic2, 2 Mica and a single 1250l supersonic tank under the belly = 16,4 tons TOW.
Do a similar load-out to the Typhoon and compare T-W-ratios.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 21st May 2005 at 12:32 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
It would be very nice if you could make a post without insulting the other posters. This is getting tiresome.
Edit: and you talking about objectivity is actually hilarious.
Nic
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 21st May 2005 at 12:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
No I did not. I agreed that the T/W ratio would be different in a plane that was really loaded compared to the plane it was simulating, however I just said that if the flight limitations of 5G/180°s roll/25AoA limits were engaged, it wouldn't change between a fully loaded plane and that simulated plane.
And besides, my point was just that it wasn't really important anyway in my opinion.
Nic
Posts: 226
By: Cliff Barnes - 21st May 2005 at 14:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
They focus on thrust to weight because they don't have any in-depth knowledge in flight dynamics. There are several other important parameters which are never going to be official, drag figures and grade of instability to take a couple of example.
Posts: 11,742
By: Sens - 21st May 2005 at 21:30 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
"There was not enough friction to keep the Rafale with brakes..."
How do you simulate weight and drag of a Rafale load-out with real SCALPs?
What will be the real powersettings for that and the real fuel-consumption?
Please do not twist and stay serious.
The Rafale is an excellent fighter and will be so despite some weaknesses. But we do not sell a perfect fighter, so we can look to both sides of the coin. Strong-points and weaker points. At least, when we blame the Typhoon.
Posts: 4,472
By: Nicolas10 - 21st May 2005 at 22:34 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
Mate; I have already agreed twice that the T/W wouldn't be the same as in the article in a real scenario! What else do you need?
My only point was when it came to the OTHER variables (5G, 180° roll and 25° AoA), because the way I understand it, the limits are programmed in the FCS, so there the actual weight of the plane wouldn't matter if the plane is limited to 5G and so on. Correct me if I am wrong, but I think we're arguing about wording more than about real performance issues.
Nic
Posts: 318
By: PILOTGHT - 22nd May 2005 at 00:27 Permalink - Edited 1st January 1970 at 01:00
""The F2 standard Rafale has an empty-equipped of ~10,5 tons.""
nope, the rafale B F2 is 9.6t the F2 BM will be the heavier 9.8t!
i was wrong, the last pdf of eurofighter tests quote a weight empty of 11.7t and the datas about the plane was done on the first version 9.7t in early 90's!
so my dad isn't better than your dad, he just look the facts with the good glasses!
AMSAR isn't a program , just a progect, and since 10 years no one want to put one penny on it to develop it, so thales and french gov go his own way!
all that remind me the singaporians who was impressed by the typhoon, and all the money british put on the evaluations, there was sounds about singapore close to buy it, it seems that BAE pricks just don't know how to caputures vibes from clients, after the greece and saudies "close to buy" for years! lol