Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 95 of 97 FirstFirst ... 458591929394959697 LastLast
Results 2,821 to 2,850 of 2905

Thread: Rafale news & discussion part XVI

  1. #2821
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    495
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    3400/34=100M$/plane
    Yes. If F-35A meets the price target, the budget may even buy a few simulators and stuff.

    Of course, they still have to pay from all those spares - it's just on different budget so who cares

  2. #2822
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,375
    The major battle will be political. By just dealing with raw airframe cost, they ensure themselves to not be jammed by hidden sunken cost, such as infra, equipment, ToT etc...

  3. #2823
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    Belgium has decided to go ahead with the procurement of 34 new fighters to replace its 54 F-16s. In the running is the Dassault Rafale, SH, Gripen E/F, F-35A and the Typhoon. But the budget being set aside for the procurement ($3.4 billion) would seem to be unrealistically low, considering recent sales for European aircraft. Perhaps only the Gripen E/F and Super Hornet would be able to somehow meet the current procurement budget.

    What is the buzz in France about this deal? Do they consider the chances of a sale for the Rafale to be good? Given India's 36 unit order for Rafales and some armaments, that cost it $8.8 billion, it would seem the Rafale is unaffordable for Belgium.
    Not really. Apart from planes , politics (no judgement on any plane here).

    Now this conversation is over. I don't have the time, will and tools at immediate hand reach to edit the video that I would need in order to compose a synthesis of what has been done already. Scroll back, browse or search the forum. Thanks.
    How surprising!
    Last edited by halloweene; 20th March 2017 at 23:45.

  4. #2824
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,375
    Don't you know You can search the forum by your self? It's an open source.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 21st March 2017 at 00:34.

  5. #2825
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by Peregrinefalcon View Post
    No, I have said that most of the time both planes were not going over 30° AoA and I have never stated that this is near constant state. I'll repeat, you are not going to see F-18 hitting 50 deg AoA mark that often simply because the drag at that condition will be to great for plane to have a second go at opponent that can regain energy much better (like Rafale for example). If you miss the chance to put the weapons on the enemy at that condition, most likely you'll be dead afterwards.
    In other words, there is a tight window where you can use that capability and you have to be pretty sure you are getting the job done. You can also use that capability as a last resort when put in to a tight spot.

    And like I said, above 30 deg AoA F-18 has advantage compared to Rafale, but we also have to account enormous part of the fight that comes before you can exploit that part of the flight envelope and that is the part where Rafale has clear advantage.
    I think these are some very valid points -- apart from training exercises (which we in most cases don't know the details of and therefore hard to properly assess) we have other sources, e.g. the Swiss leaks that clearly showed that in both the 2008 version but even more so the 2015 version of Rafale is much more capable than the F-18, also in a2a (as you would expect). High AOA limit no doubt is "nice to have" but I do have the impression there are many other factors that are much more important for the outcome, in particular sensors, sensor fusion, MMI, networking, etc. With good SA the Rafale will never be "surprised" by a Hornet suddenly showing up in WVR in an akward position thereby trigger the need for a high AOA manouver at exactly that point. The current Rafale does not even have HMD still it is doing quite well in a2a it seems.
    Last edited by Loke; 21st March 2017 at 07:53.

  6. #2826
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Don't you know You can search the forum by your self? It's an open source.
    Endless do it yourself instead of supporting claims... YOU make an assumption, when challenged to support it, YOU should support it. Otherwise just hot air...

  7. #2827
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by Loke View Post
    I think these are some very valid points -- apart from training exercises (which we in most cases don't know the details of and therefore hard to properly assess) we have other sources, e.g. the Swiss leaks that clearly showed that in both the 2008 version but even more so the 2015 version of Rafale is much more capable than the F-18, also in a2a (as you would expect). High AOA limit no doubt is "nice to have" but I do have the impression there are many other factors that are much more important for the outcome, in particular sensors, sensor fusion, MMI, networking, etc. With good SA the Rafale will never be "surprised" by a Hornet suddenly showing up in WVR in an akward position thereby trigger the need for a high AOA manouver at exactly that point. The current Rafale does not even have HMD still it is doing quite well in a2a it seems.
    Well... Qatari Rafale do have... (helmet)
    Last edited by halloweene; 21st March 2017 at 10:36.

  8. #2828
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,098
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Well... Qatari Rafale do have... (helmet)
    They got them already? That was fast!

  9. #2829
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Yes, see photo above.

  10. #2830
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,375
    Quote Originally Posted by halloweene View Post
    Endless do it yourself instead of supporting claims... YOU make an assumption, when challenged to support it, YOU should support it. Otherwise just hot air...
    I am not your mama feeding you by the spoon. Grow up. Especially in order to challenge me. Incorrigible ego that you have.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 21st March 2017 at 15:08.

  11. #2831
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Near Paris (France)
    Posts
    1,536
    TomcatVIP, I once lost a lot of time searching through air-defense a discussion you claimed (here on keypublishin) we had with you about Rafale/F-22. A pure waste of time as the discussion never happened. Sorry, feel free to provide us with the links. The excuse "use the search engine" is too convenient for you. At least as much as comparing Halloween to a newborn baby. Who talks about ego there ? Keep tracks of all the discussions you believe you won...
    Rafale news blog by Kovy :
    http://rafalenews.blogspot.com/

    The Rafale international forum :
    http://rafale.freeforums.org/

  12. #2832
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    41
    Quote Originally Posted by BlackArcher View Post
    Belgium has decided to go ahead with the procurement of 34 new fighters to replace its 54 F-16s. In the running is the Dassault Rafale, SH, Gripen E/F, F-35A and the Typhoon. But the budget being set aside for the procurement ($3.4 billion) would seem to be unrealistically low, considering recent sales for European aircraft. Perhaps only the Gripen E/F and Super Hornet would be able to somehow meet the current procurement budget.
    Initial budget is €3.6 billion (euros, not dollars) and if i remember correctly VAT isnt included in that sum so in reality the budget is bigger. Its basically an accounting trick to make the program more easily sellable to the public.

    What is the buzz in France about this deal? Do they consider the chances of a sale for the Rafale to be good? Given India's 36 unit order for Rafales and some armaments, that cost it $8.8 billion, it would seem the Rafale is unaffordable for Belgium.
    According to the Belgian media, F-35 and Rafale are considered the two frontrunners in the competition with the Eurofighter lagging behind while the Gripen and Super Hornet are clearly the two outsiders.
    Last edited by LoneWolf; 21st March 2017 at 19:03.

  13. #2833
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,375
    Quote Originally Posted by TMor View Post
    TomcatVIP, I once lost a lot of time searching through air-defense a discussion you claimed (here on keypublishin) we had with you about Rafale/F-22. A pure waste of time as the discussion never happened. Sorry, feel free to provide us with the links. The excuse "use the search engine" is too convenient for you. At least as much as comparing Halloween to a newborn baby. Who talks about ego there ? Keep tracks of all the discussions you believe you won...
    I don't know what to say, TMor. Why haven't you tell me anything at the time?*
    Who talks about ego there ? Keep tracks of all the discussions you believe you won...
    You seriously have a problem guys. A discussion is not something to won or loose. Where did you get that idea from? Seriously. We don't do parenting basis afterwork here. At last, I could not find any appropriate thread searching through the Search function that will indicate such.
    And for God sake, forget about me. You disagree. Great. Don't pull others (and me) in endless discussion trying to force us to re-do /do what was not agreed to. It doesn't get the ball rolling further or worth the bandwidth.

    *Note: let me know more in teh detail what was the topic of that discussion
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 21st March 2017 at 20:25.

  14. #2834
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,068
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    I don't know what to say, TMor. Why haven't you tell me anything at the time?*

    You seriously have a problem guys. A discussion is not something to won. Where did you get that idea from? Seriously. We don't do parenting basis afterwork here. At last, I could not find any appropriate thread searching through the Search function that will indicate such.
    And for God sake, forget about me. You disagree. Great. Don't pull others (and me) in endless discussion trying to force us to re-do /do what it won't agree to. It doesn't get the ball rolling further and doesn't worth the bandwidth.

    *Note: let me know more in teh detail what was the topic of that discussion
    Easy Tomcat. Just sustain your claims, and we will let you in peace. Check my records (function search) you will see that several time i was shown to have made mistakes and agreed...

  15. #2835
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    4,375
    Let me in peace?! What the... ! Any ADMIN here?

  16. #2836
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,381
    Quote Originally Posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Let me in peace?! What the... ! Any ADMIN here?
    Look who's the (cry)baby now.

  17. #2837
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    3,098
    LANGKAWI, Malaysia—The French government is making a last-ditch effort with industrial and credit inducements to get Malaysia to order Dassault Rafales ahead of a planned visit by its president next week to the Southeast Asian ...
    Full story: http://aviationweek.com/defense/fran...ssault-rafales

    LANGKAWI -- Treasury Secretary-General Tan Sri Dr Mohd Irwan Serigar Abdullah had the rare honour of taking a ride on a Rafale jet fighter at the Langkawi International Maritime and Aerospace Exhibition (LIMA '17) here today.

    Mohd Irwan, who celebrated his 60th birthday recently, described the ride as a meaningful birthday present for him.

    "This is the first time in my life and I feel so proud. I can't say the words. I really enjoyed it," he said.

    Mohd Irwan said the fighter jet was equipped with sophisticated technology and its procurement as a national defence asset should be considered by the government.
    Read more: http://malaysiandigest.com/news/6648...t-fighter.html

  18. #2838
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Ironic that the AoA discussion spilled over three pages (and onto another thread), with some posters still unable to accept the obvious; when an aircraft is limited to a certain operational angle of attack, it is for a reason. In the case of delta/ control canard aircraft, they have excellent high alpha characteristics and maintain lift up to a certain point (they are immune to a deep stall due to control canards. They still lack the lateral control of any single vertical tail aircraft and have to have careful forebody design to have sufficient rudder control as AoA increases.

    It would help if people actually read the posts and read links. Two of my posts from the very start of discussion:
    http://forum.keypublishing.com/showt...61#post2380361
    No, it was tested at over 100* AoA. Aircraft are tested to the extremes of their envelope for a reason. The Rafale is FCS limited to 30* AoA operationally. Likely there is directional instability at higher AoA like in similar single vertical stabilizer aircraft as it is blocked from airflow by the fuselage at high AoA. That's the reason for twin tails in aircraft capable of operationally flying at high AoA.
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Apparently there are a considerable amount of posters on here that think twin tails are for looks.

    Yup, and even if the Grip and Raf could "park" at those AoA in testing, there is a h•ll of a good reason the FCS prevents them from those AoA operationally. Love to hear one of these posters explain how either aircraft could deal with an asymmetric load inducing a yaw with no control surface available to counteract it.
    Here is a video hopsalot posted show exactly what I was talking about:

    Quote Originally Posted by hopsalot View Post
    And another video on depatures:

    Here is an easy primer on high alpha aerodynamics: http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Ma...AlphaNotes.pdf

    And here is a study I posted on the Gripen thread; Canard configurations at high alpha:
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9870013196.pdf

    In other words, if your "fav" aircraft is limited to 26-29 degrees alpha, it is for a reason. Not because it isn't useful, obviously it is useful or there would not be multiple high angle of attack test vehicles and studies on the potential of high alpha in air combat.
    Last edited by FBW; 22nd March 2017 at 15:26.

  19. #2839
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,381
    Quoting yourself saying that there is "likely" high alpha maneuverability issues with the Rafale without any sources to back it up?

    Ok point taken you believe that there is a high alpha manoeuvrability issue with the Rafale at high AoA because of eyeball aerodynamics.

    Nic

  20. #2840
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Read the links, why do you think I KNOW this? Hint- what does a rudder do?

  21. #2841
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,008
    and still, you look at articles speaking about other aircraft, using other aerodynamic formulas, which obviously have different aerodynamic behavior...

    How do the close coupled canards behave and influence the airflow around the aircraft at high AoA, you don't know. It all depends on how they are programmed... but if they can move up to +/-90° or more from their horizontal position, that may also be for a reason... we've seen Typhoon engineers cited, the guys who, 30 years after they conceived their aircraft still try to make it fly correctly at low speeds, as experts in what the Rafale can do, the Rafale who, on the contrary experienced zero slow speed handling problems that would lead to modifications in airframe aerodynamics... somehow, it doesn't sound very serious, don't you think?

  22. #2842
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Another person spouting off who didn't read the links. Read....

  23. #2843
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,008
    Nice read, still, not a word about what Dassault does and how they do it...

    let me give you a hint: if NASA (or USAF for that matter) knew it all to perfection, they'd need no more research to be done.. and the USA would spare huge amounts of cash they, strangely, keep spending on research.. they most certainly know many things other guys around the planet do not know, but just as well, others may have found things the guys in the USA don't know or can't do..

    An example: Boeing, while having access to lots of data from NASA, among others, had problems making the X-32 maneuverable enough... be it because of aerodynamic limitations of their design or FCS programming, or both... yet, Dassault does it with the Rafale quite well.. how? maybe because they've spend the last 60 years working on delta fighters and have an expertise in that area the others do not... If you go by Boeing metrics, deltas can't maneuver, and if someone tells you Mirage 2k or even more, the Rafale, are among the best dogfighters around, you'll answer "no it's not possible" and provide articles explaining that a 5th gen delta made in Boeing can't maneuver? Saying fighteer X can't do something because the fighter Y can't is apples to oranges comparison...

  24. #2844
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Asia
    Posts
    7,050
    @hallowene:
    it was revealed a gripen pilot has the option to override FCS for another 3g,
    and i know you are in contact with a rafale pilot, so,
    can you ask him if he can override FCS ?

    come to think of it, it may not be an aoa limiter per see, but rather a g limiter, that pour over into aoa,
    since pulling 12g on a daily basis would shorten lifetime
    Last edited by obligatory; 22nd March 2017 at 16:31.
    the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
    -Robert L Shaw

  25. #2845
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Typical response, long winded, lack of understanding of the topic at hand. There is nothing magical about the close coupled canard configuration. The studies were conducted by NASA in the early 1970's, Dassault did not re-invent the wheel.

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9750004860.pdf
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9780019193.pdf
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9750015442.pdf (canard wing interference at high AoA)

    I think they have a pretty good grasp of the characteristics.

    What has been added to earlier close coupled canard delta configurations is the addition of control (moving) canards. They do allow for some yaw control via differential deflection, and still have the good pitch control of the foreplane (canard configuration). It is not the same as the control authority provided by twin tails (look at the pictures I posted in Gripen thread), or TVC. You can pretend it isn't true but it's a pretty basic concept in high angle aerodynamics.

    Edit- To clear up for those not engaged in wishful thinking. The close coupled canard configuration has excellent high angle of attack benefits. The canards greatly enhance lift by generating strong vortices over the wings (where a conventional wing, esp. delta, would stall), they are immune to the deep stall.

    The issue is not with the close coupled canard-delta, it is with the horizontal stabilizer (as with any single tail). Every single aerodynamic configuration has advantages and drawbacks. Just because the twin tails of the F-18 may allow better yaw control doesn't mean it is a better choice, but it DOES allow for more control in high alpha. There is no such thing as the ideal aerodynamic layout in all regimes, sorry if a few proud Rafale fans have to accept that while your aircraft is superior in most every aspect of maneuverability over the F-18 family, the -18 can reach higher controllable AoA due to their tails.
    Last edited by FBW; 22nd March 2017 at 16:57.

  26. #2846
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    Quote Originally Posted by obligatory View Post
    come to think of it, it may not be an aoa limiter per see, but rather a g limiter, that pour over into aoa,
    since pulling 12g on a daily basis would shorten lifetime
    Quit while your behind, the angle of attack is directly related to load factor in a turn. As your bank angle increases to tighten the turn, you need to generate more lift.

  27. #2847
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    871
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    What has been added to earlier close coupled canard delta configurations is the addition of control (moving) canards.
    That's what make the nasa documents mostly irrelevant to modern implementation.

  28. #2848
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,008
    Quote Originally Posted by FBW View Post
    Typical response, long winded, lack of understanding of the topic at hand. There is nothing magical about the close coupled canard configuration. The studies were conducted by NASA in the early 1970's, Dassault did not re-invent the wheel.

    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9750004860.pdf
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9780019193.pdf
    https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/c...9750015442.pdf (canard wing interference at high AoA)

    I think they have a pretty good grasp of the characteristics.

    What has been added to earlier close coupled canard delta configurations is the addition of control (moving) canards. They do allow for some yaw control via differential deflection, and still have the good pitch control of the foreplane (canard configuration). It is not the same as the control authority provided by twin tails (look at the pictures I posted in Gripen thread), or TVC. You can pretend it isn't true but it's a pretty basic concept in high angle aerodynamics.

    Edit- To clear up for those not engaged in wishful thinking. The close coupled canard configuration has excellent high angle of attack benefits. The canards greatly enhance lift by generating strong vortices over the wings (where a conventional wing, esp. delta, would stall), they are immune to the deep stall.

    The issue is not with the close coupled canard-delta, it is with the horizontal stabilizer (as with any single tail). Every single aerodynamic configuration has advantages and drawbacks. Just because the twin tails of the F-18 may allow better yaw control doesn't mean it is a better choice, but it DOES allow for more control in high alpha. There is no such thing as the ideal aerodynamic layout in all regimes, sorry if a few proud Rafale fans have to accept that while your aircraft is superior in most every aspect of maneuverability over the F-18 family, the -18 can reach higher controllable AoA due to their tails.
    you are the one who seems to have problems man... I say: "data from other aircraft types do not apply as they don't share the basic caracteristics", yet, you come and explain that "NASA made research in the early 1970's"? in case you missed it, in the late seventies, in the US, there was that nice small fighter called F-16 that was made..; and it had something nobody had in the early 70's: it's called fly-by-wire controls... the one in the rafale was developed even later than that.. and that alone makes the research on "close coupled canards" from the early 70's irrelevant, as they had no way to study or evaluate what a computer controlled canards could do.. what's more, you speak about canards as control surfaces, but as far as the Rafale goes, they are there to manage the airflow over the aircraft (wingroots, fuselage and so on), what they do and how well they do it is anybody's guess (except for the guys at dassault who made them).. it's not about magic, only technology in a field in which they are pretty much among the best on this planet, if not the best (and I said "if not";. it is a possibility, not a claim).

    OPnce more, I'm all ears if you can provide a source saying "on the rafale the limitation is set to this value because of this or that", but as long as your only argument remains "NASA did this (45 years ago), Typhoon did that, Gripen did that.." and not a single point of data in relation to the aircraft we discuss, I'm sorry, but you remain beside the point

  29. #2849
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,225
    I provided you with everything you need to understand the topic. There is no magic, no unknown in flight control. You are the one that needs to provide counter evidence that the Rafale has a magical control of yaw when the vertical stab is blocked in high AoA, it is exactly that simple. If you can't, (which you cant't) then you'll get why the F-16, Rafale, and Gripen are AoA limited to around 30 degrees operationally. Testing is a different matter as they have sufficient margin of recovery.

    Please, if you are so confident, show me a study where a single vertical tail ( without tvc) can operate at very high alpha, with full control. I've provided you with articles in this and the Gripen thread that show they can't, period.
    Last edited by FBW; 22nd March 2017 at 18:00.

  30. #2850
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    495
    I don't understand what this discussion is about anymore (if I ever did). Surely it is obvious to any common sense person that AoA limitations are not put there just for the heck of it? In some cases there might be a 'soft limit' which can be exceeded if a situation demands but even that has a rationale behind it.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

- Part of the    Network -

KEY AERO AVIATION NEWS

MAGAZINES

AVIATION FORUM

SHOP

 

WEBSITES