Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

Collapse
X
Collapse
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TomcatViP
    replied
    From the M2K to the Rafale, "fatter" was the goal...

    Also, is this fat, because it's full of juice with a WB?

    Last edited by TomcatViP; 13th February 2019, 10:10.

    Leave a comment:


  • OPIT
    replied
    Originally posted by Scooter View Post

    Keep living in your dream world. As the large internal volume of the airframe on Stealth Fighters is a "huge" benefit. If, you care to acknowledge it or not...
    You're welcome in this dream world. If a large internal fuel volume was such a huge benefit then everyone would build fatter fighters.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by OPIT View Post
    No I'm not. You're just pretending that a by product of VLO (internal weapon bays) is yet another benefit. Ditto about the large internal fuel volume vs external fuel tanks.
    While I'm at it, the "5th generation fighter" label is a LM thing I just don't care about.
    Keep living in your dream world. As the large internal volume of the airframe on Stealth Fighters is a "huge" benefit. If, you care to acknowledge it or not...

    Leave a comment:


  • Kovy
    replied
    Nice picture of the Charles de Gaulle, ready for duty after her MLU.

    Click image for larger version

Name:	1549882463-pa.jpg
Views:	918
Size:	444.4 KB
ID:	3850855

    Leave a comment:


  • St. John
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post

    urban legend. Check.
    Err, nope, it's a complete fact.
    https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/gulf/cron/

    Bit on page 20.
    https://www.gao.gov/assets/230/224366.pdf

    It's been a feature in stats since Vietnam. 1,244 SA-2s were launched to kill just 15 B-52s but aircraft flying at low level were picked off with ease. All you need at low level is some lucky git with an MG. If my air force was going to lose an aircraft, I'd want it to at least cost the enemy a long-range SAM or more.

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post

    urban legend. Check.
    Yes, Im sure the Saratoga aviators who attacked H-3 in 1991 would agree with you. Low level-=absolutely safe.

    I guess your right, AdlA doesnt need LO assets, after-alll shaping wont help when your nap of the earth flying and happen over a technical mounted with a 14.5 mm KPV.

    In all seriousness, there is a place for low level penetration, but youd better hope the element of surprise isnt lost. Radar guided AAA and systems like Roland dont give a lot of reaction time for countermeasures. Low level exposes you to pop up threats. Next time to interview a Rafale pilot, ask them if they would rather go in at low level or high altitude against an alert target protected by systems like Tor and pantsir. My guess is they are going to answer high altitude with stand off weapons , not to mention stand-off jamming and cruise missile strikes to neutralize long range area denial systems.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    That's why you have Alpha. And no, it's not a Marvel action hero.

    We have also shown before in those pages* that the G limit in the HUD is 10 beyond what the G meter freeze. Either it is the manifestation of a FBW limitation (would seem logical) either the HUD symbol can't be incremented beyond that number (not logical). So way above would logically be... 10. Something already a pain to watch.

    In this video, I haven't seen the G limit pass 9.8
    The Alpha also is capped around 25 in this demo
    There is also l'Effet bote Meuh manifesting itself during rolls excursion.
    The AoA indicator (gear down) showing up at 30deg
    The fuel fraction is minimal with a low fuel indication popping up at the third of the video and Bingo status at two-third.

    *Thanks to a video that was posted of a pilot demonstrating the high G 360 turn in front of the aircraft carrier CdG.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 12th February 2019, 16:17.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    2018 Rafale demo "from inside" really interesting. Regularly way above 9g. Poor pilot fighting forces...

    https://youtu.be/lVrE-h62llA
    Last edited by halloweene; 12th February 2019, 15:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Originally posted by St. John View Post
    That's the exact opposite of what Desert Storm statistics show as regards ground-based air defences. And modern aircraft can look-down and shoot-down with ease.
    urban legend. Check.

    Leave a comment:


  • stealthflanker
    replied
    Originally posted by djcross View Post
    I sincerely hope Rafale's radar has an LPI TF mode, because someone will use ESM to build a weapons quality track and shoot it. If it emits, it dies.
    Terrain following is easily LPI as it basically needs only few to tens of Watts. and Phased arrays can support it no problem. Remember as during TF your target which is earth is alot closer, and its wide thus quite large RCS already to work with without a hassle. Sidelobes are manageable depending on what kind of algorithm supported by the radar.

    The one actually need to worry for ESM sneaking around is the air to air combat modes as this entails more power requirement.

    Aside from radar tho, one would be worried more about datalink and communications as this is usually use wide beam omni antenna and always operate at full power. But then communications can have almost noise like waveform (DSSS) Something which radar can't use (yes there are no real "noise radar" except one wish to lose doppler filtering capability)

    Leave a comment:


  • St. John
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post

    blah blah about stealth "magic". It just means shorter time to detect and react for the opponent. Yes, it is useful. But if you ever went into a back seat looking down, even with doppler, it is difficult to differentiate a plane from clutter. Now lokk Rafale from above, pretty sleek shapes...
    That's the exact opposite of what Desert Storm statistics show as regards ground-based air defences. And modern aircraft can look-down and shoot-down with ease.

    Leave a comment:


  • OPIT
    replied
    Originally posted by Scooter View Post
    Your very mistaken as the "airframes" of the 5th Generation Fighters. Allow them to carry weapons internally and large volumes of fuel. These are just as big of a benefit as Stealth and Sensor Fusion to the overall package.
    No I'm not. You're just pretending that a by product of VLO (internal weapon bays) is yet another benefit. Ditto about the large internal fuel volume vs external fuel tanks.
    While I'm at it, the "5th generation fighter" label is a LM thing I just don't care about.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by OPIT View Post
    Except that the giant leap is in the systems, not the airframe.
    Your very mistaken as the "airframes" of the 5th Generation Fighters. Allow them to carry weapons internally and large volumes of fuel. These are just as big of a benefit as Stealth and Sensor Fusion to the overall package.

    Leave a comment:


  • djcross
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post
    Noone denies that VLO IS a big advantage for survivability. Simply for Raffale they assessed survivability with a diferent concept. Extremely sophisticated self defense suite and capability to fly 550Kts at 200 fts in automatic follow ground mode.
    I sincerely hope Rafale's radar has an LPI TF mode, because someone will use ESM to build a weapons quality track and shoot it. If it emits, it dies.

    Leave a comment:


  • edi_right_round
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post
    Ah your talking F-111. Was gonna say, Mirage-2000 is fbw and has flight control knot/Mach limits that can only be briefly exceeded.

    F-111 was technically 750 knots on deck I believe, but actually time limited by heating (could greatly exceed 750 knots for short time). Yeah, Ive read stories of pilots saying Mach 1.4+ on deck. Ill have to listen to that interview when I have a few min.
    Yes man,the 111.That guy has like 3 interviews plus actual flight videos and q&a.Really awesome and cool guy.
    then theres the Tornado guys in TFR in Az going as fast as they could and then an 111 comes and just disappeares in front of them

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Originally posted by St. John View Post
    Err... to kill other planes which aren't stealthy.

    If you're flying at 200ft it doesn't matter whether you're in a Rafale or an F-86. In fact the smaller F-86 might even be more difficult to hit.
    blah blah about stealth "magic". It just means shorter time to detect and react for the opponent. Yes, it is useful. But if you ever went into a back seat looking down, even with doppler, it is difficult to differentiate a plane from clutter. Now lokk Rafale from above, pretty sleek shapes...

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    Ah your talking F-111. Was gonna say, Mirage-2000 is fbw and has flight control knot/Mach limits that can only be briefly exceeded.

    F-111 was technically 750 knots on deck I believe, but actually time limited by heating (could greatly exceed 750 knots for short time). Yeah, Ive read stories of pilots saying Mach 1.4+ on deck. Ill have to listen to that interview when I have a few min.
    Last edited by FBW; 11th February 2019, 22:40.

    Leave a comment:


  • edi_right_round
    replied
    Originally posted by FBW View Post

    1000+ KCAS at sea level? No.

    Airspeed limit at sea level is 800 knots- 1.2. (most likely same reason as F-16, flight control placard limit 800 knots),
    600 knots using automatic terrain following.
    Well there is an interview of Jeff Guinn,at Aircrew Interview he said that they had no problems doing that.Pretty interesting if you got time

    Leave a comment:


  • FBW
    replied
    More like M1.5 and going on
    1000+ KCAS at sea level? No.

    Airspeed limit at sea level is 800 knots- 1.2. (most likely same reason as F-16, flight control placard limit 800 knots),
    600 knots using automatic terrain following.

    Last edited by FBW; 11th February 2019, 18:44.

    Leave a comment:


  • edi_right_round
    replied
    Originally posted by TomcatViP View Post
    Well it had two radars. The one that'd you expect and the TFR, an architecture commune to many US design of the 60/70's... Idem with the Mirage 2000N & D. Plus it could fly at Mach 1.2 on deck.
    More like M1.5 and going on

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X