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

  • St. John
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post

    Redundancy is a ky for safety. I they were (F-35 engineers) so confident in stealth, would they have radar attack modes?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    If they were that confidence of the self-defence suite, they wouldn't fly an an altitude where it's redundant.
    Redundancy is a ky for safety. I they were (F-35 engineers) so confident in stealth, would they have radar attack modes?

    Leave a comment:


  • St. John
    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.
    If they were that confidence in the self-defence suite, they wouldn't fly an an altitude where it's redundant.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Not a dual (radar plus/or numeric maps).

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • djcross
    replied
    Originally posted by OPIT View Post
    Except that the giant leap is in the systems, not the airframe.
    True, until you consider VLO. With VLO airframe design there is a giant leap in capability which Gen 4 does not possess.

    Leave a comment:


  • OPIT
    replied
    Originally posted by Scooter View Post

    The difference today is the giant leap in technology and capability over the previous generations.
    Except that the giant leap is in the systems, not the airframe.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by OPIT View Post
    My dear TomcatViP, what's insulting is to present a flawed logic as an humble logic. If it's okay to fly F-15 or F-16 for decades, then it's okay for others to envision the same thing.
    The difference today is the giant leap in technology and capability over the previous generations. So, comparing say the F-4 vs F-15 is not close to the gap between the F-15 and F-35. This smaller gap is supported today by the development of a number of 6th Generation Designs.


    This is not do say Rafales won't be around 30 years. Just fewer will overall....

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by SpudmanWP View Post
    Just a slight correction: The USAF is not "looking at the F-15X", it is being forced on them by forces outside the USAF.
    I doubt the USAF will ever acquire the proposed F-15X. Just can't make a case for it.....

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Once upon a time...

    Rafale sonic boom over the city of Soissons

    Pour rejoindre le jet priv, le Rafale a franchi le mur du son, 13 km daltitude, alors quil tait au-dessus de Soissons. Nous avons jug que ctait ncessaire de le faire, il tait suffisamment haut, ctait une dcision parfaitement mrie. On vite de le faire de faon inutile , souligne Cyrille Duvivier. Lofficier rappelle quun appareil est autoris passer en vitesse supersonique partir de 10 km daltitude. Le contact radio ayant pu tre repris entre-temps, le Rafale est rentr doucement la base.

    Suite la dtonation, les rseaux sociaux se sont affols, tmoignant des effets de la dflagration - logements qui vibrent - et listant une srie dusines : Weylchem Trosly-Breuil, Saint-Gobain Thourotte, Chanel au Meux Le service dpartemental d'incendie et de secours (SDIS) de lOise na quant lui signal aucun dgt.
    ---------------------------------------

    To reach the private Business jet [which had lost contact en route from Maroc to Belgium], the Rafale fighter passed Mach 1 at 13 km above sea level, while high above the town of Soissons [known for its sacred Vase from Clovis]. "We felt it was necessary to do this, it was high enough, it was a perfectly mature decision. We usually avoid doing it without reason"says Colonel Cyrille Duvivier. The officer remind that fighter jets are allowed to fly supersonic above 10 km of altitude. As the radio contact [with the lost BJ] was resumed in the meantime, the Rafale returned "gently" to its base.
    Following the blast of the detonation, the social media were full of panicked testimony, testifying about the effects of an explosion - dwellings that vibrate - linking them to a list of suspected factories: Weylchem in Trosly-Breuil, Saint-Gobain in Thourotte, Chanel au Meux ... Although the local Fire and Rescue department did not report any damages.
    And that for the story of the Rafale in a China shop... Goodnight kids

    Source:
    Le Courrier Picard.fr
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 11th February 2019, 00:23.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackonicko
    replied
    So it's not yet operational. No biggy. It won't take long. Though the failure to provide a two-way datalink seems odd.

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Errr Meteor IS integrated. It is at CEAM only for doctrinal reasons, so as to "write the book" on how to use it.

    Leave a comment:


  • TomcatViP
    replied
    Ppl are mixing the facts: the USAF has hundred of F-15 already. That fleet isn't going to be phased out anytime soon. Buying a few example new is just all about fleet management. Why would you keep the most rusted airframe in-service when you can just buy a handful of them new to cut down your fleet obsolescence?
    FrAF or IAF would certainly have been pleased to do the same with theirr M2K

    Leave a comment:


  • Jackonicko
    replied
    So which other weapons aren't yet operational on Rafale, or haven't been cleared.
    Attached Files

    Leave a comment:


  • SpudmanWP
    replied
    Israeli were also forced?
    Nope. Israel had three basic reasons for "buying" more F-15s:
    1. It was a 3-airframe package from one mfg so the cost discounts were "too good to pass up"
    2. All of their existing F-15s are being upgraded as part of the deal
    3. The US is paying for a majority of it so "why not"
    Yes, everybody says that on F-16 so it is Gospel truth.
    Now you're learning

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Originally posted by halloweene View Post
    Their are sometimes comical sentences here and there (not so on this forum). Like Europe tech lags 15 years behind US when F-35 was designed on a french software, Airbus and Boeing using Dassault Systems 3DS colaborative platform and time to time NASA asking for aerodynamic expertise of DA... Show them a slide of a Thales congress conference (not a PR stunt) and they get mad because well... Because it would be more advanced than F-35? and 5 years later F-35 will have another trick to get more advanced etc.?
    Life cycles.
    Just a slight correction: The USAF is not "looking at the F-15X", it is being forced on them by forces outside the USAF.

    Yes, everybody says that on F-16 so it is Gospel truth. Israeli were also forced?

    Leave a comment:


  • halloweene
    replied
    Their are sometimes comical sentences here and there (not so on this forum). Like Europe tech lags 15 years behind US when F-35 was designed on a french software, Airbus and Boeing using Dassault Systems 3DS colaborative platform and time to time NASA asking for aerodynamic expertise of DA... Show them a slide of a Thales congress conference (not a PR stunt) and they get mad because well... Because it would be more advanced than F-35? and 5 years later F-35 will have another trick to get more advanced etc.?
    Life cycles.

    Leave a comment:


  • SpudmanWP
    replied
    Just a slight correction: The USAF is not "looking at the F-15X", it is being forced on them by forces outside the USAF.

    Leave a comment:

Unconfigured Ad Widget

Collapse

 

Working...
X