Key.Aero Network
Register Free

Page 8 of 10 FirstFirst ... 45678910 LastLast
Results 211 to 240 of 299

Thread: Rafale 2018 Thread: Europe's best Eurocanard

  1. #211
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    123
    yes it largely can. the 1250 L tanks are made to go supersonic.

    also able to supercruise in 'fox' loadout (centerline 1250 L) and MICAs, although I'm not sure at what mach.

    it is medium altitude plane
    lol.

  2. #212
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,693
    It's top speed is mach 1.8 and it is medium altitude plane. highly doubtful that it can pass even mach 1 with tanks for any amount of time.
    I do not think the pilot who is telling the rear sitting journo's we're at Mach 1.7 atm really cares aout your doubts. MAch 1.8 is a top operational speed, true. But why?

  3. #213
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    3,269
    Mach 1.8 is the top speed not by thrust/drag ratio but a software limit to protect the airframe from overspeeding some parts like the windshield or to avoid the sonic shockwaves inside the inlet ducts hitting the compressors of the engines (which may stall them). The reserve power is way sufficient to reach higher speeds but at the risk of damaging parts of the aircraft, or to sustain the "under limit speeds" with more drag than clean airframe only
    Last edited by TooCool_12f; 15th April 2018 at 15:30.

  4. #214
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,693
    yes it largely can. the 1250 L tanks are made to go supersonic.
    It is documented (Rafale over Afghanistan, Cpt Romain) that "non supersonic" tanks are cleared for mach 1.3

  5. #215
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,371
    La mission aura duré 10 heures, avec plusieurs ravitaillements en vol. Les cinq Rafale ont rejoint quatre Mirage 2000 et un AWACS au-dessus de la Corse pour ensuite prendre la direction de la Syrie.

    ------------
    Mission lasted 10hr with numerous aerial refueling. The 5 Rafale were joined by 4 M2K and one AWAC above Corsica before heading to Syria

    [...]
    "Les risques, au moment où nous sommes partis, existaient. Nous ne connaissions pas les règles d'engagement russes. On s'était préparé en prenant en compte cette option, de manière à nous préserver", rapporte le colonel.

    ---------

    There was some risks at the time we launched for Syria. We didn't know what were the Russian's rules of engagement. We were ready to take care of our own safety
    (A fr Rafale pilot)

    Source:
    France Info.fr

  6. #216
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1,034
    do not think the pilot who is telling the rear sitting journo's we're at Mach 1.7 atm really cares aout your doubts. MAch 1.8 is a top operational speed, true. But why?
    Never forget that the RAFALE A demonstrator has reached Mach 2 very early in its flight tests. Current rafales are limited to mach 1,8 due to the air intake design (S -duct) to incorporate RCS reduction.

  7. #217
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    191
    Even factoring intake design into the overall picture I'd imagine the aircraft is limited by the flight software versus being physically incapable of going past Mach 1.8.

    Why are they bothering having Mirage 2000s escort Rafales? At this point I don't think the Mirage 2000 has any air-to-air capabilities that the Rafale lacks.

  8. #218
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    123
    Because -5s are still very serious players when it comes to air superiority. Their unit is dedicated to do this job, so why not task them? Also, more Rafale were maybe not immediatly available.

    And I can't resist to my bash guilty pleasure.. you'll notice how the Typhoons were relegated to air superiority role. It's (un)surprisingly unable to perform any long range cruise misisle strike and will remain so.
    Last edited by EC 5/25 Corsair; 17th April 2018 at 07:47.

  9. #219
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    259
    Because Rafales while they can self escort , could have had to abort their mission in doing so , as opposed to having a dedicated escort tasked to protect the various supporting assets and strike package to prevent a mission kill in case of opposition. M2000-5 is still very much potent in that role, and still the working horse of most units dedicated to that role , until they switched to Rafale that is .
    So all in all , no reason to have an all Rafale setup, when other means are readily available to fulfill the task. Incidentally the Rafale is in high demand in other actions, so availability might have been an issue too.

  10. #220
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    243
    We don't have many details about the operation but i think it's likely that two M2K stayed near the AWAC (to protect him) and the 2 others stayed behind the Rafales, all these planes share the data of the AWAC and the infos acquired passively (or with LPI) by the Rafales via link 16. If the shi* hit the fan the M2k can engage passively an aerial menace and the Rafales can stay silent too and continue their strike mission. That's just my guess.

  11. #221
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,656
    What a dumb thing to say about Typhoon.

  12. #222
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,371
    And nobody seems to have noticed that with 5 Rafle carrying each two Scalp and only 9 launched toward Syria, one may have been defectuous.
    Last edited by TomcatViP; 17th April 2018 at 20:25.

  13. #223
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    123
    Yes, we did. No idea about its fate, either malfunctioned at launched, jettisoned... One sure thing, it was not under the Rafale's wing at RTB.

    What a dumb thing to say about Typhoon.
    care to elaborate?

  14. #224
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    243
    I noticed that too but but my guess was that they realise that the job was done with 9 and so they don't launch the 10rd because it cost about 850k euros, i'm maybe too optimistic or not enough pessimistic ...

  15. #225
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    135
    It's (un)surprisingly unable to perform any long range cruise misisle strike and will remain so.

    care to elaborate?
    I think he means that Storm Shadow is almost qualified and it would surely be fairly easy to take-off from Cyprus, fire it and RTB, which is about the extent of the strike mission conducted here.

  16. #226
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    243
    The thing is that with the Typhoon you need 8 of them to launch eight Storm Shadow (with 2 EFT each) or four of them with only one belly EFT and then i think it becomes a nightmare in term of refuelling, so it's easiest to use the old Tornado GR4...
    Last edited by Cream; 17th April 2018 at 20:47.

  17. #227
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    259
    Most likely the 10 th scalp did not initialized as expected or its auto diagnostic return a fail at time of launch and ultimately was jettisoned . On return all aircrafts had no ordnance left. Make sens given the distance and refuelling to go through to get rid of it rather that risk a return with an asymmetrical draggy dude. So for once the redundancies were used.

  18. #228
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,699
    The level of know how in this particular topic about the Typhoon keeps getting better...
    The reason why the Typhoon was not not used with the Storm Shadow is because the weapon has not been declared operational on that particular airframe.
    The MBDA Storm Shadow will be declared operational on Phoon by the end of this year right before the Tornado bows out in 2019.

  19. #229
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    123
    That does not invalidate that the A/G (esp. cruise missile) layout for the Typhoon is sub optimal and makes it unable to perform long range strike as long as CFT are not integrated.

    A Typhoon with 2 ALCM would barely carry 5,5 tons of fuel with a puny centerline tank, with most of its counterparts topping off with 50 to nearly 100% (Super Hornet, Rafale) more fuel. It's completely unfit for the role.

  20. #230
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    243
    I'm really sorry if i being too optimistic about the current operational capability of the Typhoon, maybe i read too much the Typhoon's fanboys.
    I almost thought he had an operational AESA radar ...

  21. #231
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    4,523
    But the Typhoon is so much better in air combat...

  22. #232
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Posts
    123
    let's be real, the Typhoon is a very serious player in air superiority.

    some people are just too prone to fall to Eurofighter's marketed bells and whistles (genuinely or not, I cannot blame)...
    Last edited by EC 5/25 Corsair; 17th April 2018 at 21:42.

  23. #233
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2,986
    152 to 96- I don’t think the resident Rafale club should be knocking the aircraft that has secured more export orders. Obviously, operators see capability in the Typhoon.

    Personally, I’m a “fan” of the Rafale as the more capable multirole aircraft due to a clear, funded upgrade path. If the consortium ever gets its act together and maximizes the inherent potential of the Typhoon, it will be a potent multirole fighter into the next decade and a competitor for the Rafale in markets shut to the F-35. Bets on if that will happen? I don’t like the odds.

  24. #234
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    New Sarum
    Posts
    4,656
    Every cell in my being cries out not to get drawn into a 2002 style discussion on this, but the fact is that Typhoon will be taking over the Storm Shadow launch role in a matter of months when Tornado bows out.

    If the RAF want it to carry two missiles underwing then it will carry two and use the tankers they have. If they decide this is too much like had work (they are very proud of their tanking capability though, its almost like they enjoy it), then CFTs may appear. At this stage CFTs dont seem to be that important.
    Last edited by mrmalaya; 18th April 2018 at 09:03.

  25. #235
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    135
    The thing is that with the Typhoon you need 8 of them to launch eight Storm Shadow (with 2 EFT each) or four of them with only one belly EFT and then i think it becomes a nightmare in term of refuelling, so it's easiest to use the old Tornado GR4...
    Have you seen where RAF Akrotiri is in relation to Syria? If the missile could be ground launched, you wouldn't even need a plane at all, never mind IFR.

    Most likely the 10 th scalp did not initialized as expected or its auto diagnostic return a fail at time of launch and ultimately was jettisoned . On return all aircrafts had no ordnance left. Make sens given the distance and refuelling to go through to get rid of it rather that risk a return with an asymmetrical draggy dude. So for once the redundancies were used.
    Or some or all were Rafale Ms, which only carry 1 on centreline for roll stability reasons.
    Last edited by St. John; 18th April 2018 at 13:36.

  26. #236
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    3,699
    Quote Originally Posted by EC 5/25 Corsair View Post
    That does not invalidate that the A/G (esp. cruise missile) layout for the Typhoon is sub optimal and makes it unable to perform long range strike as long as CFT are not integrated.

    A Typhoon with 2 ALCM would barely carry 5,5 tons of fuel with a puny centerline tank, with most of its counterparts topping off with 50 to nearly 100% (Super Hornet, Rafale) more fuel. It's completely unfit for the role.
    Warn the RAF, they didnt get your memo

  27. #237
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    "Where the fruit is"
    Posts
    5,371
    St John: there is a video of the takeoff:


  28. #238
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    243
    Btw according to Russian officials:

    General Staff Colonel Sergei Rudskoy indicated that: "French aircraft have not been registered by the Russian air defence systems." ...

    http://eng.mil.ru/en/news_page/count...2171300@egNews

    Maybe the french operation was an hoax, who knows?

  29. #239
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    3,693
    Or maybe Rafale is more efficient than for ex. F-35?

  30. #240
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    243
    Or some or all were Rafale Ms, which only carry 1 on centreline for roll stability reasons.
    The Rafale M is just basically a Rafale with stronger landing gear so if they operate from the ground they can carry 2 Scalp. The limitation come from the "bring back capability" on carrier in case of only one cruise missile was launched and so you have to land on a carrier with a big asymetrical load (or you have to jetisson a 800k euros cruise missile). And there is no two-seater Rafale M.Name:  M02 3x2000l-2scalp-4mica.jpg
Views: 341
Size:  14.8 KB

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