Know Your 'Rafale'

[jouy31]

http://www.paxaquitania.fr/2018/05/tournee-dadieux-pour-les-mirage-2000n.html

The Mirage 2000N will be retired by the end of the summer, as their nuclear deep strike missions have all been taken up by Rafale.

 

[BON PLAN]

The usual paperspec knowledge that you showed before, when I showed you how UAEs F16 B60s can carry more weapons thx to CFTs. Only fanboys use payload figures, without understanding that the key is the number of weapon stations, that are free and able to carry a certain weapon.

Rafale can also be fitted with CFT...
Watch my pic just some posts before : 13 stations on Rafale. 5 for heavy loads or tanks.

EF carry its laser pod on the central station and the external tanks are smaller than those of the french planes. A pity.

 

[BON PLAN]

As usual, just jump into excuses instead of checking the Rafale infos and understanding them first.

Rafale can carry Meteor only at the the stations 10/6 + 3/12 => a total of 4 max in CAP config with 2 x supersonic fuel tanks at stations 4/11.
In A2G config, the stations 3/12 will be blocked by A2G weapons, which leaves just 2 x Meteor.

An EF carries a minimum of 4 x Meteor in any configuration, thx to the missile stations at the fuselage. In CAP it could even add 2 more on the wings => 6 max

Even Gripen E can carry more Meteor than Rafale, since the 3 x centerline stations, seems to be the basic fit for most configurations. 3 + 2 (mid wing station) in CAP (=> 5 max) and 3 in strike configs are possible.

6 Meteor on EF : nice.
4 on Rafale but you can add 4 MICA. No too bad.

Gripen E with 5 Meteor? Are you sure it can take off with this load ??? The configuration is not open so wait and see (remember Mirage 2000 to be equipped with 5 Hammer bombs.... the config was never cleared because of aerodynamic issue. 3 Meteor so near under the belly.... I don't believe in it)

 

[BON PLAN]

https://www.livefistdefence.com/201...ia-embarks-on-new-fighter-building-quest.html

 

[Sancho]

Rafale can also be fitted with CFT...
Watch my pic just some posts before : 13 stations on Rafale. 5 for heavy loads or tanks.

But can't replace external tanks with CFTs and 2 heavy stations will always be blocked by tanks, which leaves only 2-3 stations for weapons, while EF has 4 stations for weapons. Rafale simply has less useful weapon stations, while EF has a limited centerline station.

6 Meteor on EF : nice.
4 on Rafale but you can add 4 MICA. No too bad.

Not bad at all, but not Meteor either.

3 Meteor so near under the belly.... I don't believe in it)

What you believe is not important, what is proposed and shown by Saab or MBDA is.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCxjP7MWAAAhUqi.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKKj7juXUAEgvRP.jpg

https://images.financialexpress.com/2016/05/gripen-e7.jpg

Not to mention that the NG had made test flights with 2 x 2000lb LGBs on those stations, so why should Meteor be a problem?

 

[WolfPack86]

Reliance Group plans to start work on radar components at Mihan-SEZ
https://twitter.com/indiandefencera?lang=en

 

[BON PLAN]

But can't replace external tanks with CFTs and 2 heavy stations will always be blocked by tanks, which leaves only 2-3 stations for weapons, while EF has 4 stations for weapons. Rafale simply has less useful weapon stations, while EF has a limited centerline station.

1) No EF was seen in the sky with CFT. Rafale instead....
2) Rafale with CFT and a single heavy external tank in the center line station has a higher range than EF in every config (with the same load). It leave 4 heavy stations under rafale, 2 Meteor and 4 MICA.
3) Meteor wil never be carried I think in a AtoG mission.

EF can carry more Medium AtoA missile. normal, it was designed as a air to air plane only, when Rafale car do all.

A test pilot of Rafale said 15 years ago that Rafale is probably not the best plane in every single specific area, but it did very well all missions.

 

[BON PLAN]

What you believe is not important, what is proposed and shown by Saab or MBDA is.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DCxjP7MWAAAhUqi.jpg

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DKKj7juXUAEgvRP.jpg

https://images.financialexpress.com/2016/05/gripen-e7.jpg

Not to mention that the NG had made test flights with 2 x 2000lb LGBs on those stations, so why should Meteor be a problem?

scale models....
Power point...

I can show you a flying Mirage 2000 with 5 AASM under the frame. But finally this config was never OPERATIONNALY cleared.

Do you want me to make a power point of a Rafale with 7 METEOR ?

 

[Sancho]

Rafale display

 

[Sancho]

2) Rafale with CFT and a single heavy external tank in the center line station has a higher range than EF in every config (with the same load).

Rafale - 2 x 1150l CFT + 2000l centerline in A2G => 4300l
2 x 1150l CFT + 1200l centerline in A2A => 3500l

EF - 2 x 1500l CFT + 1000l centerline in A2G and A2A => 4000l with 6 stations for bombs or additional missiles, next to the 4 Meteor

EF can carry more Medium AtoA missile. normal, it was designed as a air to air plane only, when Rafale car do all.

That's not correct, it also can carry more strike weapons up to 1000lb GBU16 and also more anti ship or AR missiles (if they get integrated). The only problem is for 2000lb bombs and cruise missiles, because that's where the design flaw of the centerline station and limited heavy/wet stations comes in. That's why Rafale will always the better deep strike fighter, while the EF will be superior in other strikes.

scale models....
Power point...

Official role out of Gripen E in Brazil. :biggrin2:
That's enough to show what is proposed or possible.

 

[BON PLAN]

EF - 2 x 1500l CFT + 1000l centerline in A2G and A2A => 4000l with 6 stations for bombs or additional missiles, next to the 4 Meteor

where do you install a laser pod? Because it's intensively used.

 

[Sancho]

where do you install a laser pod? Because it's intensively used.

The LDP is only used for CAS, in which case you don't need the centerline tank on the EF anyway, since the CFTs alone hold 3000l, more than it carries today with external tanks!
Rafale in CAS would need 2300l in the CFTs + at least a supersonic fuel tank to be comparable.

No matter how hard you try, you can't negate the fact, that Rafales CFTs are not useful to replace external tanks, because the capacity is lower. Just as it is a fact that it can carry less Meteor, 1000lb bombs, or most A2G missiles (smaller than CMs), because of the advantages of the EFs weapons stations.
Rafale only on paper has many stations, but the 2nd pod station under the air intake, or the 2nd centerline station are useless and the external wingstations mainl meant for MICA, which so far no customer uses.

So as any fighter, it has it's pros and cons.

 

[BON PLAN]

The LDP is only used for CAS, in which case you don't need the centerline tank on the EF anyway, since the CFTs alone hold 3000l, more than it carries today with external tanks!
Rafale in CAS would need 2300l in the CFTs + at least a supersonic fuel tank to be comparable.

You forget Rafale is less greedy of fuel.

 

[BON PLAN]

No matter how hard you try, you can't negate the fact, that Rafales CFTs are not useful to replace external tanks, because the capacity is lower. Just as it is a fact that it can carry less Meteor, 1000lb bombs, or most A2G missiles (smaller than CMs), because of the advantages of the EFs weapons stations.
Rafale only on paper has many stations, but the 2nd pod station under the air intake, or the 2nd centerline station are useless and the external wingstations mainl meant for MICA, which so far no customer uses.

The two Rafale CFT offer a better range than 2 supersonic tanks, it's sure (same capacity at 50 liters each and less drag). And because the smaller drag than the 2000L ext. tanks, the range is betwwen 2x1200L and 2x2000L.
Less Meteor : OK. In the actual config (2 or 4).
1000Lb bombs : The EF config with 6 is useless, because the range is awfull.

For the moment the sole advantage EF offer is the ability (now or in a very near futur) to carry a high load of Brimstone. It's a lack for Rafale.
I hope to see in few years a Rafale with Brimstones, or laser guided rockets or SPEAR weapons in a 4 arrangement under each heavy stations.

 

[Sancho]

You forget Rafale is less greedy of fuel.

Lol, so you went from a2a missile load, to a2g weapon load, over CFT / tank capacity now to fuel consumption, because you got all the above wrong.

Is it really that hard for you to admit, that Rafale is not perfect and that there are fields where the EF can be superior?

 

[BON PLAN]

Lol, so you went from a2a missile load, to a2g weapon load, over CFT / tank capacity now to fuel consumption, because you got all the above wrong.

Is it really that hard for you to admit, that Rafale is not perfect and that there are fields where the EF can be superior?

No, the Rafale is not perfect.
It does all mission very well, when some does only one mission quite perfectly and all the others moderatly.

You just have to read swiss eval to understand that Rafale is superior in nearly all fields. And with the PESA radar... Since Rafale evolved more than EF, so the gap is even bigger.

 

[BON PLAN]

https://www.youtube.com/embed/Fe3EpNK1k3M

From 2.25 to 2.32 : more than 180° in ... 7 secondes.

 

[Steven Rogers]

The actual size or diameter of the Rafale's nose is around 550mm or 55cms, smaller than almost every aircraft. Then how RBE2 AESA is better than Apg80, Apg79, and other aesa radars.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

 

[BON PLAN]

The actual size or diameter of the Rafale's nose is around 550mm or 55cms, smaller than almost every aircraft. Then how RBE2 AESA is better than Apg80, Apg79, and other aesa radars.

Sent from my Aqua Ace II using Tapatalk

APG79 has, normally, a greater range.
RBE2 AESA is better than APG80, sure. Already discussed.

Why? better T/R modules (the european ones offer a range of 200km when the US ones used on the prototyp gave 150km in the same conditions (ie a same RCS target) ). Near 20 years of softwares improvements (PESA algorythms run on AESA)

 

[StealthFlanker]

RBE2 AESA is better than APG80, sure. Already discussed.

Why? better T/R modules (the european ones offer a range of 200km when the US ones used on the prototyp gave 150km in the same conditions (ie a same RCS target) ). Near 20 years of softwares improvements (PESA algorythms run on AESA)

where the heck does that even came from?, what exact T/R modules we are talking about?