Know Your 'Rafale'

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Yet on M88-2, it is one of the coolest parts when seen from the outside (granted, I think this is M88-3, but still, same thing).
View attachment 151361

You spoke of turbine which is towards the center shaft. Around that is the bypass channel & aroud that is the outer body made of kevlar composite in this diagram. See how u mix parts of engines & concepts

Please, do find one place where I claimed that it masks entirety of the plume.

Plume is not the same temperature throughout. It cools down over distance:
View attachment 151366
View attachment 151367

And what matters are viewing angles. Now, I do not think this is technically accurate representation, but illustrates rather well what I'm talking about:
View attachment 151364View attachment 151365

Difference may not be that large, but as you can see, Rafale's nozzle hides the hottest part of the plume from view from more angles than your typical circular nozzle does. And just as importantly, outer nozzle hides the inner nozzle from view.

sour own CFD pic shows how long is inner plume. That's hardly hiding the inner plume. i already showed real life example of non-afterburning civil jet plume is so long even with high bypass ratio also.

So a military jet engine's inner plume cone cannot be so short as also evident from the IR image above of M88 testing. This contradicts other grey-scale diagram & Rafale-EF-2000 comparison diagram showing very short cone. Diagrams & drawings are good to explain theory but they sledom match the real life observations.

US 6th generation fighter is basically Dassault Rafale in its basic concept:

America’s Sixth Generation Fighter Will Emphasise Electronic Warfare Prowess Over Stealth or Speed - Reports

Speculation regarding the capabilities of America’s upcoming sixth generation fighter jet have been widespread for over a decade, and have grown considerably in light

militarywatchmagazine.com

I do not doubt there will be technical improvements, though.

WOW! what a claim.

These are not my "personal standards". You are using "standards" as an excuse to completely ignore the context and the entire point.
It will mean a lot, actually. As I have already explained:
Turn performance is not dependant on total lift, it is dependant on lift-to-weight ratio.
Acceleration is not dependant on total thrust, it is dependant on thrust-to-drag ratio.
Climb performance is dependant on both of these ratios.
Capisci?

When u go to doctor's clinic, he speaks briefly but still in medical terms, is that excuse?
Let me give another example if fuel station example didn't get into ur head & perhaps u take fuel % way.
Some shirt makers use S/M/L/XL/XXL, some use Cm - 36/38/40/42/44. I require 44Cm which usually corresponds to XXL but it is observed that 2 makers may have different Cm for XXL, 1 could be 42 other 44. So it has happened many times that i had to wear a wrongly insisted shirt to show to an arrogant shop salesman that the measurement which he was insisting for me was wrong. I told them that i require 44Cm still they were arrogant & were proven wrong. So that's how using the global std. units is best.

Now u r shifting everybody's focus from throttle % to ratios. Yes, Ratios definitely matter but they are dynamic. How do we calculate the ratio, from absolute values only, right? I only showed u the calculations then what r u trying to explain me?
U said Rafale reaches Mach 0.9 with 50% throttle, but with what load? If that load is increased, may be 60% throttle will be required. If with same load altitude is increased then due to less air density, again more throttle % will be required.
I gave you example of 5 jets with GE414 engine, different gen, different aero-config, different empty/gross/max weight, etc. So all of them won't have same speed at same altitude & throttle %.
But for u still speaking in terms of throttle % is paramount.

According to you, best dogfighter in the world would be Boeing 777...

According to me? Just bcoz i showed a IR image of civil jet? U hav an unusual sense of humor.

They could have easily made a bigger engine. Rafale A (Rafale prototype) used F404 engine, which is larger than M88-2:

Had they wanted a bigger engine back then, all they had to do was make M88 (which was being designed) a bit larger. M88 was sized to fit Rafale, not the reverse.
Most European jets are designed for self-defense, hence no need for large fighters... or all-aspect stealth of offensive designs such as F-22, F-35, T-50 etc.
My point was, F-22 didn't use TVC because it is the "best thing ever", designers used TVC because they had to compromise to maintain F-22's stealth.

F404 is hardly bigger than M88, 0.6" more in dia. & 14"in length? 1st it is decided what kind of new jet is required which decides its dimensions & hence the size of engine. Then the engine makers based on their knowledge & experience tell if they can make it within the airframe or airframe needs to be modified.
European jets are designed for self-defence bcoz of small countries & NATO support.
EU's R&D was not even near USA's decades of experience hence EU dumped 5th gen & jumped to 6th gen. And now when F-XX, FCAS, Tempest will finally fly then it will be exciting to see their comparison. I'm not taking any sides as of now.
I also said that canards don't seem to match stealth, hence TVC. Why r u repeating my point? J-20 is an exception, i don't know why. RCS of F-22 is 0.00015 sqm & J-20?

Cut the crap.
I supported Rafale even back when the only options being considered for HRZ were F-16 and Gripen, and when I had thought Rafale was a no-go due to being too expensive. I actually didn't expect Rafale to be even considered, let alone chosen, for Croatia up until it actually happened. And I still do not think Rafale was a best choice for us - back then and even today, I considered Gripen to be the best choice for Croatia, and not only for Croatia either.

No, you don't. I do acknowledge other aircraft where they are good, but you seem to be intent on knocking down Rafale in comparison to just about everything.

OMG what a twist in story, Grippen is best for Croatia but still die-hard defence for Rafale. Please make ur independent post on comparing these 2 jets.
The way u hav defended Rafale & offended other jets doesn't reflect your thinking on appreciating other jets. Even now u pass statements like US 6th gen will be based on Rafale & 6th gen won't be necessarily better, etc, etc. Then how do u expect people to understand u?
I sufficiently defended Rafale against F-35 w.r.t. dogfighting, considerable amount of sensor fusion, terrain following & avoidance, newer AESA radar, etc. Didn't i say that Rafale will beat almost every non-TVC jet in most cases? What more do u want?
But I'm"knocking down" Rafale when compared to F-22, that too with calculations. Many jets are called 4++ bcoz they have reached the max improvements of their airframe, now a new airframe is required with evolving technology. In the end Rafale is 4th gen, F-22 is 5th gen, FCAS will be 6th gen.
Rafale still has plans for F5 & 6, perhaps TVC will be added,who knows, time will tell.

Yes, because speed is so low that they would be dead.

No, bcoz the speed is low, u hav to design an engine so that T/W ratio is maintained. Someone like U argued in late 1980s that's why the ATF team tasked GE & P&W to make new engine for a 30-40 Ton fighter.
If Snecma can make M88 variants with higher thrust then USA is vast & rich country with so many private firms so why shouldn't they use their money to make better components too?
They were really alarmed seeing the MiG-29 & Su-27 performance & also anticipated PAKFA designated as NGRF (Next Gen Russian Fighter) to have TVC which would also proliferate to older Su-3X. Hence they wanted to develop an ATF. Engine becomes a very important factor bcoz of thrust & it has to provide electricity to additional sensors & equipments.
The X-31 demonstrated a hover on its nozzle for few seconds, then MiG-29OVT showed crazy flips, spins, rolls combo in every direction. Such is the power & advantage of TVC to fire missile or gun 1st.
Today multiple countries have implemented TVC, all of them are wrong? All the products are useless? Su-30MKI, Su-35, Su-57, J-10C, etc.

And why F-22 wouldn't be using TVC?

And I said F-22 may have used TVC but limitedly, i'm not sure bcoz from the HUD the F-22 was mostly quite far while usage of TVC can bring the jets dangerously close. In exercises there are protocols to avoid collisions. But irrespective of that, we don't know how many engagements took place over hours & days & how many each side won. In such excercises there is non-disclosure agreements usually. F-22 HUD video unavailable, how many time it got Rafale, etc. Only 1 side of coin is being shown & heavily marketed.
F-22 is not for export but Rafale is, hence be it TVC, sensors, avionics, etc, why would any country reveal the full capability to an exported potential adversary so that they can make strategy & tactics in advance? In the 1st place i don't understand how such HUD videos can be leaked publicly unless a private firm wants publiciy to sell its products. Such data is supposed to be above top secret. F-22 HUD videos & MFD shots are available only through simulators, for few seconds.
We have done excercises with various countries & jets like F-15, F-16, F-18, EF-2000, we went to Red-Flag, but very limited info is released. we used our own data links to avoid potential snooping & interference. We didn't operate our radars to full potential.

The hell are you talking about? You need G capability to get into favorable position and also to avoid enemy missiles and other types of attacks. Regardless of the missile, its chance of hitting the target increases if it is launched from a favorable position.

When u react "the HELL r u talking abt?" u r expecting a heveanly/favorable situation. U also mean to avoid enemy missiles & fire missiles & guns 1st. I'm just telling u TVC with strong engine & good avionics can do it at lower velocity as seen in the demos of multiple TVC jets.
Low velocity means low inertia means low G.
Don't compare 2 diff. scenarios of dogfight & doging missiles. There is high G capability in all TVC jets to doge missiles but a non-TVC jet has far lower FCS limits of AoA due to stall like u only said, that's where TVC comes into play provided the T/W ratio should be >1. Non-TVC jets will have far less chances to escape missiles at present.

Nope. Radar always took a couple of seconds to establish a lock. Back in 1970s, it could be 15 - 30 seconds, or even more.
You are again confused here. F-22 and Rafale both have 360 degree sensors coverage, but both aircraft primarily rely on radar (and IRST for Rafale) to provide a firing solution.
Rafale's DDM has enough angular accuracy to provide firing solution for potential laser jamming of IR missiles, yet I'm not claiming Rafale was using it to track the F-22.

TOOK, past tense, 1970s. Good Morning, welcome to 21st century.
A sports car is only as good as its driver.
An electronic H/w is only as good as its S/w programmer.
You do vouch for Rafale's latest AESA radar, right? U know diff. b/w AESA & 20th century radars, right? U expect Rafale to take few seconds to lock? Good luck!
And the HUD video evidence of losing lock is enough. F-22/35 won't loose any lock bcoz it is sensor-fused. Direction to target, it doesn't matter RF antenna is telling u or EO-DAS.
Suppose if a target is in vertical direction in +ve or -ve Y axis then either there should be a radar antenna on spine or belly to lock it or EO-DAS sensor.
For missiles, their RF/IR sensors have limited off-boresight capabilities. Hence there is something called LOAL (Lock On After Launch), especially if launched from IWB of 5th gen jets, where once the jet has got direction of enemy by RF/EO sensors, it can instruct the missile to turn rather than turn the jet & then fire. 4++ gen jets can also use this provided they have spherical sensor coverage & their avionics S/w has code module to manage it.
There are only 2 hemispherical DDM MAWS which cannot look down through the wings & fuselage

The DDM can identify a missile but will it identify a jet & display on HUD? At present it doesn't seem so otherwise from HUD video the target indicator would always be present.
RWR & jammer don't lock target.
Theoretically Rafale can mount RF & EO sensors on spine & chin & just below exhaust but at present does it have? NO. Future F5/6 upgrades might address this through multi-spectral multi-function RF & EO sensors, i said this long back.

I am correcting inaccurate claims. You have only yourself to blame after writing this:
By that, you have proven that you have no understanding at all of Rafale's aerodynamic design and characteristics, and close-coupled canards in particular. Yet you are trying to lecture me about how F-22s thrust vectoring makes it a superior dogfighter:
So, you do not know what close-coupled canards actually do, you do not know what thrust vectoring's advantages and disadvantages are; you just think that "thrust vectoring = I WIN!" button, or at least that is how what you have written comes off.
Of course I will respond to that. So again, you only have yourself to blame for the offroading here.

OMG, u r so impulsive & desperate. ANYTHING!! We are discussing since days now so just pick up any of my line from anywhere, twist it & reply anything, who cares to go through our entire conversation, isn't it?
Who am i to "lecture" u? Does this look like online class for Aeronautics? Are u an aeronautical engineering student? What's ur age, qualification, profession? Do u think members r here on an unofficial forum for time pass as enthusiats or completing PhD? Perhaps u should seek forums containing people persuing or completed Aeonautical Engineering degree.
No member needs advanced mathematical modelling explanation here. People have brief idea about aerodynamics & location of control surfaces & their effects, that's all is needed.
So whether i agree or disagree, u twist my lines.
My post was on engine & exhaust, specifically for "Indian" rafales then u brought in cooling channel concept which is still mystery in implementation. May be only for French Rafales, perhaps Croatian Rafales too.
There u mixed up parts & cooling concepts & then blaming me.
Then u diverted to comparison & performance of different jets, so i had to write some T/W calculations.
Then TVC is part of nozzle but u started detailed comparison of canards so i had to tell u that u should have got independent post
I indicated u multiple times not to go offtrack but u didn't listen.

I'm not even comparing to F-35 particularly. I have actually criticized its huge exhaust & compared its afterburner plume to SR-71.
But it has extra HX system framework for cooling, also the F-22.

Why the hell are u shifting focus to comparing performance of F-35 & Rafale when i have never done that. Please do it with that American member. I myself said that Rafale is a very agile jet & will beat almost every non-TVC jet in gunfight, it gave tough time even to F-22.

No, i'm not comparing fighters in any way. My original post focuses only on Rafale, that too "Indian" version, that too its engine only. May be it is inferior to French Rafale & doesn't have the engine feature u claim.

How many times i need to tell u to stand topic of my post? U still wanna blame me?
Who is offroading?

Excerpts are below, but long story short:
1) close coupled canard delays stall onset, thus allowing higher maximum lift and improved lift-to-drag ratio at high angles of attack
2) close coupled canard delays vortex bursting (leading to above) best when it is close in front and above the wing; coplanar canard is much less effective, as is canard positioned far in front of the wing
3) due to the above, close-coupled canard above the wing produces lift-to-drag ratio some 12% better than a coplanar canard
4) in general, close-coupled canard improves both maximum lift and lift-to-drag ratio compared to either wing-only, wing-tail or other types of wing-canard configurations (e.g. long moment arm, close-coupled coplanar etc.)

i did acknowledge ur points above & said that i thought over this briefly long back so u didn't have to give such huge documentation with mathematical modelling.

It is common sense by natural observation & simple physics that compared to a traditional tandem bi-plane design or a regular delta, a canard addition will give additional lift, but i didn't ask u to give huge documentation for exact position of canards. I thought naturally 2 decades back in 1990s even without reading that co-planar canards will partially disrupt air flow for wing hence being at different level is better.

But 5th gen design philosophy is different from 4th gen with different priorities. Rafale is considered 4++ gen means it doesn't function like 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen. Some older gen jets also have canards but it is the FCS which makes a jet agile by properly controlling the control surfaces.

When i said that Rafale will loose more than 50% dogfights then ratio can be 60:40 also. So i'm giving a possibility for Rafale to win upto 40% dogfights, that's not bad at all against a 5th gen TVC jet. What more do u wan't?
But If TVC doesn't make a jet better dogfighter then either the pilot training is bad or all the scientists & engineers who worked on F-22, Su-57, Su-30MKI, Su-35, J-10C, etc, etc are WRONG AS PER YOU They all wasted tax payer's money on TVC, right?

Su-57 chose levcons for stealth reasons, I believe. Naval LCA used levcons for the purpose of reducing takeoff and landing distances, for which they are quite good.

So which is better - levcons or canards? When Rafale is using composites to reduce RCS & RAM too as per media reports, so perhaps it should have used levcons too?

29 degrees with centerline fuel tank, 32 degrees with no tank. I do not remember how much it achieved during the dogfight, but certainly no more than 32 degrees.

And the F-22 pilots casually talk over tea/coffe that they did 70 degree+ normally for which it was designed from beginning & they might have done some crazy 120 degree+ maneuvers too.
But unfortunately neither the F-22 HUD video catching Rafale nor a compiled animation was provided to public.

And why do you think F-22 would also not be AoA-limited? Rafale's (and Gripen's) AoA limits are not there to prevent departure (that is, "unrecoverable stalls and spins"). Close-coupled canard aircraft can recover from those just fine - stalls and spins both - so they do not need AoA limits for safety reasons. They do however need them for practicality reasons: in combat, if you engage in post-stall maneuvers, you are already dead.
This is what close-coupled canards offered Gripen; and Rafale is, if anything, even more aerodynamically refined design (though not by much):

MACH Aviation Magazine - på webben

So what, exactly, would thrust vectoring offer that canards do not offer already? Beyond maybe further improving takeoff-landing distance and cruise fuel efficiency, as you could use TVC to further adjust trim while optimizing control surfaces for low drag.

Your questions should be answered ideally by makers of MiG-29 OVT, SU-35, Su-57, J-10C & F-22 Vs makers of Euro-canards on other side. The abstract u shared mentions all the capabilities demonstrated by Euro-canards but I have never seen video of Rafale, EF-2000, Grippen do any of those publicly. If u have a video of them doing it then pls share, it will add to everybody's knowledge.
U might hav tried to balance a stick on ur finger or seen someone trying to do it. The entire force is given by finger to stick against gravity. This how Elon Musk's Falcon-9 booster & Starship control their descent, only diff. is of rocket engine. If u stop adjusting lateral position of finger then stick will tip over.
Similarly in stall situation the speed is low & air flow is minimum so the controll surface don't work, only the 3D TVC engine can direct the jet to hover pointing up like X-31 demonstrated, go up if T/W ratio is >1 or fall towards regaining regular flight or a different maneuver in whichever direction desired.
So non-TVC jets are incapable of doing most if not all of these maneuvers, they would be dead but for TVC jet pilots stall & post stall is just having fun like roller coaster ride.
And whatever a conventional control surface does, TVC amplifies or supplements it.

If Croatia or France doesn't have some concern doesn't mean the entire world won't have concern.

Fighter jets always gain weight over time as they receive additional capabilities and upgrades.

F-16A Block 10 is 15,600 pounds empty weight. F-16A eventually grew to 16 300 pounds.
F-16C Block 30 is 18 900 pounds empty weight.
F-16C Block 50 is 19,200 pounds empty weight.
F-16C Block 70 is 20 300 pounds empty weight.
F-16E Block 60 is 22 000 pounds empty weight.

If you don't understand something this obvious, how can I expect you to understand anything else?

See this is how u sidetrack. I gave u calculations of Rafale & F-22 & now u wanna bring in F-16.
In present era, F-16 is one of the worst examples to give. Repeatedly i have mentioned it to be slim & lean jet. The entire 4th gen is a learning lesson & so will every gen for next gen.
I was speaking in terms of electronics & u r giving an obsolete design which is mechanically constrained hence need to gain weight. While the idea behind 5th gen jet like F-22 or F-35 was to already have max mechanical features which contribute to weight like in-flight refuelling, more spacious internal fuel tank, cooling system, sensors for spherical coverage, inbuilt EOTS, etc. Once u got all that then over time H/w components will become smaller, lighter. some dedicated H/w functions are offloaded as S/w functions also.

CAUTION- I don't wanna start F-16 Vs F-35 debate or them Vs any other jet. Let's stick to Rafale vs others in Rafale thread.

Moreover, backtracking on this reply, i was giving calculations for F-22 & Rafale. So if weight increases slightly then engine variants also improve upon thrust.

Gripen has an issue with lack of thrust, but yes, I do expect it would be better than Rafale in a dogfight. Not sure about "FAR" better - Rafale would be superior in the energy department - but it is smaller, lighter and has smaller wing span. All of this, when combined with its excellent aerodynamics, means that it should have advantage in agility. Definitely when it comes to transients, which are crucial in a dogfight.

Perhaps u can do an independent post on Rafale Vs Grippen.

You know, if you are going to try and argue with me, at the very least you could try to understand my arguments. Otherwise you will produce completely illogical non sequiturs like this very quote.
I could write you down a very long list of jets that are inferior to Rafale in dogfight, despite being smaller.
And again, your lack of logic is stupefying. There are fourth generation jets that are inferior to third generation counterparts, but Rafale is not one of them.

"argue" with "U" in an unofficial forum? I can only give pics, diagrams, calculations, but i can't "argue" with people like u.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Don't you think it's better to have tvc missiles instead of compromising the aircraft energy and altitude in dog fights by using TVC engine? F35 and all other new upcoming fighters like SCAF, Tempest or NGAD are mentioning adaptive cycle engine as it's feature but not TVC. I am not very sure whether they will use TVC engine or not but they are not mentioning it. May be I couldn't have seen yet.

Many AAMS & SAMs already have TVC by jet vanes. A BVR missiles flies towards target in a "lead intercept" path. It also climbs altitude at long ranges to take advantage of gravity glide when it runs out of fuel. Although some missiles could be programmed what flight pattern is desired, a straight dash or climb & dive. Hence If at last moment or after missile's fuel is out TVC changes the speed & orientaton of jet then there is a chance of missing the missile without countermeasures. if the jet can lure the missile towards ground & suddenly climbs sharply then it will be difficult for unpowered missile to climb & hit. Kinematics & tactics depend on range.
If u wanna use gun in a jet, u will require TVC. 6th gen is expected to have DEW. If u fire laser at a jet, its pilot will be disoriented if not harmed. He/she won't be able to focus for gun-kill. Similarly if incoming missile is tracked well in advance then DEW must destroy it. So a classic dogfight situation will be avoided hopefully.
When AAMs came, people thought gun would be expendable, in each gen they thought but in 5th gen also gun made its way. If any 6th gen decides to put gun then TVC will be required, in my humble opinion.
Tempest isa delta with rudder but w/o canards. FCAS is w/o rudder & canards but a lowered V-tail, perhaps wants to use a split aeleron. So TVC can still come handy. With time, a particular technology becomes economical & normal. But still time will tell if the makers wan't TVC or not.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

You can clearly see the gap between outer nozzle and inner nozzle. See from 45 seconds and onwards.

Yes sure, so what's ur point?

 

[Picard]

You spoke of turbine which is towards the center shaft. Around that is the bypass channel & aroud that is the outer body made of kevlar composite in this diagram. See how u mix parts of engines & concepts

No mention of turbine.
No mention of turbine, except implicitly because I didn't realize you were talking about turbine specifically.
I said that the air wraps around the engine, which is true... but again no mention of turbine specifically.
Showed you IR image which explicitly shows aft part of the engine as being cooler.
No mention of turbine specifically, just "engine body".
Here YOU bring up turbine.
This is the first time I bring up possibility of additional layer of skin around turbine, yet I explicitly and openly state that I am not certain M88-2 actually has such a feature.

So please, could you stop being a liar?

sour own CFD pic shows how long is inner plume. That's hardly hiding the inner plume. i already showed real life example of non-afterburning civil jet plume is so long even with high bypass ratio also.
View attachment 151491
So a military jet engine's inner plume cone cannot be so short as also evident from the IR image above of M88 testing. This contradicts other grey-scale diagram & Rafale-EF-2000 comparison diagram showing very short cone. Diagrams & drawings are good to explain theory but they sledom match the real life observations.

I never claimed that the outer nozzle hides the entirety of plume. Just that it hides the hottest part of the plume from increased range of angles.

WOW! what a claim.

Not an incorrect one, unlike half of what you had claimed. Smileys won't change reality.

When u go to doctor's clinic, he speaks briefly but still in medical terms, is that excuse?
Let me give another example if fuel station example didn't get into ur head & perhaps u take fuel % way.
Some shirt makers use S/M/L/XL/XXL, some use Cm - 36/38/40/42/44. I require 44Cm which usually corresponds to XXL but it is observed that 2 makers may have different Cm for XXL, 1 could be 42 other 44. So it has happened many times that i had to wear a wrongly insisted shirt to show to an arrogant shop salesman that the measurement which he was insisting for me was wrong. I told them that i require 44Cm still they were arrogant & were proven wrong. So that's how using the global std. units is best.

Now u r shifting everybody's focus from throttle % to ratios. Yes, Ratios definitely matter but they are dynamic. How do we calculate the ratio, from absolute values only, right? I only showed u the calculations then what r u trying to explain me?
U said Rafale reaches Mach 0.9 with 50% throttle, but with what load? If that load is increased, may be 60% throttle will be required. If with same load altitude is increased then due to less air density, again more throttle % will be required.
I gave you example of 5 jets with GE414 engine, different gen, different aero-config, different empty/gross/max weight, etc. So all of them won't have same speed at same altitude & throttle %.
But for u still speaking in terms of throttle % is paramount.

You are using "global standard" units as an excuse because you either don't have a clue what we are talking about, or want to use lies to push your argument forward.

As I have explained, when comparing aircraft, total values do not really matter (except maybe weight and size). What matters are ratios.

Your insistence on units merely covers your own lack of understanding, or else dishonesty.

I never claimed that Rafale needs same throttle settings for the same speed at different altitudes and configurations. But the fact that it can reach Mach 0,9 with 50% throttle shows that it is capable of significant supercruise speed at that altitude and configuration. We know that Rafale can supercruise at Mach 1,4 with 6 AAMs at unknown altitude.

And this "best altitude etc" holds equally true for all jets, so what is the problem?

According to me? Just bcoz i showed a IR image of civil jet? U hav an unusual sense of humor.

You wrote this:

Tomorrow FCAS, Tempest, Su-57 pilots will say they reach Mach-1 at 40%, 50%, 60% throttle, what will it mean without mentioning total values?

Try to understand what you yourself are writing before calling other people out.

F404 is hardly bigger than M88, 0.6" more in dia. & 14"in length? 1st it is decided what kind of new jet is required which decides its dimensions & hence the size of engine. Then the engine makers based on their knowledge & experience tell if they can make it within the airframe or airframe needs to be modified.
European jets are designed for self-defence bcoz of small countries & NATO support.
EU's R&D was not even near USA's decades of experience hence EU dumped 5th gen & jumped to 6th gen. And now when F-XX, FCAS, Tempest will finally fly then it will be exciting to see their comparison. I'm not taking any sides as of now.
I also said that canards don't seem to match stealth, hence TVC. Why r u repeating my point? J-20 is an exception, i don't know why. RCS of F-22 is 0.00015 sqm & J-20?

Yet Rafale A, which was sized with F404 in mind, was larger and heavier that Rafale C. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Rafale A managed to reach Mach 1,4 supercruise after having one F404 replaced with M88-2. So not only did they design larger aircraft to begin with, but the engine designed for its smaller successor was able to give it supercruise capability.

You also said that TVC gives F-22 unbeatable advantage in dogfight:

Rafale will loose most gunfights against TVC jets like F-22, Su-35.

Which is wrong.

OMG what a twist in story, Grippen is best for Croatia but still die-hard defence for Rafale. Please make ur independent post on comparing these 2 jets.
The way u hav defended Rafale & offended other jets doesn't reflect your thinking on appreciating other jets. Even now u pass statements like US 6th gen will be based on Rafale & 6th gen won't be necessarily better, etc, etc. Then how do u expect people to understand u?
I sufficiently defended Rafale against F-35 w.r.t. dogfighting, considerable amount of sensor fusion, terrain following & avoidance, newer AESA radar, etc. Didn't i say that Rafale will beat almost every non-TVC jet in most cases? What more do u want?
But I'm"knocking down" Rafale when compared to F-22, that too with calculations. Many jets are called 4++ bcoz they have reached the max improvements of their airframe, now a new airframe is required with evolving technology. In the end Rafale is 4th gen, F-22 is 5th gen, FCAS will be 6th gen.
Rafale still has plans for F5 & 6, perhaps TVC will be added,who knows, time will tell.

My point is that your claims are bullshit that is intended to invalidate my points without actually countering them.

I had made mistakes, but everything I claimed is based on facts. It is your problem for not understanding it (although it might also be due to the way I write). For example, me claiming that "US 6th generation fighter will be based on Rafale"... I never claimed that. What I did claim is that 6th generation fighter has the same design philosophy as Rafale: which is to say, a combination of agility and passive operation. Gripen is another jet which does this same thing, and F-35 has passive operation but no agility.

What I want is that you stop promoting ideas that are patently false. TVC is not an "I win" button in dogfight, despite what F-22 and Russian fans will tell you. I had given you quotes which show that close-coupled canards achieve pretty much the same thing as thrust vectoring does. What TVC does is that it gives you benefits of close-coupled canards without using canards, which is crucial for stealth jets which need to be able to deal with heavy-duty IADS without benefit of a SEAD campaign beforehand.

And there is also you unquestionably buying into "generations" thing. Yes, it is true that jets - generally speaking - improve over time. But that doesn't mean that a jet of higher generation is automatically better, or will beat, a jet of a previous generation - even ignoring potential difference in pilot skill:
MiG-17, a modification of the first-generation MiG-15, was able to contest air against, and defeat, third-generation F-4 during the Vietnam war. Overall, MiG-17s achieved at least parity in exchange ratio, and maybe even 2:1 advantage (143aircraft shot down for 75 losses).
Second-generation MiG-21 was a dangerous opponent for, and managed to outfight, third-generation F-4 in Vietnam. During Libyan-Egyptian war, it also proved able to match third-generation MiG-23.

And I'm quite certain I would be able to find more examples if I cared enough to try.

Further, different jets have different design philosophies. Eurocanards are defensive designs, F-22 and F-35 are offensive ones. If I wanted to contest air superiority over a territory covered heavily with IADS, I would prefer F-22; for a strike mission in same conditions, I would prefer F-35. But for defending my own country, I would take Rafale or Gripen - every time.

No, bcoz the speed is low, u hav to design an engine so that T/W ratio is maintained. Someone like U argued in late 1980s that's why the ATF team tasked GE & P&W to make new engine for a 30-40 Ton fighter.
If Snecma can make M88 variants with higher thrust then USA is vast & rich country with so many private firms so why shouldn't they use their money to make better components too?
They were really alarmed seeing the MiG-29 & Su-27 performance & also anticipated PAKFA designated as NGRF (Next Gen Russian Fighter) to have TVC which would also proliferate to older Su-3X. Hence they wanted to develop an ATF. Engine becomes a very important factor bcoz of thrust & it has to provide electricity to additional sensors & equipments.
The X-31 demonstrated a hover on its nozzle for few seconds, then MiG-29OVT showed crazy flips, spins, rolls combo in every direction. Such is the power & advantage of TVC to fire missile or gun 1st.
Today multiple countries have implemented TVC, all of them are wrong? All the products are useless? Su-30MKI, Su-35, Su-57, J-10C, etc.

The hell are you talking about? After this, you have no leg to stand when you call me out for non-sequitors.

Thrust vectoring can be useful in certain situations:
1) trim during supersonic flight, which means reduced drag (as you don't use control surfaces for trim as much) and thus increased speed and range
2) improved nose pointing authority at low speed
3) improved control authority at high angles of attack
4) increased maximum controllable angle of attack
5) reduced takeoff and landing distance
6) airshow performances with no use in air combat

But points 2, 3, 4 and 5 can be achieved through usage of close-coupled canards - although, when it comes to takeoff and landing performance, thrust vectoring may still be useful even if you have canards.

And I said F-22 may have used TVC but limitedly, i'm not sure bcoz from the HUD the F-22 was mostly quite far while usage of TVC can bring the jets dangerously close. In exercises there are protocols to avoid collisions. But irrespective of that, we don't know how many engagements took place over hours & days & how many each side won. In such excercises there is non-disclosure agreements usually. F-22 HUD video unavailable, how many time it got Rafale, etc. Only 1 side of coin is being shown & heavily marketed.
F-22 is not for export but Rafale is, hence be it TVC, sensors, avionics, etc, why would any country reveal the full capability to an exported potential adversary so that they can make strategy & tactics in advance? In the 1st place i don't understand how such HUD videos can be leaked publicly unless a private firm wants publiciy to sell its products. Such data is supposed to be above top secret. F-22 HUD videos & MFD shots are available only through simulators, for few seconds.
We have done excercises with various countries & jets like F-15, F-16, F-18, EF-2000, we went to Red-Flag, but very limited info is released. we used our own data links to avoid potential snooping & interference. We didn't operate our radars to full potential.

Actually, we know. Six engagements, of which one F-22 win and either four or five draws, depending who you ask. But that is all we know, which is why I wrote that "results do not matter". What matters is the performance shown in the video.

These were NATO exercises. France is a member of NATO. Why wouldn't they use TVC in what is ACM exercise? It is not like TVC is something secret, any country that can make jet engines can also make TVC engines if they want. As for HUD video, you have multiple HUD videos online - they are not exactly secret. I believe French released HUD video after US started claiming that F-22 always won or stalemated Rafales - so they decided to show that Rafale won at least once. Marketing, basically, but it was USAF that started it.

When u react "the HELL r u talking abt?" u r expecting a heveanly/favorable situation. U also mean to avoid enemy missiles & fire missiles & guns 1st. I'm just telling u TVC with strong engine & good avionics can do it at lower velocity as seen in the demos of multiple TVC jets.
Low velocity means low inertia means low G.
Don't compare 2 diff. scenarios of dogfight & doging missiles. There is high G capability in all TVC jets to doge missiles but a non-TVC jet has far lower FCS limits of AoA due to stall like u only said, that's where TVC comes into play provided the T/W ratio should be >1. Non-TVC jets will have far less chances to escape missiles at present.

Low velocity also means that you do not cover much ground, which means that enemy missile does not need to correct as much and you are getting shot down. It also means that even if you manage to avoid the missile, enemy pilot will have no problem coming over your top and gunning you down.

Using TVC and PSM in actual combat is basically a very good way to suicide. There is no point in pushing AoA above the point where your wing achieves CLmax, except in some very specific gunfighting scenarios - but these are basically death or glory, desperation moves where you know you are dead if you do not shoot down the opponent now. The only way it can work is if the opponent is alone and you are alone, so you know there will be no interference.

TOOK, past tense, 1970s. Good Morning, welcome to 21st century.
A sports car is only as good as its driver.
An electronic H/w is only as good as its S/w programmer.
You do vouch for Rafale's latest AESA radar, right? U know diff. b/w AESA & 20th century radars, right? U expect Rafale to take few seconds to lock? Good luck!
And the HUD video evidence of losing lock is enough. F-22/35 won't loose any lock bcoz it is sensor-fused. Direction to target, it doesn't matter RF antenna is telling u or EO-DAS.
Suppose if a target is in vertical direction in +ve or -ve Y axis then either there should be a radar antenna on spine or belly to lock it or EO-DAS sensor.
For missiles, their RF/IR sensors have limited off-boresight capabilities. Hence there is something called LOAL (Lock On After Launch), especially if launched from IWB of 5th gen jets, where once the jet has got direction of enemy by RF/EO sensors, it can instruct the missile to turn rather than turn the jet & then fire. 4++ gen jets can also use this provided they have spherical sensor coverage & their avionics S/w has code module to manage it.
There are only 2 hemispherical DDM MAWS which cannot look down through the wings & fuselage
View attachment 151502
View attachment 151503

The DDM can identify a missile but will it identify a jet & display on HUD? At present it doesn't seem so otherwise from HUD video the target indicator would always be present.
RWR & jammer don't lock target.
Theoretically Rafale can mount RF & EO sensors on spine & chin & just below exhaust but at present does it have? NO. Future F5/6 upgrades might address this through multi-spectral multi-function RF & EO sensors, i said this long back.

Even today, it is several seconds. Look at basically any HUD video and look at how long it takes for radar to establish tracking solution.

F-22 doesn't have anything like EO DAS.

OMG, u r so impulsive & desperate. ANYTHING!! We are discussing since days now so just pick up any of my line from anywhere, twist it & reply anything, who cares to go through our entire conversation, isn't it?

Great, so when you get desperate, you accuse other people of tactics you yourself are using.

Get real.

Who am i to "lecture" u? Does this look like online class for Aeronautics? Are u an aeronautical engineering student? What's ur age, qualification, profession? Do u think members r here on an unofficial forum for time pass as enthusiats or completing PhD? Perhaps u should seek forums containing people persuing or completed Aeonautical Engineering degree.
No member needs advanced mathematical modelling explanation here. People have brief idea about aerodynamics & location of control surfaces & their effects, that's all is needed.
So whether i agree or disagree, u twist my lines.
My post was on engine & exhaust, specifically for "Indian" rafales then u brought in cooling channel concept which is still mystery in implementation. May be only for French Rafales, perhaps Croatian Rafales too.
There u mixed up parts & cooling concepts & then blaming me.
Then u diverted to comparison & performance of different jets, so i had to write some T/W calculations.
Then TVC is part of nozzle but u started detailed comparison of canards so i had to tell u that u should have got independent post
I indicated u multiple times not to go offtrack but u didn't listen.

Having a "brief idea" is fine. Having an inaccurate brief idea is not fine. Your repeated false claims about TVC vs canards, and your lack of understanding of Rafale's aerodynamic design and close-coupled canards in particular, would not be a problem - if we were discussing cars or trucks. They are however a problem when we are discussing Rafale and fighter design in general.

And do not blame ME for a discussion YOU had started. You are the one who claimed that F-22 or Su-35 will win in a dogfight against Rafale thanks to thrust vectoring:

Rafale will loose most gunfights against TVC jets like F-22, Su-35.

I only brought in comparison to illustrate the point I was making - one that had nothing to do with maneuverability. You were the one who turned it into discussion on utility of TVC and canards in a dogfight.

Which still has to do with Rafale and design choices made, so it is not like we are in any way off topic. Discussion growing is not a bad thing.

But 5th gen design philosophy is different from 4th gen with different priorities. Rafale is considered 4++ gen means it doesn't function like 1st, 2nd, 3rd gen. Some older gen jets also have canards but it is the FCS which makes a jet agile by properly controlling the control surfaces.

Different in what way?

When i said that Rafale will loose more than 50% dogfights then ratio can be 60:40 also. So i'm giving a possibility for Rafale to win upto 40% dogfights, that's not bad at all against a 5th gen TVC jet. What more do u wan't?

But If TVC doesn't make a jet better dogfighter then either the pilot training is bad or all the scientists & engineers who worked on F-22, Su-57, Su-30MKI, Su-35, J-10C, etc, etc are WRONG AS PER YOU They all wasted tax payer's money on TVC, right?

TVC can make a jet a better dogfighter than the same jet would be without TVC. But it is not necessary for a jet to be a good dogfighter, nor will it make every jet a better dogfighter.

You see, design choices are not made in isolation. And it is very rarely that you have only one solution for achieving a certain goal. It all depends on how various characteristics interact with each other.

F-22 uses TVC because its design choices preclude usage of close-coupled canards. But TVC doesn't suddenly negate its larger size, inferior aerodynamics, or higher wing loading. Is F-22 a dangerous opponent in dogfight? Certainly. But expecting TVC to suddenly make it superior to jets designed for dogfight - such as Rafale or Gripen - sorry, but that is just pure fantasy.

Yet you keep harping on TVC as if it is an automatic "I win" button.

Fewer smileys, more thinking, please.

So which is better - levcons or canards? When Rafale is using composites to reduce RCS & RAM too as per media reports, so perhaps it should have used levcons too?

Levcons are better for stealth. Canards are better for agility.

Rafale uses RCS reduction measures, including RAM, yes. But it is still primarily designed as a self-defense fighter (Cold War design, remember). RCS reduction measures were "good to have", but were not prioritized to an extent that they would compromise other things such as aerodynamics. Its design goals were completely different compared to fundamentally offensive designs such as F-22 and F-35, which were designed to deal with heavy radar-based air defense systems, similar to earlier F-117 and B-2 bombers.

And the F-22 pilots casually talk over tea/coffe that they did 70 degree+ normally for which it was designed from beginning & they might have done some crazy 120 degree+ maneuvers too.
But unfortunately neither the F-22 HUD video catching Rafale nor a compiled animation was provided to public.

F-22 certainly could have done that. Su-27, with no thrust vectoring, can do Pugachev's Cobra, achieving 120° angle of attack in the process. Many other aircraft can achieve 90°+ angle of attack. JAS-35 Draken could do Cobra maneuver as early as 1950., and in fact the maneuver had been developed for Draken as a way of getting out of the superstall:

Although something similar may have been done before. If memory serves me well, even F-86 Sabre could do Cobra, but don't quote me on that as I could be mistaken.

But such maneuvers are basically useless in actual combat. The only reason why I pointed out Rafale can do Cobra is to show that TVC is not necessary for most things that you are claiming to be "advantages of thrust vectoring aircraft". Reality is, any fighter with good enough aerodynamics can do a Cobra*. If fighter needs thrust vectoring to do Cobra, then it means that its aerodynamics are compromised in some way.

* That being said, "any fighter with good enough aerodynamics" still excludes many if not most fighters. MiG-21, F-15, F-16 all cannot do the Cobra because they develop uncontrollable pitch-up at high enough angles of attack. Of current-generation US fighters, "only" F-18E, F-22 and F-35 can do it.

Your questions should be answered ideally by makers of MiG-29 OVT, SU-35, Su-57, J-10C & F-22 Vs makers of Euro-canards on other side. The abstract u shared mentions all the capabilities demonstrated by Euro-canards but I have never seen video of Rafale, EF-2000, Grippen do any of those publicly. If u have a video of them doing it then pls share, it will add to everybody's knowledge.
U might hav tried to balance a stick on ur finger or seen someone trying to do it. The entire force is given by finger to stick against gravity. This how Elon Musk's Falcon-9 booster & Starship control their descent, only diff. is of rocket engine. If u stop adjusting lateral position of finger then stick will tip over.
Similarly in stall situation the speed is low & air flow is minimum so the controll surface don't work, only the 3D TVC engine can direct the jet to hover pointing up like X-31 demonstrated, go up if T/W ratio is >1 or fall towards regaining regular flight or a different maneuver in whichever direction desired.
So non-TVC jets are incapable of doing most if not all of these maneuvers, they would be dead but for TVC jet pilots stall & post stall is just having fun like roller coaster ride.
And whatever a conventional control surface does, TVC amplifies or supplements it.

If Croatia or France doesn't have some concern doesn't mean the entire world won't have concern.

Why would they do it? The only thing that Cobra maneuver realistically offers is a publicity stunt at the risk of crashing the aircraft (not enough altitude to recover in case of a mistake at an air show). But for Rafale and Gripen (probably not Typhoon), being able to perform Cobra would merely require relaxation of flight control laws and limitations.

In combat, Cobra would result in one of the following:
1) missile up the tail pipe
2) both jets colliding in the air
3) pursuer doing a high yo-yo and gunning the Cobra-performing idiot down
4) getting shot down by an unseen enemy
5) some combination of the above

See this is how u sidetrack. I gave u calculations of Rafale & F-22 & now u wanna bring in F-16.
In present era, F-16 is one of the worst examples to give. Repeatedly i have mentioned it to be slim & lean jet. The entire 4th gen is a learning lesson & so will every gen for next gen.
I was speaking in terms of electronics & u r giving an obsolete design which is mechanically constrained hence need to gain weight. While the idea behind 5th gen jet like F-22 or F-35 was to already have max mechanical features which contribute to weight like in-flight refuelling, more spacious internal fuel tank, cooling system, sensors for spherical coverage, inbuilt EOTS, etc. Once u got all that then over time H/w components will become smaller, lighter. some dedicated H/w functions are offloaded as S/w functions also.
View attachment 151504
CAUTION- I don't wanna start F-16 Vs F-35 debate or them Vs any other jet. Let's stick to Rafale vs others in Rafale thread.

Moreover, backtracking on this reply, i was giving calculations for F-22 & Rafale. So if weight increases slightly then engine variants also improve upon thrust.

It is not sidetracking, it is an example which shows clearly that gaining weight is normal for fighter aircraft. If you want, we can look up other fighters as well.

 

[Love Charger]

As claimed by the french its a Generation 4.5

Its. A GENERATION 4 aircraft .

 

[BON PLAN]

How? I'm not sure on that. Covering the inner hot plates by outer plates is a simple cheap technique which many jets have used.

How is to see on a M88 drawing, but it's a fact.

 

[BON PLAN]

Its. A GENERATION 4 aircraft .

F35 is said to be gen5....
According to LM gen 5 has to be :
Stealth : OK
Supercruising : NON OK
Affordable : NON OK
Sensor fusion Able : OK
Agile as a F16 : NON OK

Do the same exercise with Rafale and you will see that F15 is a false gen5 and Rafale not too far.

 

[Love Charger]

F35 is said to be gen5....
According to LM gen 5 has to be :
Stealth : OK
Supercruising : NON OK
Affordable : NON OK
Sensor fusion Able : OK
Agile as a F16 : NON OK

Do the same exercise with Rafale and you will see that F15 is a false gen5 and Rafale not too far.

I replied to a 10 year old comment for fun
I dont know if rafale is better or f 35 is better.

 

[BON PLAN]

Just bcoz our country has imported a product doesn't mean we'll brag, boast, blindly support every aspect of it without rectification. We need to act like a smart customer rather than prey to marketing agents.
Marketing tactics are applicable in every business, commercial or military.



U r going in circles. Don't stubbornly assert "wrong" for other person if U use 'IF' & 'WOULD' for urself to be correct. Others can be wrong only when u r 101% correct with facts VERIFIABLE anytime, anywhere.
U confused b/w core area blade cooling & bypass channel. Please use the right terms for engine parts.
Blade cooling is applied at center of engine & nozzle is at aft end, u r mixing the 2 things.
In a simple diagram where is the compressor blade? Where is turbine blade? Where is bypass channel? Where is nozzle? U mixed up everything.
View attachment 150984
Whatever u say, please use diagram or pic, edit it in MSpaint, etc & show to members exactly where is your percieved nozzle, channel, etc. otherwise we all will be going in circles everyday endlessly. Importers like U n me will gain nothing but the exporter will enjoy the show & make money.
If u claim that M88-2 has double channel cooling then it has to be something similar to 1st graphic i shared, but the M88 diagram is no way near this.
View attachment 150987

But what u r talking about could be the M88-4E improved version, not M88-2 in service at this time.

View attachment 151014
But "Indian" Rafales don't seem to have any cooling channel at all, not even 1 perhaps, bcoz cooled channel doesn't glow hot with strinking contrast.
View attachment 150990
I would be so happy if someone can point out the cooling channel in real life pic but i think France gave us obsolete engines & kept the newer ones for itself.

I traced ur French labeled diagram to websites like ********** where some member shared an edited pic of EJ-200 engine & writing "M88= dual cooling channel", here is the problem, that member used the combustion chamber exit channel having the primary hottest air as 2nd cooling channel starting a chain reaction of wrong references & misconceptions. Later it becomes a marketting gimmick.
People are misinterpreting the parts of engine & mixing cooling of various external & internal parts for different purposes.

View attachment 150978

The other image which u shared is actually focussed on the afterburner chamber body (not nozzle) made of kevlar composite to reduce engine body heating, not related to plume. So again France might be testing a newer engine version & keeping it for itself, not export.
View attachment 151010


That hotspot or airframe treatment is done by replacing metal based skin with composite skin. But engines will get stronger with each gen. 6th gen will require DEW means more power required, means more heat & it also depends on band of sensor is tuned to - LWIR, MWIR, SWIR. Hence additionally if any jet can give HX treatments then even better.
But will the exported variants will have the composite body or metal body is also a question.



Today's jet engine was science fiction in WW era so we may have breakthroughs within few decades, perhaps for 7th gen jets, i don't think i will be alive for it, but perhaps i might see the theory if i survive to 70s or 80s senilty age. For now we only have some briefly imagined art.

View attachment 151006
F-117 exhaust was static with no moving parts or afterburner. It simply spread the exhaust over cooling tiles.
Harrier engine had 4 swivelling nozzels but w/o afterburner or IR treatment.
So next logical step is to combine features to have mechanically morphing multi-aperture nozzles which can be individually controlled.


Inner nozzle signature is not supposed to be "eliminated" but "shielded" bcoz it provides the spine of thrust.
F-22's engine & nozzle & airframe are still mystery. I'm not fully confirmed what technique they are applying but the costliest jet who's export is prohibited must be hiding secrets.
The nozzle appears to be very strong & sturdy.
View attachment 151017

At 100% mil-power the nozzles close so much it looks like platipus
View attachment 151018

The side walls of nozzles have mysterious gaps which could be for cooled air. The nozzle has tiny perforated holes which could also be for cooled air. YF-23 also has it. Lastly, we can see that there is a radial frill like structure which could be angular cooled vanes blocking the gas exit chamber, this is there in F-35 too.

View attachment 151041


Common citizens like u n me would obviously fail to understand something which is not our qualification & profession. There is some technique called "Vapor Compression Refrigeration" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor-compression_refrigeration) which might be used in some jets. it is proposed for our AMCA also.
In 5th gen jets focus on internal weapons gives way for overall inflation of airframe which can be used for extra equipments, sensors, fuel.



No technical paper or person talk in terms of % thrust but in terms of international units & metrics.
IRS is never measured or mentioned in terms of throttle power which is just a mechanical operation.
When we go to fuel station we don't show the fuel meter & tell to fill 50% or 30% tank bcoz each vehicle has differnt tank capacity, we have to specify fuel required in liters/gallons.
There are variants of M88 engines also so tomorrow M88-3 will give 80-90KN increasing performance, same with other jets also.
How much Mach # will a jet achieve & under what load of fuel & weapons is just trial & error method, also depends on altitude. And like i said the airframe design also different.
U can imagine a modified Rafale with CFT & IWB also then at same previous throttle % its drag, empty & gross weight will increase, & lift, T/W ratio, speed, range will decrease. To compensate u willrequire a better engine.
Another simple real example - GE-414 engine is used in F-18 & Grippen & also will be used in our MWF, TEDBF, AMCA. But all 5 jets are different, 1or 2 engine, delta-canard or tandem bi-plane, 4th or 5th gen, light or medium weight. Hence they will have different performance in agility, speed, range, etc. So even with the same engine there is no global or national agreement & benchmarking on aircraft design.
A delta-canard would be different from tandem bi-plane. Center of gravity & center of lift would be different, affecting lift, drag & speed. If u give canards to bi-plane & make it tandem tri-plane like Su-30MKI or F-15 SMTD/VISTA then additional lift would allow some more load.
When a product is made it has a lot of goals & objectives, primary & secondary. If every aspect has to be made superior then the product cost would be very high & unbearable. It would be technologically possible but practically not feasible.
Rafale C/M empty weight is 9.9/10.6 tons, F-35A/C is 13.3/15.7 tons, Su-35 is 19 tons.
You won't see Su-3X carrying fuel tanks as they can carry 11 tons fuel & F-35 carries 9 tons but Rafale carries 4.7 tons internally hence need to carry 2-3 extarnal ones depending upon mission.
MTOW of Rafale is 24.5 tons, of F-35 is 31.8 tons (int.+ext.), of Su-35 is 34.5 to 38.8 tons.
F-22 empty is 19.7 tons, fuel 8.2 tons, MTOW 38 tons, 116KN of dry thrust giving M1.8 super-cruise, top speed M2.3
EF-2000 the closest design to Rafale, empty 11 tons, fuel 5 tons, MTOW 23.5 tons, 60KN dry thrust gives M1.5 super-cruise. It appears to be slightly better.
Rafale will loose most gunfights against TVC jets like F-22, Su-35.
Some people might also consider unfair to compare single & dual engine jet which requires more servicing & cost than 1 engine.
Someone can say that Rafale takes 2 engines to be better than F-35. if it was 1 engine like JAS-39 Grippen then it would be different narrative. We are making 2 medium weight jets - MWF with 1 engine & TEDBF with 2 engines. It would be so intresting to see their protoypes.
So all products have plus/minus points & different goals & objectives.
Hence 4th & 5th gen jets cannot be compared straight bcoz 4th gen jets are slimmer while 5th gen are bulkier. So among 4th gen a full load can be considered but among stealth jets only internal load is considered otherwise no stealth benefit.

U hate F-35 in every way that's visible but it got a big but strongest engine due to VTOL requirement. I already said that if it was a dual engine jet like J-31/35 or AMCA then it would have an improved version of F-22's engine with TVC, in which case it would be superior to all dual engine medium weight jets.
U love Rafale, we also like it, it is a great jet among 4th gen, but don't sing about it so much as if it is pinnacle & benchmark of mil-aviation & end of line. It will be replaced by FCAS.

The discussion is becoming too complexe for me, and for my english level, but I just can assure that there are no Export and french only M88 versions.
Just, maybe, a potential 8.3 Tons M88 (*) model for Qatar Rafale. But it may be a french forumer joke.

(*) : The french air force choose to reduce the owner cost with the improved M88 instead of more power. Another choice was possible : to keep intact the life span and to increase the thrust. Maybe it was the Qatar choice.... or maybe not.

 

[BON PLAN]

Don't you think it's better to have tvc missiles instead of compromising the aircraft energy and altitude in dog fights by using TVC engine? F35 and all other new upcoming fighters like SCAF, Tempest or NGAD are mentioning adaptive cycle engine as it's feature but not TVC. I am not very sure whether they will use TVC engine or not but they are not mentioning it. May be I couldn't have seen yet.

TVC was studied for Rafale. The Dassault answer was : it's too costly, too heavy, a breakdown too risky for the benefice.
Eurofighter made the same analysis.
There is a benefice but not so evident to make that choice.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Please don't use slang, personal, judgemental, defamingwords & comments. Make ur own independent posts based on parts, aspects, technology. Scrolling 10+ pages of text & replying is not possible everyday. Fortunately sometimes we have less office work due to Covid-19 precautions. otherwise it would take me 3-4 days to reply.
Keep in mind - Common citizens ike u n me r nothing. What we r doing here is just time-pass. All this kind of discussions & arguements have been done in 1980s b/w qualified scientists, engineers & at least 5 countries are flying the products. So it doesn't matter if we can convice eachother here or not.

No mention of turbine.
No mention of turbine, except implicitly because I didn't realize you were talking about turbine specifically.
I said that the air wraps around the engine, which is true... but again no mention of turbine specifically.
Showed you IR image which explicitly shows aft part of the engine as being cooler.
No mention of turbine specifically, just "engine body".
Here YOU bring up turbine.
This is the first time I bring up possibility of additional layer of skin around turbine, yet I explicitly and openly state that I am not certain M88-2 actually has such a feature.

So please, could you stop being a liar?

What's this reply on Saturday, it is only later u changed to 'channel wall'. So i'm not a liar. Don't use character defaming words. Your membership could be revoked & account deleted.

It seems M88-2 might have additional layer of skin wrapping around the turbine itself compared to F110, but I am not quite certain on that.

I never claimed that the outer nozzle hides the entirety of plume. Just that it hides the hottest part of the plume from increased range of angles.

Let's not go in circles. Your own CFD model of plume & IR image of non-afterburning engines show that innermost hotest parts of plume is also considerably long, it doesn't matches with diagram's theoretical small cone. Only from head-on angle it can be shielded but enemy jets can approach from any angle & in bigger battles they are spread out. That's why R&D has progressed on comprehensive cooling in 5th gen & 6th gen like Tempest & FCAS will also do something on it.
Just like a door air curtain works, keeps hot air out & cool air in, similarly cooled air curtain is needed to shield plume. That's what u also indicated right & my 1st graphic also shows but i said it is far easier said than done bcoz its implementation requires series of additional equipments & either integration into engine or separate air-frame mounted system. A 4th gen airframe simply doesn't have it, all they can improvise is maintain gap b/w engine & airframe skin & use thermal isolation composite materials & hope for the best.

Not an incorrect one, unlike half of what you had claimed. Smileys won't change reality.

6th gen needs separate thread.
I didn't claim anything about 6th gen. There are tons of articles in favor or against just everything. Today Rafale lovers are hijacking 6th gen design, tomorrow one can say that Rafale is copied from from Convair TF-102 Delta Dagger, then? Where is F-102 & where is Rafale? Similarly where is 4th gen Rafale & where is 6th gen?

You are using "global standard" units as an excuse because you either don't have a clue what we are talking about, or want to use lies to push your argument forward.
As I have explained, when comparing aircraft, total values do not really matter (except maybe weight and size). What matters are ratios.
Your insistence on units merely covers your own lack of understanding, or else dishonesty.
I never claimed that Rafale needs same throttle settings for the same speed at different altitudes and configurations. But the fact that it can reach Mach 0,9 with 50% throttle shows that it is capable of significant supercruise speed at that altitude and configuration. We know that Rafale can supercruise at Mach 1,4 with 6 AAMs at unknown altitude.
And this "best altitude etc" holds equally true for all jets, so what is the problem?

So i also showed calculations which was actually expected from you proactively. But no articles or aero-professionals or videos, documentaries speak in terms of throttle %. % & ratios are derived from total values, not the other way.
So u don't have to pass personal, judgemental words like 'excuses', 'dishonesty', lies', 'arguement' for technical topics & terms. So much character assasination in just 1 reply.
@hit&run, can u pls have the moderation team to scrutinize & remove personal judgemental comments & counsel this member? Thanks.

Try to understand what you yourself are writing before calling other people out.
Yet Rafale A, which was sized with F404 in mind, was larger and heavier that Rafale C. That is a fact. It is also a fact that Rafale A managed to reach Mach 1,4 supercruise after having one F404 replaced with M88-2. So not only did they design larger aircraft to begin with, but the engine designed for its smaller successor was able to give it supercruise capability.

So what u hav mentoned here specifically i wrote it in general. Either u modify the airframe or the engine or both. I didn't oppose replacing F404 with M88, i just said it is hardly bigger.

You also said that TVC gives F-22 unbeatable advantage in dogfight:
Which is wrong.
My point is that your claims are bullshit that is intended to invalidate my points without actually countering them.
I had made mistakes, but everything I claimed is based on facts. It is your problem for not understanding it (although it might also be due to the way I write). For example, me claiming that "US 6th generation fighter will be based on Rafale"... I never claimed that. What I did claim is that 6th generation fighter has the same design philosophy as Rafale: which is to say, a combination of agility and passive operation. Gripen is another jet which does this same thing, and F-35 has passive operation but no agility.
What I want is that you stop promoting ideas that are patently false. TVC is not an "I win" button in dogfight, despite what F-22 and Russian fans will tell you. I had given you quotes which show that close-coupled canards achieve pretty much the same thing as thrust vectoring does. What TVC does is that it gives you benefits of close-coupled canards without using canards, which is crucial for stealth jets which need to be able to deal with heavy-duty IADS without benefit of a SEAD campaign beforehand.

The hell are you talking about? After this, you have no leg to stand when you call me out for non-sequitors.
Thrust vectoring can be useful in certain situations:
1) trim during supersonic flight, which means reduced drag (as you don't use control surfaces for trim as much) and thus increased speed and range
2) improved nose pointing authority at low speed
3) improved control authority at high angles of attack
4) increased maximum controllable angle of attack
5) reduced takeoff and landing distance
6) airshow performances with no use in air combat
But points 2, 3, 4 and 5 can be achieved through usage of close-coupled canards - although, when it comes to takeoff and landing performance, thrust vectoring may still be useful even if you have canards.

There is no 'my point', 'ur point', 'validation', 'invalidation', 'my claim', 'ur claim', 'promotion', 'advertisement', etc here on unofficial forum. This is not some Expo site. R u an aero-professional or persuing a degree? Have u published international papers & seminars?
People like me who are not DoD or aero-professional can be wrong, v r just conveying what is seen in real life & that's what people buy. But people like u r using such concluding & judgemental & even personal slang words & lines w/o ur intro just bcoz u hav a personal blog site. U say it is my problem not understand but also say it mght be due to ur way of writing which indeed it is....u r speaking from both sides, what do u expect from others? Then improve ur way of writing & without slangs & personal judgemental words.

Going in circle.
U r pointing to an enitre company, country, industry, countless associated professionals who have done R&D & implemented things decades back & still using their products. It would be so intresting to witness a discussion b/w people like u & professionals from Russia, China, USA who are continiously implementing TVC.
Canard is a control surface dependent on enough air flow due to speed, TVC is independent of speed. Control surfaces don't work in stall regime but TVC does.
Control surfaces help in regaining stable flight in post-stall when sufficient air-flow & speed is regained which takes few seconds but TVC kicks in before it.
Points # 2,3,4,5 which u mentioned - the HUD video shows the limitations & i already said that FCS limitations for "practicality" are worthless if not used in combat.
Now J-10C is a delta-canard with TVC. Can u guarantee that Euro-canards won't implement TVC in future MLUs? Or will u say that TVC on J-10C is foolish?
And Rusian Su-57 is tandem-TRI-plane with levcons+3D-TVC.
I never said TVC is "i win" concept but theory of TVC is to reduce speed hence reduce inertia & G while still maintaining orientation, avoiding stall & attacking enemy before it can attack,that's all.
Repeating myself, when i said Rafale will loose >50% of gun-fights, means i considered up tp 40% wins which is excellent figure for a non-TVC 4th gen jet against a 5th gen TVC jet, but u r still not just unhappy but furious & outragious.
Why don't u really engage with professionals who worked on TVC globally then we will see how good u r with ur facts. Go comment on YT videos of those ex-pilots & then paste screenshots here.

I also repeated many times that i'm not fan of any country or product primarily but of technology. I'm F-22 fan bcoz it has used lot of different technologies in 1990s era, but i am not fan of F-35 at all, i just like certain parts of it like DAS, HMDS, avionics, etc.

And there is also you unquestionably buying into "generations" thing. Yes, it is true that jets - generally speaking - improve over time. But that doesn't mean that a jet of higher generation is automatically better, or will beat, a jet of a previous generation - even ignoring potential difference in pilot skill:
MiG-17, a modification of the first-generation MiG-15, was able to contest air against, and defeat, third-generation F-4 during the Vietnam war. Overall, MiG-17s achieved at least parity in exchange ratio, and maybe even 2:1 advantage (143aircraft shot down for 75 losses).
Second-generation MiG-21 was a dangerous opponent for, and managed to outfight, third-generation F-4 in Vietnam. During Libyan-Egyptian war, it also proved able to match third-generation MiG-23.
And I'm quite certain I would be able to find more examples if I cared enough to try.

So i did agree & also said that there are overlaps b/w generations.

There are overlaps b/w each gen but levels of gen obviously exists. Just like Rafale cannot be compared to older 2nd & 3rd gen Mirage series. In fact Rafale F4.2 can't be compared to its prototype in 1980s.

It also depends on pilot training, strategy, tactics, etc which can go wrong. I said

I'm not an aviation or military historian so i can't comment on the Vietnam air battles.
But in that era MiG-21 was a formidable interceptor & US pilots might have suffered from overconfidence.

Further, different jets have different design philosophies. Eurocanards are defensive designs, F-22 and F-35 are offensive ones. If I wanted to contest air superiority over a territory covered heavily with IADS, I would prefer F-22; for a strike mission in same conditions, I would prefer F-35. But for defending my own country, I would take Rafale or Gripen - every time.

A country will defend & strike with what it can afford to make or purchase. The statement which u made with F-22/35, we Indians for example won't make bcoz neither we can afford them nor we trust USA on critical complete platform like 5th or even 4th gen fighter where they can puppet us, hence we are trying to make our own AMCA. And we are not allies of any country oblidged to fight together, but just economic & strategic partners. We didn't get Rafale urgently so that F-22 & F-35 will supplement us against Pak & China. On both their borders Rafale will be positioned & China also got S-400 SAM. We have invested huge money, 3 extra SPECTRA sensors have been added + towed decoy, so if EW doesn't work against AAM & SAM then 4++ gen concept would be joke, Rafale's reputation will be irreversibly destroyed. India is not Croatia, geographically, economically, geopolitically, strategically, culturally, etc. Neither Russia will come to help nor USA. We will have to deal with 2.5 front war.
But Croatia & France are part of NATO, If 1 member of NATO is attacked then entire NATO will pounce back including F-22 & F-35. 4++ gen jets don't have RCS of that of F-22/35 that's why for air superiority & strike NATO will tactically use combined force of all jets. In current Ukranian crisis US F-35s are already flying near border countries.
Hence many things matter together for creating national assets - geography, geopolitics with neighbors, national governance model, economy & budget, talent, funding, timely realization, strategic alliances, etc.
European nations are small hence like both u & i hav said that small/medium jets are suited & economically sustainable. But if entire EU is taken then it is a big territory just like India having different states with their own language, sub-culture & developing asset to protect all states as a country. So if EU had the money + talent + timely realization + common agreement most important then they would have made a F-22/35 like jet(s) precursor to FCAS for all intrested countries, simple. "Euro Fighter" as name suggests was meant for EU but French separated & made Rafale, perhaps for good. And now also Tempest & FCAS countries are separate. But if EU was 1 country then it would be different story. That's why NATO exists as intermediate solution.
USA is a big nation but if it was 2 nations suppose East & West - ESA & WSA then both sides would have come up with different set of jets.
I hope u know that in pre-invasion era our country ranged from parts of Afghanistan to SE Asia but now broken like Yugoslavia.
This is the era of MRCA, not dedicated attack, interceptor, fighter, defender jets, bcoz technology advancements have allowed a jet to be MRCA.
So it is ur choice to categorize Eurocanards, USA jets, Russian jets, etc as offensive or defensive but the world sees all of them as MRCA. F-22 & F-35 won't come everytime to save them. We didn't release the MRCA tender only for defence but also for offence capability jet. F-22/35 RCS is low hence they can avoid SAM engagement zones but Dassault projected Rafale with good EW capabilities against SAMs & AAMs to jam & escape them otherwise those SPECTRA sensors are worthless & 4++ gen concept is joke.

Actually, we know. Six engagements, of which one F-22 win and either four or five draws, depending who you ask. But that is all we know, which is why I wrote that "results do not matter". What matters is the performance shown in the video.

These were NATO exercises. France is a member of NATO. Why wouldn't they use TVC in what is ACM exercise? It is not like TVC is something secret, any country that can make jet engines can also make TVC engines if they want. As for HUD video, you have multiple HUD videos online - they are not exactly secret. I believe French released HUD video after US started claiming that F-22 always won or stalemated Rafales - so they decided to show that Rafale won at least once. Marketing, basically, but it was USAF that started it.

"depending who you ask" point to be noted. U wanna believe it, no issues, i won't.
Rafale performace was very nice, nobody denies it, good job, well done, i also saw it in Aero-India 2013, we also purchased it. But F-22 HUD video not available except of simulators, there could be big difference, that's very dangerous situation. For public relations a simulator can be switched to demo mode & for training pilots to actual mode. Today's smart phones & TVs also have a demo mode. And like i explained above, EU could have made F-22 like Eurofighter if EU was 1 nation or they had common agreement, just like Russians made Su-57. But they had to dump it & move to 6th gen.
F-22 is not for export to closest NATO allies also, that shows trust issues USA part of NATO is stupidity, the word NATO itself doesn't hold today. It should have been EUTO & separate USA+Cannada alliance which is there. But USA wants to be global police
I never said TVC is secret. France had TVC in tested VTOL jets. Germany colaborated on X-31.
It can be psycological tactic also to push other to reveal something, put yourself into American strategic shoes. what would you do?
Anyways, let me again repeat that i also gave Rafale upto 40% win, that's not bad at all against F-22. So i never negated Rafale. Beyond that excessively praising Rafale & downplaying F-22 is also not fair.

Low velocity also means that you do not cover much ground, which means that enemy missile does not need to correct as much and you are getting shot down. It also means that even if you manage to avoid the missile, enemy pilot will have no problem coming over your top and gunning you down.
Using TVC and PSM in actual combat is basically a very good way to suicide. There is no point in pushing AoA above the point where your wing achieves CLmax, except in some very specific gunfighting scenarios - but these are basically death or glory, desperation moves where you know you are dead if you do not shoot down the opponent now. The only way it can work is if the opponent is alone and you are alone, so you know there will be no interference.

When a TVC & non-TVC jet will merge & cross,
If both jets or just the non-TVC jet have LOAL capability then TVC won't matter but the missiles shouldn't miss by flares.
If both don't have LOAL then TVC jet will be 1st to fire missile.
Some DCS sims & actual exercises compiled sims have shown that sometimes both side pilots fire missiles prematurely or at wrong angles or both side missiles are defeated by flares. So it also depends on pilot training & luck by flares.
When missiles are depleted then TVC will be beneficial in gunfight but TVC pilot should not miss & his engine should be strong to gain speed back & again use TVC. Then also i have given upto 40% winning chance to non-TVC jet like Rafale in gunfight.
Scientist & engineers of USA, Russia & China & now India have done this kind of discussions & simulations already. But u r disqualifying all of them & adamant not to accept benefits of technological progress.
And like J-10C if Eurocanards decide to implement TVC then?
Croatia may not face Su-35, Su-57, J-10C but Indian Raafale's have to deal with J-10C, Su-35 & future J-20 with TVC. So we would love to have Rafale in F5/6 to have TVC. We could have ordered non-TVC Su-30MKI when we switched from initial Su-30K but we & entire world understands benefits of it. But unfortunately MKI doesn't have AL-41 or better engine.

If u have watched movie "Death Race" with cars armed with guns. A driver who doesn't know how to drift or with a car with bad tyres, insufficient engine power or too heavy won't be able to fire & hit as much as a driver with good drifting skills, good engine & tyres, the right weight.
Similarly F-22 & Su-57 like jet is a combination of right weight, engine, TVC, avionics & pilot skills also matter.

Even today, it is several seconds. Look at basically any HUD video and look at how long it takes for radar to establish tracking solution.

Would u say this for Rafale also even after having AESA?
Those videos are of legacy jets with older avionics S/w & radar H/w versions. Why would someone reveal latest capabilities? But u can ask any engineer or tech student in ur circle how fast AESA can work, huge diff. from mechanical radars. RF radiation travel at speed of light, there r beam control & sharpening techniques. But it is all game of S/w now hence programming skills of engineers & computing architecture matter.

F-22 doesn't have anything like EO DAS.

D in DAS stands for DISTRIBUTED. The 6-axis positions for AN/AAQ-37 in F-35 were 1st used by AN/AAR-56 in F-22. We change phones, laptops/PC every few years & they get S/w update frequently, the phone & CCTV cameras can track bodies, objects, faces, ID the faces, then what would stop high grade military to MLU the sensors & avionics?
So F-22 has spherical coverage of RF & EO sensors fused by avionics for situational awareness.
Now Su-35 & Su-57 are also using same cardinal positions for their MAWS.
So all 4 jets have DAS (simple engilsh dictionary meaning) but if all have capability which F-35 DAS providesis a different thing. IR & UV sensors provide different kind of images hence same image processing can't be done on both.

Great, so when you get desperate, you accuse other people of tactics you yourself are using.
Get real.
Having a "brief idea" is fine. Having an inaccurate brief idea is not fine. Your repeated false claims about TVC vs canards, and your lack of understanding of Rafale's aerodynamic design and close-coupled canards in particular, would not be a problem - if we were discussing cars or trucks. They are however a problem when we are discussing Rafale and fighter design in general.
And do not blame ME for a discussion YOU had started. You are the one who claimed that F-22 or Su-35 will win in a dogfight against Rafale thanks to thrust vectoring:
I only brought in comparison to illustrate the point I was making - one that had nothing to do with maneuverability. You were the one who turned it into discussion on utility of TVC and canards in a dogfight.
Which still has to do with Rafale and design choices made, so it is not like we are in any way off topic. Discussion growing is not a bad thing.
TVC can make a jet a better dogfighter than the same jet would be without TVC. But it is not necessary for a jet to be a good dogfighter, nor will it make every jet a better dogfighter.
You see, design choices are not made in isolation. And it is very rarely that you have only one solution for achieving a certain goal. It all depends on how various characteristics interact with each other.
F-22 uses TVC because its design choices preclude usage of close-coupled canards. But TVC doesn't suddenly negate its larger size, inferior aerodynamics, or higher wing loading. Is F-22 a dangerous opponent in dogfight? Certainly. But expecting TVC to suddenly make it superior to jets designed for dogfight - such as Rafale or Gripen - sorry, but that is just pure fantasy.
Yet you keep harping on TVC as if it is an automatic "I win" button.

I don't get deperate, I don't use slangs, personal judgemental, psycological, character defaming words.
I don't use random quotes or drag focus of someone else's post off-agenda.
I have been watching doumenteries since 1990s, discussing since 20 years now, i share whatever pics, videos, screenshots i got in my folder. I'm merely conveying things, not my original ideas, conclusions, claims, etc.
I'm IT engineer who can understand basic aerodynamics, fluid dynamics, but not DoD person, pilot, aero-personal. So i may not know lots of things but i don't intend to do PhD here either, hence u see all my posts r based on pics & diagrams which r easy for time-passers to comprehend on an unofficial forum.
Sometimes, my tech qualification gives me an edge, sometimes.
So there is not question to claim, validate/invalidate, promote, advertise something.
Discussion growing is good but better topic wise, not mix everything.
But if u wanna convince others on fighter jet design then either u must be qualified student or professional or at least u must use labeled pics, diagrams, YT vidoes, etc. But all members must be able to comprehend or ur goal will fail. But please make separate post.

Going in circle.
TVC is a small H/w feature, natural & simple evolution. It has been applied on delta-canard (j-10C), tandem bi-plane & tri-plane (MKI, MKM, Su-57, Su-35). That means it works on all fighter jet designs. many missiles also use jet vanes.
Tested on F-15 SMTD, F-16 MATV, F-18 HARV, X-31 but why not deployed? Could be bcoz of budget allocations, huge fleet, lack of strong engines, FCS modification & hesitations.
F-22 without TVC would be similar to a stealthy F-15. The F-15 was also good dogfighter but Rafale can defeat most non-TVC jets most of the times as i already said. So F-22 w/o TVC would be risky except at night or in clouds it can take advantage of spherical situational awareness.
But just forget me, if u wanna challenge pilots, aero-engineers, scientists of at least 5 countries operating TVC jet & even coming up with new ones, that's ur choice, best of luck, not my fault.

Levcons are better for stealth. Canards are better for agility.
Rafale uses RCS reduction measures, including RAM, yes. But it is still primarily designed as a self-defense fighter (Cold War design, remember). RCS reduction measures were "good to have", but were not prioritized to an extent that they would compromise other things such as aerodynamics. Its design goals were completely different compared to fundamentally offensive designs such as F-22 and F-35, which were designed to deal with heavy radar-based air defense systems, similar to earlier F-117 and B-2 bombers.

So don't u think a modified Rafale with levcons & TVC would be better? Perhaps it will be a new jet altogether, good for export & supplementing FCAS.
"Self defence" fighter? So only judo, no karate
I already explained why we got customized Rafale at huge cost. U guys can wait for NATO support, we can't.
F-117 has retired. it should have been A-117 or B-117.

F-22 certainly could have done that. Su-27, with no thrust vectoring, can do Pugachev's Cobra, achieving 120° angle of attack in the process. Many other aircraft can achieve 90°+ angle of attack. JAS-35 Draken could do Cobra maneuver as early as 1950., and in fact the maneuver had been developed for Draken as a way of getting out of the superstall:
Although something similar may have been done before. If memory serves me well, even F-86 Sabre could do Cobra, but don't quote me on that as I could be mistaken.
But such maneuvers are basically useless in actual combat. The only reason why I pointed out Rafale can do Cobra is to show that TVC is not necessary for most things that you are claiming to be "advantages of thrust vectoring aircraft". Reality is, any fighter with good enough aerodynamics can do a Cobra*. If fighter needs thrust vectoring to do Cobra, then it means that its aerodynamics are compromised in some way.
* That being said, "any fighter with good enough aerodynamics" still excludes many if not most fighters. MiG-21, F-15, F-16 all cannot do the Cobra because they develop uncontrollable pitch-up at high enough angles of attack. Of current-generation US fighters, "only" F-18E, F-22 and F-35 can do it.
Why would they do it? The only thing that Cobra maneuver realistically offers is a publicity stunt at the risk of crashing the aircraft (not enough altitude to recover in case of a mistake at an air show). But for Rafale and Gripen (probably not Typhoon), being able to perform Cobra would merely require relaxation of flight control laws and limitations.
In combat, Cobra would result in one of the following:
1) missile up the tail pipe
2) both jets colliding in the air
3) pursuer doing a high yo-yo and gunning the Cobra-performing idiot down
4) getting shot down by an unseen enemy
5) some combination of the above

Many thanks for the video which gives partial answer to your questions. And u can't say that u hav not watched videos of all the TVC jets, so there is no comparison at all. From SAAB video we can see that it was such a short stunt that pilot cannot fire missile or gun nor can spin/roll or avoid stall, so that's all non-TVC jets can do. But TVC jet can sustain the cobra more, reduce speed to zero if required & then move up, down, sideways, roll, spin, etc.
TVC maneuver is not just the Cobra maneuver, there are numerous moves. Basically 'where u wish is where u go' provided a good engine & FCS is there. It is all S/w controlled. Just like many 4++ gen jets including Rafale have terrain following & colission avoidance anti-crash feature in their FCS similarly a TVC jet's avionics can also real-time simulate & detect if a TVC move will endanger colission with ground or another jet close by. The nozzle actuation is S/w cotrolled.

It is not sidetracking, it is an example which shows clearly that gaining weight is normal for fighter aircraft. If you want, we can look up other fighters as well.

Yes it is normal but F-16 is very extreme example. Internally It has just 3.2T fuel & CFT give 1.4T while Rafale already has 4.7T. Rafale with CFT looks ugly. F-22 cannot be compared at all. It can't even think of having a CFT, it already has 8.2T. When we talk of a gen leap then lots of things from previous gen are already included.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

How is to see on a M88 drawing, but it's a fact.

Well, we had days of enough discussion on it. I just wanna confirm it by pic if possible for our purchased Rafales.

The discussion is becoming too complexe for me, and for my english level, but I just can assure that there are no Export and french only M88 versions.
Just, maybe, a potential 8.3 Tons M88 (*) model for Qatar Rafale. But it may be a french forumer joke.

(*) : The french air force choose to reduce the owner cost with the improved M88 instead of more power. Another choice was possible : to keep intact the life span and to increase the thrust. Maybe it was the Qatar choice.... or maybe not.

How can u assure when M88 has multiple variants?

TVC was studied for Rafale. The Dassault answer was : it's too costly, too heavy, a breakdown too risky for the benefice.
Eurofighter made the same analysis.
There is a benefice but not so evident to make that choice.

At least 5 countries are operating TVC jets. Our AMCA will also have it. That's more than enough evidence.
With time things get better. If Kevlar composite can be used for engine making it lighter then something now can be done for TVC nozzle kit also. Unless people think constructively, nothing can happen.
If J-10C can implement it then Eurocanards can/may also do it in future. It will be very helpful for our Rafale against Chinese & Pak TVC jets.
May be Dassault & BAe need to replace some engineers by better optimistic & efficient ones.

 

[MirageBlue]

Well, we had days of enough discussion on it. I just wanna confirm it by pic if possible for our purchased Rafales.


How can u assure when M88 has multiple variants?


At least 5 countries are operating TVC jets. Our AMCA will also have it. That's more than enough evidence.
With time things get better. If Kevlar composite can be used for engine making it lighter then something now can be done for TVC nozzle kit also. Unless people think constructively, nothing can happen.
If J-10C can implement it then Eurocanards can/may also do it in future. It will be very helpful for our Rafale against Chinese & Pak TVC jets.
May be Dassault & BAe need to replace some engineers by better optimistic & efficient ones.

TVC is not being looked at for AMCA. It adds weight, reduces overall reliability by adding a failure point & effectiveness is not that great in longer range BVR engagements which is where the focus is now.

J-10 was flown with TVC, but to date no production version uses it. Same with MiG-29OVT versus MiG-29SMT/MiG-35/MiG-29K.

Focus is on avionics, data-links, stealth, net-centric warfare, long range weapons, etc. rather than post-stall maneuvering which was the in-thing when the Su-30MKI was being designed.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

TVC is not being looked at for AMCA. It adds weight, reduces overall reliability by adding a failure point & effectiveness is not that great in longer range BVR engagements which is where the focus is now.

J-10 was flown with TVC, but to date no production version uses it. Same with MiG-29OVT versus MiG-29SMT/MiG-35/MiG-29K.

Focus is on avionics, data-links, stealth, net-centric warfare, long range weapons, etc. rather than post-stall maneuvering which was the in-thing when the Su-30MKI was being designed.

I have already mentioned multiple possible reasons of not using TVC is some jets such as cost of upgrading massive fleet, hestitancy & skepticism, etc. But the regular examples cannot be ignored. There will always be people on both sides to agree/disagree for imlementation. I'm a middle aged IT engineer & i hav seen many lazy namesake engineers who just want promotion, salary, good life but don't wan't to work & don't let other work either. They are fearful that the working people will overtake them. Such is the mentality & corruption in our society & industry.
AMCA is a tandem-bi-plane conventional design, no canards, no levcons. MK1 may not have some intended features due to GE414 engine but MK2 must have or it with local/JV engine or it will be big mistake in agility, it will be worse than F-35. If same excuse was given for F-22, Su-57, MKI, MKM, etc then these jets would have never come to life & remained as demo jets only. The entire 5th gen design adds lots of weight & failure points & 6th gen will add even more weight but with time engines also improve, materials & airframe become lighter with composite usage, engine control become digital, hydraulic actuators become electric, many dedicated H/w functions are offloaded to S/w control. I have already said that for TVC to be success, good engine, good avionics, good weapons, pilot skill together have to work.
Hence in way of progress & development, challenges & hurdles are always there but we can't remain stagnant. We must continue to push harder towards solutions & work-arounds.
It is very sad that Su-30,35,57 saw TVC squads but not MiG-29,35.
Reason for failure with different jets could be different. MiG-35 has no customers yet. If China can surprise everybody with J-20 & J-35 then it may still do so with TVC on J-10C production & with future J-20 local engines. Let's wait & see. But it has successfully demonstrated the contrasting performance.

 

[WolfPack86]

114 Rafale Assembly By DRAL

 

[BON PLAN]

Rafale for UAE : the first payment is made. The deal is now officially made.

Rafale export log book :
Egypt : 54
India : 36
Qatar : 36
Greece : 24
Croatia : 12
UAE : 80
Indonesia : 6
Total for export : 248.

Option : Quatar 36, Indonesia 36. Maybe Serbia. I hope for myself for Morocco...

 

[BON PLAN]

At least 5 countries are operating TVC jets. Our AMCA will also have it. That's more than enough evidence.
With time things get better. If Kevlar composite can be used for engine making it lighter then something now can be done for TVC nozzle kit also. Unless people think constructively, nothing can happen.
If J-10C can implement it then Eurocanards can/may also do it in future. It will be very helpful for our Rafale against Chinese & Pak TVC jets.
May be Dassault & BAe need to replace some engineers by better optimistic & efficient ones.

Yes, but for exemple the same LM used TVC on F22 and not on the more recent F35...
If your frame and your fbw are well studied, it is possible to avoid this complication without penalty.

 

[BON PLAN]

Rafale for UAE : the first payment is made. The deal is now officially made.

The UAE M2000-9 are to be sold.
Morocco, Greece and Egypt are interested officially. Maybe also India ?

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Yes, but for exemple the same LM used TVC on F22 and not on the more recent F35...
If your frame and your fbw are well studied, it is possible to avoid this complication without penalty.

The F-35's VTOL requirement derailed TVC otherwise LM would have definitely done TVC in F-35. Keep yourself in their shoes, wouldn't you?
But technically TVC is just having modified actuators & avionics code, so it can still be done but with extra cost which customer nations may not pay for A & C models.
The VTOL nozzle itself is a masterpiece & breakthrough in mechanical & aeronautical engineering, so technically it can be further researched to include TVC. Where there is a will there is a way. It is nothing like Star Trek. You never know that future MLU might do it. F-22 got 11 Billion US$ ARES MLU, F-35 might also get it in future, depends on customers & other factors.
LM & ATF/F-22 team doesn't think TVC is complication with penalty, nor do i. All systems have to work together for survival & success. Complications won't stop humans. What kind of world would be today if we remained with Turboprops & without computers. Some countries enjoy luxury of superior economy & currency hence R&D, some don't. Everything differs country to country.

 

[MirageBlue]

Rafale for UAE : the first payment is made. The deal is now officially made.

Rafale export log book :
Egypt : 54
India : 36
Qatar : 36
Greece : 24
Croatia : 12
UAE : 80
Indonesia : 6
Total for export : 248.

Option : Quatar 36, Indonesia 36. Maybe Serbia. I hope for myself for Morocco...

I read somewhere that Morocco will be getting UAE's Mirage-2000s. If that happens, they'll be good for another 2 decades given how long they've been using the Mirage F1s with upgrades. So they're unlikely to go for Rafales.