Know Your 'Rafale'

[WolfPack86]

FRANCE MULLING SALE OF USED RAFALE JETS TO INDIAN NAVY: REPORT
The race to sell a new aircraft carrier-based fighter jet to the Indian Navy is heating up. Last week, US manufacturer Boeing announced it would be deploying two F/A-18 E/F Super Hornet fighters to an Indian Navy test facility in Goa for flight trials.

On Wednesday, French media outlet La Tribune reported the French government has been studying “for several months” the sale of four used 'Rafale Marine' jets to the Indian Navy.

The Rafale Marine is the carrier-borne variant of the Rafale fighter, which is already in service with the Indian Air Force.

The Rafale Marine and Super Hornet are considered the front-runners to win a contract that would involve supply of up to 57 jets to the Indian Navy. These jets would primarily operate off the aircraft carrier Vikrant, which is currently undergoing sea trials.

La Tribune reported France had been studying the sale of used Rafale Marine jets to gain an edge to win the larger contract from the Indian Navy.

La Tribune reported “the sale of four used Rafale Marine to the F3-R standard is likely to give a competitive advantage to France against the Americans in the context of the Indian call for tenders to equip the INS Vikrant. These four recently modernized devices could indeed be quickly put into service on the Indian aircraft carrier.” The 'F3-R' is the current production standard of the Rafale. Aircraft of the F3-R standard have the capability to fire the Meteor long-range air-to-air missile and use the Talios target acquisition pod, in addition to being equipped with upgraded sensors and electronics.

The report noted the Rafale Marine, which is smaller in dimensions than the Super Hornet, is well suited to the Vikrant. “... it can in particular easily use the elevators of the INS Vikrant. Which would not be quite the case for its American rival,” La Tribune reported.

La Tribune claimed India could decide to buy up to 26 new naval fighters by the end of the year. The La Tribune report comes days before Prime Minister Narendra Modi is scheduled to visit France.

Rafale Marine Development

When design work on the Rafale started in the 1970s, it was envisaged to be one aircraft that would replace nearly all fighter aircraft then flying in the French Air Force and Navy.

The Rafale Marine formally entered service with the French Navy in 2004. In fact, the Rafale Marine variant precedes the air force variant of the Rafale. While the two aircraft types are largely identical, the Rafale Marine is heavier due to having a reinforced undercarriage and nose wheel to deal with impact of carrier take-offs and landings and also a stronger 'arrester' hook to catch the wires that bring the aircraft to a halt on landing.

Given its need to maintain commonality with the air force variant, the Rafale Marine also suffers from some limitations. The Rafale Marine is available only in a single-seat version, while the Super Hornet is available in both single- and two-seat versions. The Rafale Marine is also incapable of folding its wings when on deck, a major disadvantage given the limited space on aircraft carriers. The Super Hornet is able to do so.

Ski-Jump Trials

In January, the French Navy dispatched two Rafale Marine jets to India for trials at the Goa facility where the Super Hornet will be tested. The tests in Goa are being done to evaluate the two aircraft for their capability to operate off ski-jumps. La Tribune reported the Rafale Marine “carried out very successful trials” in Goa and “French Navy was able to demonstrate all its expertise in naval aviation (landing) and convinced the Indians of the performance of the Rafale Marine.”

During the tests in January, a blogger shared an image of a Rafale Marine jet flying with an Exocet anti-ship missile, two 2,000 litre fuel tanks and four MICA air-to-air missiles. French analysts claimed this configuration showed the Rafale Marine could take off from a ski-jump with an external load of over 5.5 tonnes, nearly matching the maximum weight of jets taking off from the French Navy aircraft carrier Charles De Gaulle, which uses a catapult to launch aircraft. Aircraft using catapults can take off at heavier weights than those using ski-jumps.

France Mulling Sale of Used Rafale Jets To Indian Navy: Report

Rafale Marine underwent trials in Goa earlier this year The race to sell a new aircraft carrier-based fighter jet to the Indian Navy is heat...

www.indiandefensenews.in

 

[BON PLAN]

I don't think M88 should be uprated, the Rafale has long legs and can supercruise with a good AAM load which is good enough. Uprating will make it less reliable and more expensive.

It could be uprated. As for now it seems no customer use it (except may be Qatar ....).
As the plane will be heavier and heavier as all fighters, it will be the case at a moment or another.

 

[MirageBlue]

How fast would France be able to deliver 26 Rafale if an order was placed today?
Seems like it would take a while with how fully booked the line is.

Not fast for sure. The Rafale assembly line is already booked and Rafale Marines come from the same line. More brand new Rafales for Greece, Egypt, Qatar, UAE and Indonesia are in line plus upgrades for Greek and Croatian orders for second hand Rafales.

I think that the only viable option to get Rafales quickly is now to set up an assembly line in India, with IN and IAF orders. But the IAF's MRFA tamasha is never ending and isn't going to end any time this year or the next for sure. So that leaves the IN stranded as well even if they were to make a choice this year. I think it is to circumvent that long lag between placing an order and getting anything onboard INS Vikramaditya, that Dassault is considering the option of selling 4 second hand Rafale Marine F3Rs from the French Navy. The French Navy will be pissed off, but the French Govt and Dassault will be happy to secure another customer.

It's wonderful for Dassault to have a problem of too large a backlog, but for repeat customers or new customers it will be a problem. Assembly lines get booked, with the place in the assembly line secured for each customer. Unless one of them is ok with having their deliveries deferred to fit in Indian orders, we can't get new Rafales for quite a long time.

 

[Fonck83]

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Rafale pilots relaxed on the inclined ejection seat.

The pilot seems to be very close to the MFDs. It is a very compact cockpit.

 

[BON PLAN]

The pilot seems to be very close to the MFDs. It is a very compact cockpit.

View attachment 153901

Not really. Previous Dassault fighter cockpit were really small. Pilot has to fit in like a foot in a sock.
The Rafale one is far bigger. Maybe not as in a F15, but it's clearly more confortable.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Not really. Previous Dassault fighter cockpit were really small. Pilot has to fit in like a foot in a sock.
The Rafale one is far bigger. Maybe not as in a F15, but it's clearly more confortable.

It appears like that from side bcoz the center MFD has been extended so close to the pilot. It even partially blocks the side MFDs. This is very unusual layout not seen on other 4++ gen jets. Some legacy jets are even moving to 1 or 2 MFD upgraded layout. I also wonder why such small jets don't move to single piece canopy like F-16/22.

 

[MirageBlue]

Hoping that PM Narendra Modi's visit yields some major development in this regard, for the new 110 kN engine. Work must start this year itself, to meet AMCA, TEDBF timelines and part of the Tejas Mk2 tranche orders.

 

[MirageBlue]

It appears like that from side bcoz the center MFD has been extended so close to the pilot. It even partially blocks the side MFDs. This is very unusual layout not seen on other 4++ gen jets. Some legacy jets are even moving to 1 or 2 MFD upgraded layout. I also wonder why such small jets don't move to single piece canopy like F-16/22.

View attachment 153908
View attachment 153909
View attachment 153910

That is because the center display which is so close to the pilot is collimated (Focused) to infinity, so the pilot doesn't have to refocus his vision each time he looks at it after looking down at other displays. As per Peter Collins who wrote an excellent article on his test flight of a Rafale, it made it very easy to look at the Head Level Display and then look away at Head Down Displays and then back and all without having to refocus his vision. It is another superb French solution.

 

[Fonck83]

It appears like that from side bcoz the center MFD has been extended so close to the pilot. It even partially blocks the side MFDs. This is very unusual layout not seen on other 4++ gen jets. Some legacy jets are even moving to 1 or 2 MFD upgraded layout. I also wonder why such small jets don't move to single piece canopy like F-16/22.

View attachment 153908
View attachment 153909
View attachment 153910

The central screen is focused to infinity. This is only specific to rafale and enable pilots to look outisde rfale and this xcreen without having one ore two second to adapt eyes on focusing correctly. This is by far the most used screen on board.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

That is because the center display which is so close to the pilot is collimated (Focused) to infinity, so the pilot doesn't have to refocus his vision each time he looks at it after looking down at other displays. As per Peter Collins who wrote an excellent article on his test flight of a Rafale, it made it very easy to look at the Head Level Display and then look away at Head Down Displays and then back and all without having to refocus his vision. It is another superb French solution.

The central screen is focused to infinity. This is only specific to rafale and enable pilots to look outisde rfale and this xcreen without having one ore two second to adapt eyes on focusing correctly. This is by far the most used screen on board.

When this was planned since 1980s in Rafale then why no other example like this in the world?
Why not use 1 or 2 rectangular screen(s) & collimate?
Why not improve HMDS?

 

[Fonck83]

Why not improve HMDS?

There was such a project in the nineties. But the helmet was to heavy and the Pilots didn't like it.Even several patents had been taken. One is still use one the US f-35 helmet without any permission from Thales.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

There was such a project in the nineties. But the helmet was to heavy and the Pilots didn't like it.Even several patents had been taken. One is still use one the US f-35 helmet without any permission from Thales.

Why no other example like this in the world?
Why not use 1 or 2 rectangular screen(s) & collimate?

 

[WolfPack86]

France, fighters & friendship: Bonjour, Modi & Macron!

 

[Picard]

Foreign language? English is global common language. What's the difficulty in it? i don't thin any of my sentences were emantically wrong.

All I know is that the structure of your sentences makes them a pain to read. They tend to be too long, you use slang ("ur" etc.), you don't structure your posts properly to make them easier to read (too many walls of text) and so on.

How can Rafale nozzle or any 4th gen jet nozzle mask the entire plume?

I never claimed that it masks the entire plume. Just that it masks the hottest part of the plume. Learn the difference.

The hottest part of plume is its center, right? I showed u IR image of non-afterburning civil jet showing the center hottest part then how can a military jet engine nozzle shield it? The inner panels get hot by plume & glow like some oanel light in IR spectrum compared to forward airframe. To avoid that a small gap & then outer panels are used. And i repeated that this is cheap, simple, common technique in 4th & previous gens also.

It is cheap and simple, but not that common - not in the US designs at least, I think some Russian aircraft do use it (MiG-23, e.g.).

Sometimes u r Rafale supporter, sometimes Grippen supporter for urcountry's procurement.

I support them because they are good designs, and a far better value for money than literally anything else in the world. In 1940s I would have supported P-51, in 1970s I would have supported F-16.

I'll still say larger size & weight is not disadvantage in dogfight. F-22, Su-57, Su-35 prove it by using combo of canads, levcons, TVC, good engine.

Canards + levcons + TVC + good engine =/= ability to ignore basic physics.

Size is absolutely a disadvantage in dogfight. Larger size means aircraft is easier to keep track of visually, and is more likely to get hit in the first place (even though it is more likely to survive getting hit). Greater mass means increased moment of inertia, and larger wing span means increased rotational inertia, and both of these reduce transients.

This is not to say that a larger aircraft cannot be more agile than a smaller one, but to say that greater size is not a disadvantage is simply wrong.

I use diagram, pics, calculations, so there is no ur or my side of "arguement".

And yet you still make basic mistakes.

U were using throttle % & later switched to ratios & said that total values don't matter & i told u that tech papers/people don't talk in terms of throttle % & the ratios r calculated from total values not the other way.

And you still cannot or do not want to understand the reason why I was using throttle ratios and other ratios.

When measuring performance...
- total weight matters somewhat, but tells you little if you do not know wing loading and thrust to weight ratio
- total thrust does not matter at all
- total wing area matters very little or not at all

What matters are ratios:
- thrust to drag ratio
- thrust to weight ratio (thrust loading)
- lift to drag ratio (incl. span loading)
- lift to weight ratio (wing loading + Cl)

When it comes to IR signature as well, an aircraft that uses more powerful and hotter engine can still have lower IR signature if it can fly at higher speeds for the same engine setting. So while total thrust and engine temperature may matter for IR signature, ratios still have a significant influence (e.g. bypass ratio, thrust-to-weight ratio and thrust-to-drag ratio).

What is this? "i never claimed, i never claimed, i never claimed" BUT "u claimed, u claimed, u claimed"

Because you constantly claim that I said things I never did. In other words, you tend to either misunderstand what I wrote, or else outright lie. I only hope it is the former.

There is a HUGE diff. how legacy jets used dedicated optical & RF sensors & how 5th gen jets use them.

Difference being?

There is also diff. in saying 360 degree which is a 2D term & 'spherical' coverage which is 3D term.

I am aware. But Rafale's DDM technically does have spherical coverage except for the area that is covered by the airframe. F-35's EO DAS "only" has 360 degree coverage:

5th gen or at least F-22/35 tries to combine MAWS, IRST & passive targeting as much as possible bcoz every optical sensor has to use digital image processing & there should not be any blind spot. Stealth was a concern hence they were not shy in investing in more # of sensors - 6 instead of 2-4 as instead of traditional sets of mirros, lenses, mechanical rotators, they used focal plane array. Once u get the IR image from sensor it depends on programming skills of engineers, how they differentiate missiles, jets & other objects & fuse the data with other sensors as required & present in the simplest form on MFD.
Same thing for RF sensors but RWR, jammer, EW antennas don't lock a target like radar. 5th gen doesn't have muti-spectral or multi-function antennas yet, so they used all these types of RF sensors separately to give spherical coverage. The spine, belly, chin, cheek, rudder, wings, rear body extensions, everywhere there are radar antennas, MADL/IFDL antennas, RWR antennas, EW antennas, so # of antennas increase a lot which again adds to cost & hence more signal processing by H/w & S/w required increasing the cost.
More sensors mean more cost & more S/w lines of code also means more cost. hence F-22 is costliest jet & 4++ gen jets like Rafale has not done this extended investment YET but it can do in future F5/6 MLUs as i said. Hence just like F-35 AN/AAQ-37 DAS in 10x zoom searched, tracked & IDed & locked BM plume 1,300 Kms away, F-22 AN/AAR-56 DAS can also do it but at shorter ranges as its sensor is older & has shorter aperture. Repeating, if phone cam & CCTV can track & ID objects so can military EO sensors with digital image processing. Rafale has got radar+2 EO sensors ahead of cockpit + 2 DDMs which can look forward still if it takes few seconds to lock any jet in upper forward quadrant & then loses the lock then the sensor fusion is incomplete. Theoretically they are capable but practically not implemented yet. So due to this costly H/w & S/w investment F-22/35 maintain continious spherical sensor-fused lock on a target displayed on MFD/HUD/HMDS while no 4++ gen jet has it yet due to cost but they can do it in future MLU.
Now if USAF doesn't want to release F-22 HUD video or from its AN/AAR-56 sensors then what can i do, request email to Pentagon, Lockheed, USAF & PoTUS that Mr. Picard from Croatia is asking me an Indian civilian proof of F-22's HUD & sensor videos & all the secrets otherwise he won't believe its capabilities & 5th gen desgin philosophy? 4th gen Rafale couldn't display continious lock on HUD so 5th gen F-22 also can't do it??? This is your logic & technical comprehension after sharing thesis abstracts on CCC?? Then u accuse & abuse me with slangs & character defaming words But my graduation in computer tech & 15yrs of experience enables me to understand some aspects of H/W & S/w better than non-tech grads. After asking also i don't even know ur age, qualification, profession if any. U & I r not doctors so when we go to doctor's clinic do we start asking proofs of his medical understanding or we follow his/her prescription & treatment? And when doctor gives medicines or suggests treatment it is our responsibility to do it. So can't u do some simple homework on Google & YT & watch at least the F-22 documentaries & simulator videos & understand simple thing why F-22 has got RF sensors on spine, belly, wing, rear?

Technical knowledge is completely useless if you do not understand tactical application. And considering how frequently you misunderstand basic concepts and basics of aircraft design, I'd say that your ability to apply whatever technical knowledge you may have to the topic in question is a big fat zero.

E.g. what you said about focal plane array... EO DAS does use focal plane array, but so does literally every other IR MAWS in existence.

F-22 doesn't even have IRST, and IR MAWS usually uses short-wave or mid-wave sensors, which are good for missile warning and ground attack, but not at detecting aircraft at long distances, which is necessary for air-to-air combat.

F-22 is expensive in large part due to its protracted development, stealth skin and small numbers ordered relative to the cost. Oh, and the fact that its production was intentionally distributed in an inefficient manner just to secure political points. Same goes for the F-35.

Also, try and understand context, please? F-35's DAS may have "zoom" but that is digital zoom. It will never be as good as a dedicated IRST which has an actual, physical zoom. Also, tracked + IDed + locked BM plume at 1300 km... yeah, not exactly impressive. You do understand what ballistic missiles are? PIRATE IRST can easily detect Venus on the sky, Rafale's OSF should be capable of the same, yet you don't see me claiming that PIRATE or OSF are somehow extraordinarily better than all other IRST in existence. Because doing that is nothing extraordinary. You are falling for LM's marketing speak, when in reality saying that "IRST can detect BM plume at 1300 km" is not that much better of a boast than saying that "F-35 can fly". Important ability to have, for sure... but do you really want to use it for bragging?

If it takes a few seconds to lock a target, then it takes a few seconds to lock a target. It has nothing to do with sensor fusion, except to show that DDM likely cannot provide firing solution, otherwise Rafale would have maintained the solution throughout.

And yes, I am aware F-35 is theoretically capable of providing a continuous target tracking and lock through 360 degrees. You are yet to show any proof that F-22 is capable of the same.

Also, if you are admitting something is a secret and that you do not know it, stop claiming it as a fact. Doing so is dishonest to say the least.

I will stop "abusing you with character defaming words" once you prove you are capable of honest discussion and thus deserving of respect I normally do provide to people I have discussion with. The ball is in your court, pal.

So i also said that there are ovelaps b/w gens due to MLUs & pilot skills, strategies, tactics also matter. A gen leap occurs when further MLU is either not possible or requires space/design alterations to such an extent that new airframe is required or the older jet starts looking like a new jet.

There are overlaps between generations, yes, but my point is that even being of higher generation does not always mean a jet is superior.

Yes but for same jet it is dynamic due to altitude & load conditions hence an unreliable metric.
Also 5 jets with same engine with same throttle % at same altitude & load will have different speed due to airframe design, hence again it is unreliable metric.

Precisely.

Very good, but during tests. If it can do it in production during combat w/o FCS limit then it will be perfect. otherwise just for Indian Rafales a TVC MLU is a possibility if Chinese decide to do it & also MKI's engines are still AL-31FP. There is also possibility that our TEDBF & MWF delta-canards may also have TVC.

There is nothing to stop Rafale from doing so during combat except for FCS limit, but why would it do so? In air combat, if you lose too much energy, you die, post-stall maneuvers bleed a lot of energy for a very questionable benefit.

Why a pilot will reduce speed to zero is relative to direction, it could be vertical if he//she wants to come down or horizontal. When 2 jets cross & merge, non-TVC jet takes a C-turn horizontally or vertically, but a TVC jet makes a V-turn with a good engine & avionics. It is called a fish-hook turn which can be made repeatedly..

Fishhook turn can be done by F-16, which has lower AoA limit and less nose authority than either F-22 or Rafale:
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf

So yeah...

Literally everything you have claimed about thrust vectoring is wrong.

Sorry u n i r not qualified to use such concluding & strong words like WRONG when i'm merely conveying things by videos, pics, diagrams, calculations.

I am qualified when I can clearly see that your conclusions are completely wrong. I have shown you why, multiple times, with actual scientific documents, yet you keep beating the same old drum.

When Dassalt projects Rafale as omni-role, i will go with their description, not of a Croatian media professional

Omni role =/= long-range strike aircraft. It merely means ability to carry out multiple missions concurrently. Or are you claiming that F-16C is designed to deliver nuclear missiles to Moscow?

But apparently, troll faces are more important than logic in whatever reality you live in.

Correction- what does a pilot want more? The pilots want to engage in low speed w/o entering post-stall, the very goal of TVC as i showed in fish-hook turn videos above.

OK. Learn what "post-stall" is, then we can resume discussion.

Because when you think that bloody TVC "allows engaging in low speed without entering post-stall"...

Nevermind... I'll try to educate you, but this is why I keep repeating that you should read actual literature instead of whatever marketing BS you had kept swallowing.

Stall is separation of air flow from the wing.
Post-stall maneuvers mean that aircraft is capable of executing maneuvers in conditions of stall.
Thrust vectoring allows aircraft to execute maneuvers even in conditions of air flow separation.

Thrust vectoring maneuvers are the definition of post-stall maneuvers, yet you claim that TVC "allows pilots to engage in low speed without entering stall"... if you want to engage in low speed without entering stall, you don't use TVC, unless you have to because your control surface authority had been reduced for some reason. But the usual reason for loss of control surface authority is... wait for it... stall.

No member cares to read boring black & white stuff if same is available as TV show

Except it isn't available. TV shows provide, at best, half-truths, snippets of quotes and sound bites. It cannot replace proper study.

Or do you really think that one can learn French history by reading Asterix, or US history by watching Star Wars? Because that is what you are claiming here.

But the fact that you think actual research and design documents are "boring black & white stuff" does show how seriously you are taking this... which is to say, not seriously at all. And then you try and lecture me.

It appears like that from side bcoz the center MFD has been extended so close to the pilot. It even partially blocks the side MFDs. This is very unusual layout not seen on other 4++ gen jets. Some legacy jets are even moving to 1 or 2 MFD upgraded layout. I also wonder why such small jets don't move to single piece canopy like F-16/22.

Single-piece canopy is not necessarily a good idea. Yes, it does provide better visibility, but it is also much heavier and relatively more fragile. More importantly, if something happens and canopy falls off (has been known to happen), having a windshield a la Eurocanards or F-15 is far better and more comfortable for the pilot than the F-16 / F-22 / F-35 setup which leaves the pilot in the wind... literally.

 

[Fonck83]

How fast would France be able to deliver 26 Rafale if an order was placed today?
Seems like it would take a while with how fully booked the line is.

It seems that some great reorganisation news are coming concerning Dassault. A part of these news involved DRAL.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Ah! I thought our debate was over but u r back recharged.

All I know is that the structure of your sentences makes them a pain to read. They tend to be too long, you use slang ("ur" etc.), you don't structure your posts properly to make them easier to read (too many walls of text) and so on.

'ur' is short-hand, not slang. Using shorthands on mobile is very common. U don't know diff. b/w slang & shorthand then ur English education is questionable. I told u i type on mobile & save the draft, no access to internet in office or personal laptop. On the contrary u use -ve words, slangs & personal defamation words.
I use diagrams & pictures & short paragraphs, i don't have to structure it more to submit thesis for validation. I don't read & reply to everyone, so u can also opt to not reply to me. But if u will start replying with 10+ pages of text like this then u can't accuse me. And an urban "Indian" citizen manages at least 3 languages + 1 or 2 more if going to other state for education/job. So U don't know what pain is about managing multiple labguages.

I never claimed that it masks the entire plume. Just that it masks the hottest part of the plume. Learn the difference.

So the statement is incorrect bcoz the hottest part of plume is radially inwards towards center. Ur own CFD diagrams depict that. So ur own replies are self-conflicting.

It is cheap and simple, but not that common - not in the US designs at least, I think some Russian aircraft do use it (MiG-23, e.g.).

Some jets leave the gap more open, some leave less gap, some converge & join the outer & inner panels perhaps to save # of actuators required.

I support them because they are good designs, and a far better value for money than literally anything else in the world. In 1940s I would have supported P-51, in 1970s I would have supported F-16.

So i never negated Rafale's capabilities otherwise we wouldn't have selected it. But like i said, procuring a product depends on various tech & exonomical, geopolitical parameters. But vouching too much for older gen jet against newer gen jet is also unfair as newer gen is supposed to be as much better as possible than legacy jets. It is natural evolution of technology. we are not in era of 1st/2nd/3rd gen jets.
Caution: don't go in circles & loops of comments already discussed.

Canards + levcons + TVC + good engine =/= ability to ignore basic physics.
Size is absolutely a disadvantage in dogfight. Larger size means aircraft is easier to keep track of visually, and is more likely to get hit in the first place (even though it is more likely to survive getting hit). Greater mass means increased moment of inertia, and larger wing span means increased rotational inertia, and both of these reduce transients.
This is not to say that a larger aircraft cannot be more agile than a smaller one, but to say that greater size is not a disadvantage is simply wrong.

F-22, Su-57, Su-35 & their creators ignore basic physics?
U r still stuck in WW era of visual tracking when half of world has moved to sensor-fusion, TVC & LOAL? What r u going to do in cloudy & night conditions with visual eyeballing?
EU itself is moving to bigger Tempest & FCAS. And a hooked V-turn with TVC & pilot skill will kill an opponent making C-turn most of the times.
Linear & rotational inertia also depends on a body's mass distribution. Most mass of jet is towards center. A fully loaded jet with missiles, bombs, wingtip jammer, etc will definitely be less agile until its loads are fired. And apart from stealth looking at all the constraints of inertia only the 5th gen decided to move some weapons from wings outwards to IWB inwards & introduced TVC with stronger engine to supplement the control surfaces.

And yet you still make basic mistakes.

How can pictures & videos be mistake which are works of R&D of aero-professionals & assets of air forces? Please feel free to point out exact mistakes. I already said i'm not aero-professional. I can't claim anyhing like u always accuse me, i merely convey what i find.

And you still cannot or do not want to understand the reason why I was using throttle ratios and other ratios.
When measuring performance...
- total weight matters somewhat, but tells you little if you do not know wing loading and thrust to weight ratio
- total thrust does not matter at all
- total wing area matters very little or not at all
What matters are ratios:
- thrust to drag ratio
- thrust to weight ratio (thrust loading)
- lift to drag ratio (incl. span loading)
- lift to weight ratio (wing loading + Cl)
When it comes to IR signature as well, an aircraft that uses more powerful and hotter engine can still have lower IR signature if it can fly at higher speeds for the same engine setting. So while total thrust and engine temperature may matter for IR signature, ratios still have a significant influence (e.g. bypass ratio, thrust-to-weight ratio and thrust-to-drag ratio).

Throttle RATIO???????? What's this? Something new u just invented?
I showed u the T/W ratio calculations which was expected from u 1st. U r deviating focus from throttle % to ratios.
How will higher speed decrease IRS? And what modification do u propose to improve speed of the same engine with same engine throttle % setting?

Because you constantly claim that I said things I never did. In other words, you tend to either misunderstand what I wrote, or else outright lie. I only hope it is the former.

Again claim accusation? U worked earlier in insurance claim department or what?

Difference being?

U don't know/understand even after telling u in the line & u wanna debate? With tech progress the Digital Signal & Image processing by S/w have improved. Some H/w functions have been offloaded to S/w.
Caution: don't go in circles & loops of comments already discussed.

I am aware. But Rafale's DDM technically does have spherical coverage except for the area that is covered by the airframe. F-35's EO DAS "only" has 360 degree coverage:

See, sharing this kind of misleading & inaccurate diagam proves that U can't rectify basic things & accuse me of not understanding basic things.
So many times i mentioned that F-22. F035, Su-57, Su-35, J-20 use 6-axis positions for DAS - X-X', Y-Y', Z-Z' which gives the spherical coverage without any blindspot except rudders.
And like i said, all Rafale needs to do is have a 3rd DDM on chin to erase the blindspot in lower sector.
Caution: don't go in circles & loops of comments already discussed.

Technical knowledge is completely useless if you do not understand tactical application. And considering how frequently you misunderstand basic concepts and basics of aircraft design, I'd say that your ability to apply whatever technical knowledge you may have to the topic in question is a big fat zero.
E.g. what you said about focal plane array... EO DAS does use focal plane array, but so does literally every other IR MAWS in existence.
F-22 doesn't even have IRST, and IR MAWS usually uses short-wave or mid-wave sensors, which are good for missile warning and ground attack, but not at detecting aircraft at long distances, which is necessary for air-to-air combat.
F-22 is expensive in large part due to its protracted development, stealth skin and small numbers ordered relative to the cost. Oh, and the fact that its production was intentionally distributed in an inefficient manner just to secure political points. Same goes for the F-35.
Also, try and understand context, please? F-35's DAS may have "zoom" but that is digital zoom. It will never be as good as a dedicated IRST which has an actual, physical zoom. Also, tracked + IDed + locked BM plume at 1300 km... yeah, not exactly impressive. You do understand what ballistic missiles are? PIRATE IRST can easily detect Venus on the sky, Rafale's OSF should be capable of the same, yet you don't see me claiming that PIRATE or OSF are somehow extraordinarily better than all other IRST in existence. Because doing that is nothing extraordinary. You are falling for LM's marketing speak, when in reality saying that "IRST can detect BM plume at 1300 km" is not that much better of a boast than saying that "F-35 can fly". Important ability to have, for sure... but do you really want to use it for bragging?
If it takes a few seconds to lock a target, then it takes a few seconds to lock a target. It has nothing to do with sensor fusion, except to show that DDM likely cannot provide firing solution, otherwise Rafale would have maintained the solution throughout.
And yes, I am aware F-35 is theoretically capable of providing a continuous target tracking and lock through 360 degrees. You are yet to show any proof that F-22 is capable of the same.
Also, if you are admitting something is a secret and that you do not know it, stop claiming it as a fact. Doing so is dishonest to say the least.
I will stop "abusing you with character defaming words" once you prove you are capable of honest discussion and thus deserving of respect I normally do provide to people I have discussion with. The ball is in your court, pal.

OMG, how despearte & impulsive U r. What to expect from non-tech qualified media industry people? U r 1 of those who will walk into every qualified person's office & challenge them. Let's exchange jobs. U come & join my MNC & do my engineer's job & i'll do the media job.
U don't understand the diff. b/w the current Russian OLS which rotate & sweep & the DAS which are fixed on 6-axis points? The assembly of the OLS use a horizontal mechanical oscillating rotator, special vertically oscillating mirror & lens combo, not used in AN/AAQ-37 DAS but AN/AAQ-40 EOTS can do it if required.
After repeated examples of Digital Image Processing in phone cam, CCTV, Tesla car cam also you can't understand that IRST & MAWS functions have become highly S/w oriented + sensor fused. I also mentioned that F-22's AN/AAR-56 is a precusrsor obviously to F-35's AN/AAQ-37 which can track up to 1,300Kms but F-22 may have half or less of that which is also longer distance than Russian & EU counterparts. You think F-22 is costliest just for namesake?
"Quality comes with a price" especially with a gen leap, even the MLUs cost a lot. 6th gen is going to be costlier than 5th gen. But so far 5 gens of jets r not enough to make u understand that.
But I also said that Western industries & economies are highly privatised & capitalised which adds to cost bullying & political turbulance. A private firm engineer demands much more salary & perks than a govt. engineer. Caution: don't go in circles & loops of comments already discussed.
Dedicated physical zoom is useful in STT or Single Target Tracking & laser designator. But coming across a single enemy is rare. Jets always attack & patrol in groups or pairs spread out. With time as our mobile phones & TV screen resolution & MP cameras have increased, similarly for military optics also but not that much due to limitations of wavelengths. Obviously the engineers compared the result of higher resolution digital zoom & dedicated lens-mirrors-optics & then only implemented.
There is a huge practical diff. b/w capability & implementation, b/w CAN do it & IS DOING it. The SR-71 in 1960s had Star-Tracker navigation. So if EF-2000, Rafale optics can detect Venus but not inform the pilot of surrounding jets & provide a firing solution then better use them for astronomy, not military survival. However like i said a S/w MLU can improve it with increased cost of jet which every customer may not pay, like Croatia perhaps. You guys don't even have the extra customizations which we have nor a considerable military & IT industry of your own.
Like i said earlier neither i'm USA fan nor I'm in favor of full military privatisation & capitalism hence i don't fall prey to marketing gimicks. My technical IT qualification & experience (which u consider big fat zero) gives me capability to technically examine, rectify some aspects to certain level. Hence there is nothing to brag or take blind favor of LM, USA. Caution: don't go in circles & loops of comments already discussed.
Again & again u r asking proof of costliest privately developed American jet's classified details from"Indian" citizen. Go email & challenge USA, Pentagon, USAF, LM. But being a non-tech graduated Croatian with no defence & IT industry u r comparing imported French jet just bcoz ur country bought it
Also there are some technical things which r secret like the S/w code of OS (Windows, IOS, etc) of our laptop/desktop/tab, doesn't negate facts of their capabilities. Only Linux is open source & has flavors but does that mean MS Windows & Apple IOS are incapable or questionable just bcoz they r not open? So all the S/w engineers working at Apple & MicroSoft are dishonest???
You don't even know how to communicate & discuss with any type of engineer. We have to study daily & on weekends also, what the hell u media guys do except baseless bashing & abusing on TV & internet? U just proved urself to be highly cheap & uncultured person by justifying ur continuance of using abusive language u might hav picked up from movies or ur upbringing. Either u r just another typical 20s guy or genuinely immatured & uncultured.

There are overlaps between generations, yes, but my point is that even being of higher generation does not always mean a jet is superior.

And neither i said of absolute superiority of a newer gen jet otherwise i wouldn't give huge 40% win chance to any legacy jet. Caution: don't go in circles & loops of comments already discussed.

There is nothing to stop Rafale from doing so during combat except for FCS limit, but why would it do so? In air combat, if you lose too much energy, you die, post-stall maneuvers bleed a lot of energy for a very questionable benefit.

Caution: don't go in circles & loops of comments already discussed.
U will loose energy & altitude due to poor engine. POST-Stall is for such jets only but a TVC jet has to be designed with good engine, avionics so that going into post-stall is choice of pilot, not compulsion. The F-22 videos showed it gained altitude after V-turn.

Fishhook turn can be done by F-16, which has lower AoA limit and less nose authority than either F-22 or Rafale:
https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/16v5.pdf
So yeah...
Literally everything you have claimed about thrust vectoring is wrong.

U wanna credit a diagram without scale showing a C/U-turn labeled as fish-hook turn over multiple videos showing V-turn? Good, luck!

But if F-16 MATV was implemented then surely it could do it.

I am qualified when I can clearly see that your conclusions are completely wrong. I have shown you why, multiple times, with actual scientific documents, yet you keep beating the same old drum.

I can clearly see u will walk into office of all qualified bankers, engineers, doctors, lawyers, etc & tell them that u r more qualified than them. Perhaps u r doctor+engineer+soldier+lawyer+banker+everything, all in 1
I never crossed against the docs u showed for CCC but that's it. The examples of TVC & TVC+canards are in front of whole world. Those who have the technical capability & economic & geopolitical feseability will implement such technologies no matter how much u cry. May be it is not feasible for countries like Croatia who don't have proper defence & IT industry & have luxury of NATO.

Omni role =/= long-range strike aircraft. It merely means ability to carry out multiple missions concurrently. Or are you claiming that F-16C is designed to deliver nuclear missiles to Moscow?

But apparently, troll faces are more important than logic in whatever reality you live in.

So now u wanna go against Dasault itself now? Did Dasault define omni-role=long range? Why should i claim F-16C is designed to deliver nukes to Moscow when i mentioned it to be among worst examples in today's era? This is why troll smileys are important

OK. Learn what "post-stall" is, then we can resume discussion.
Because when you think that bloody TVC "allows engaging in low speed without entering post-stall"...
Nevermind... I'll try to educate you, but this is why I keep repeating that you should read actual literature instead of whatever marketing BS you had kept swallowing.
Stall is separation of air flow from the wing.
Post-stall maneuvers mean that aircraft is capable of executing maneuvers in conditions of stall.
Thrust vectoring allows aircraft to execute maneuvers even in conditions of air flow separation.
Thrust vectoring maneuvers are the definition of post-stall maneuvers, yet you claim that TVC "allows pilots to engage in low speed without entering stall"... if you want to engage in low speed without entering stall, you don't use TVC, unless you have to because your control surface authority had been reduced for some reason. But the usual reason for loss of control surface authority is... wait for it... stall.

Go get a B.E. + B.Ed. degree 1st if u wanna educate others bcoz there r lots of unqualified people like u eager to teach qualified professionals just after referring to some docs, terms & definitions on internet rather than 8 semesters of books.
"air flow separation" is all just u know without considering the practical result of it which is loss of lift. That's where a strong engine + good FCS avionics helps a jet to still push up & go where the pilot desires rather than tip over. That's how rockets also work at igh altitudes & space. F-22, Su-57, Su-35, Su-30MKI will not wait for loss of control surface authority after merge. TVC was approved by govt. & air-forces of USAF, IAF & RuAF to proactively take advantage of it, not wait like a traditional legacy jet. U think professionals of all these countries & air-forces are fools to have TVC?

Except it isn't available. TV shows provide, at best, half-truths, snippets of quotes and sound bites. It cannot replace proper study.
Or do you really think that one can learn French history by reading Asterix, or US history by watching Star Wars? Because that is what you are claiming here.
But the fact that you think actual research and design documents are "boring black & white stuff" does show how seriously you are taking this... which is to say, not seriously at all. And then you try and lecture me.

Evidently u don't watch anything. U might wanna BAN the entire TV industry who interview & showcase the actual scientists & engineers & their facilities. Giving names of at least 5 of them was not enough for u, then go try to arrange liv F2F interview with them.
Asterix is comics & Star Wars is movie. U wanna compare children's comics & movies to scientific documentaries showing real scientists, engineers, pilots, facilities?
I already said i'm nobody to "lecture" u bcoz u n me r not qualified as aero-professionals.

Single-piece canopy is not necessarily a good idea. Yes, it does provide better visibility, but it is also much heavier and relatively more fragile. More importantly, if something happens and canopy falls off (has been known to happen), having a windshield a la Eurocanards or F-15 is far better and more comfortable for the pilot than the F-16 / F-22 / F-35 setup which leaves the pilot in the wind... literally.

Flexible poly-carbonate, etc have been researched which can easily withstand bird-strikes. Fixed front is stronger but increases RCS & canopy falling off would be poor maintenance or design & a rare occurance.
F-35 canopy is broader hence it has included the frame-arc inside behind the RAM treated glass.

 

[WolfPack86]

Rafale-M Disqualified?

 

[BON PLAN]

Rafale-M Disqualified?

Why?
The field test was excellent.

 

[MirageBlue]

Why?
The field test was excellent.

It hasn't been disqualified. The only reason may be that the IN's RFI requested that the 26 fighters be split 18/8 between single/twin seaters. Rafale M is only available as a single seater, so the twin seaters will necessarily be based on land. As per Ajai Shukla's recent article, IN is not going to disqualify Dassault on this basis as it would create a single vendor situation which is not at all a good idea for competitive pricing.