Know Your 'Rafale'

[p2prada]

Both Wike and Combat aircraft claim EF has super cruise and your the first person to say its not a big deal, to get to your traget faster and without dumping fuel in the after burner, increases range and speed by a huge margin.

Yes, but it is not a big deal. Both Narayan Swamy and Bill Gates can claim they are rich. It is for the experts to decide who is actually rich and if the person claiming rich should actually call themselves rich as compared to Bill Gates. Personally, if I was Bill Gates, I wouldn't be bothered by Narayan Swamy calling himself rich. That's the same difference between EF's claims and F-22s claims.

The F-22 and pretty soon the PAKFA have set benchmarks that can reject all other claims of supercruise to be simple business maneuvers. The EF can supercruise with 6 A2A missiles at Mach 1.2. The MKI can cruise at Mach 0.9. Not a big deal. Now if you say the EF can supercruise with the above payload at Mach 1.7 or Mach 1.8 then that is a game changer.

The EF and Rafale haven't been designed for supercruise at all. They just have powerful engines. The Su-35 can claim supercruise as well. Do you want to pay $10Million extra simply because the other aircraft can go mach 0.2 faster than your aircraft. Trivial.

It is important because it is linked the engine power, effecinecy of aerodynamics and service ceiling ability.

Not at all. Like I said it is unimportant. Air combat isn't a drag race. The Sea harrier does not go above Mach 1.2. The F-35 at Mach 1.6 is slower than the Rafale and the speed is enough for the F-35 to manage an overwhelming superiority against Rafale.

First of all wing loading means the amount of ammo your carrying, carrying lesser ammo means better when the EF does more and flies at 65,000ft? Just dont blindly defend.

Not at all. Wing loading is the amount of area per square feet of wing over weight of the aircraft. It is basically how much wing an aircraft has for it's weight. The F-16 has lesser wing compared to a Flanker. The LCA has more wing compared to any other aircraft. More wing helps catch wind at high altitudes while it leads to bleeding at lower altitudes. The current wing loading on EF, Rafale and even PAKFA are similar because they are looking at adequate performance in all flight regimes. Other aspects come to play in providing added advantages like wing sweep, canards or LERX size and placement etc.

Wing loading increases when you place weapons on the wing hardpoints.

That does not matter when EF has more thrust and has better load carrying ablity and service ceiling.

The Rafale can carry more and at farther distances than EF. Rafale can carry 9.5 tons as compared to EF's 7.5 tons. You cannot carry a strike package at great heights.

That is not how service ceiling is calculated, If a jet engine exceeds it's designed altitude the engine will stall due to lack of oxygen, forcing the plane to yield to the law of gravity, The Mig-29 and Su-30Mki even though the service ceiling may say 55,000 ft, if the plane can attain a vertical speed of 1000mph at 40,000 ft, it may travel ballistically to 80,000ft or more useing its momentum. At that altitude it is essentially as aerodynamic as a rock and it falls until it returns to a low enough altitude to fly again but that is not sustainable. EF engine has a better design and more thrust allowing it to Sustainits flight at 65,000ft with load. The Rafael can not cruise sustainable at 65,000ft, that is the difference.

Nevertheless, there are major human limitations at those heights and aircraft almost never fly at their service ceilings, ever. You need a space suit at those heights. However this is one point that goes into EF's favour because it was always designed to be an air superiority fighter as compared to Rafale's main purpose of being a strike fighter which has become much more important in modern warfare.

First of do not argue for the sake of argument, if i am wrong i have no problem that IAF got Dassult and i wish to be corrected. I hope that is the attitude you bring.

Is it that I must provide detailed essay type answers, perhaps with PPTs to boot, instead of smaller one or two line answers just so I attain your standards of "attitude?" Gee. Stop flattering yourself. It is my prerogative the way I want to post, it is up to you if you want to accept it or not.

 

[p2prada]

How does the Rafale fare when it comes to American parts in the plane?

Yes there are. But nothing of consequence. These things can be made in India and that's the plan. Quite like the exhaustive list Spark posted for the Typhoon. But not as critical as engine parts, airframe parts etc. Some avionics components also come from the US.

Everything can be Indianized anyway. For both aircraft. But it will be tougher on the Typhoon because it is a more complex aircraft and there are too many suppliers.

 

[p2prada]

can R-77 be used as anti-radiation missile? because R-77 has Active radar homing guidance system.

Not exactly. The R-77 won't have the range for it even if it modified for the purpose. You need a bigger missile with more fuel to fly closer to the ground. The R-27 is a better option.

 

[Cola]

Dream becomes reality...

With 6X Mica it can supercruise at Mach 1.4

SNECMA boys think it still takes 90kN 88-3 for that.

Oh no, it can do one thing better!

Well actually, doing this one thing better (as you put it), is an indication of much more capable design features which led to that.
Climb is a different item and much more important one, then a color f.e.

The EF can supercruise with 6 A2A missiles at Mach 1.2. The MKI can cruise at Mach 0.9. Not a big deal.

It's a very big deal, actually. Particularly if you're sitting in a M.9 cockpit.

Air combat isn't a drag race.

It mostly is.
The thing is, it wasn't until advent of SC aircraft.
From that point on, things changed considerably.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

Yes, but it is not a big deal. Both Narayan Swamy and Bill Gates can claim they are rich. It is for the experts to decide who is actually rich and if the person claiming rich should actually call themselves rich as compared to Bill Gates. Personally, if I was Bill Gates, I wouldn't be bothered by Narayan Swamy calling himself rich. That's the same difference between EF's claims and F-22s claims.

The F-22 and pretty soon the PAKFA have set benchmarks that can reject all other claims of supercruise to be simple business maneuvers. The EF can supercruise with 6 A2A missiles at Mach 1.2. The MKI can cruise at Mach 0.9. Not a big deal. Now if you say the EF can supercruise with the above payload at Mach 1.7 or Mach 1.8 then that is a game changer.

The EF and Rafale haven't been designed for supercruise at all. They just have powerful engines. The Su-35 can claim supercruise as well. Do you want to pay $10Million extra simply because the other aircraft can go mach 0.2 faster than your aircraft. Trivial.

i can not agree, to say an aircraft that travels a full 300/km.hr with the same fuel and lesser IR as something Trivial is very very wrong. It is one of the key aspects of getting a 4.5gen aircraft. Super Cruise ensures that you reach the same place a full one hour faster with the same fuel load. That mean a lot in a nuclear world where time depends on split seconds.

Not at all. Like I said it is unimportant. Air combat isn't a drag race. The Sea harrier does not go above Mach 1.2. The F-35 at Mach 1.6 is slower than the Rafale and the speed is enough for the F-35 to manage an overwhelming superiority against Rafale.

its far worse than a drag race, this is War. The fighter that gets their faster and more economically is more valuable. For instance for intercepting enemy aircraft.. To compare a VTOL aircraft to a STOL aircraft is first of all wrong. There are huge trade offs on both. However top speed does not matter much but it does talk about design quality.

Not at all. Wing loading is the amount of area per square feet of wing over weight of the aircraft. It is basically how much wing an aircraft has for it's weight. The F-16 has lesser wing compared to a Flanker. The LCA has more wing compared to any other aircraft. More wing helps catch wind at high altitudes while it leads to bleeding at lower altitudes. The current wing loading on EF, Rafale and even PAKFA are similar because they are looking at adequate performance in all flight regimes. Other aspects come to play in providing added advantages like wing sweep, canards or LERX size and placement etc.

Wing loading increases when you place weapons on the wing hardpoints.

Agreed.

The Rafale can carry more and at farther distances than EF. Rafale can carry 9.5 tons as compared to EF's 7.5 tons. You cannot carry a strike package at great heights.

Agreed.

Nevertheless, there are major human limitations at those heights and aircraft almost never fly at their service ceilings, ever. You need a space suit at those heights. However this is one point that goes into EF's favour because it was always designed to be an air superiority fighter as compared to Rafale's main purpose of being a strike fighter which has become much more important in modern warfare.

Not agreeable. We are not talking of U-2 tor SR-71 type space suit the EF fighter pilot does it with his usual g-suit.

Is it that I must provide detailed essay type answers, perhaps with PPTs to boot, instead of smaller one or two line answers just so I attain your standards of "attitude?" Gee. Stop flattering yourself. It is my prerogative the way I want to post, it is up to you if you want to accept it or not.

Not that, just the humality accept if your wrong.

 

[Kunal Biswas]

AERO INDIA 2011

 

[Cola]

SNECMA's official publication on ECO.
M88® - Snecma
So, SNECMA has in mere demonstrator stage the same thing (or worse, judging by diameter and airflow) that has been flying on EF for years now.

 

[vanadium]

AERO INDIA 2011

Please note error in bottom two lines of your table: bypass ratio is overall pressure ratio and viceversa.

The technical superiority of EJ200 vs M88 engine is evident by a couple of indicators:

1) Thrust-to-weight ratio 9.3 vs 8.6

2) EJ200 achieves an overall compressor ratio (key factor in thrust production) of 26 vs 24.5 of M88 using one compression stage less than the M88. Now that is quite an engineering achievement. German MTU is responsible for the design of the compressor and is the world leader in this area and in internal aerodynamics.

Note also that the EJ200 produces more thrust per engine weight (T/W) at lower turbine temperatures which translates directly to longer engine life.

 

[Godless-Kafir]

SNECMA's official publication on ECO.
M88® - Snecma
So, SNECMA has in mere demonstrator stage the same thing (or worse, judging by diameter and airflow) that has been flying on EF for years now.

There is no inlet diameter change it is the same 27.5. The eco core was given to india as JV for kaveri engine but it was not accepted.

 

[vanadium]

Dream becomes reality...

Let´s be serious: do not give me the fiche of an Airshow please!

 

[Kunal Biswas]

http://www.snecma.com/IMG/files/fiche_m88_2011_ang_hd_modulvoir_file_fr.pdf

 

[utubekhiladi]

Not exactly. The R-77 won't have the range for it even if it modified for the purpose. You need a bigger missile with more fuel to fly closer to the ground. The R-27 is a better option.

i am not convinced R-27 is even smaller missile;

technically, R-77 can be used as an anti-radiation missile. can anybody agree with me?

 

[Kunal Biswas]

i am not convinced R-27 is even smaller missile;

technically, R-77 can be used as an anti-radiation missile. can anybody agree with me?

R-77 can be modified, But it would be not a dedicated ARM as per today`s..

KH-31P is considered better as it have a bigger warhead for one reason..

 

[Godless-Kafir]

i am not convinced R-27 is even smaller missile;

technically, R-77 can be used as an anti-radiation missile. can anybody agree with me?

Dude it is a radar homeing missile, in other words anti-radiation missile. Its just not Surface to Surface.

 

[p2prada]

It's a very big deal, actually. Particularly if you're sitting in a M.9 cockpit.

Cannot justify the extra costs. The EF is just a little faster. Now sitting in my 0.9 Mach cockpit I can turn on my AB and manage a comfortable Mach 1.7 to Mach 1.8 for a good 25 minutes on the Flanker compared to 6 minutes on the EF.

It mostly is.
The thing is, it wasn't until advent of SC aircraft.
From that point on, things changed considerably.

You are talking about interception. The Mig-31 is even better than any other aircraft in the world, including the F-22 regardless of supercruise.

You see there is a time limit to supercruise and interception. You need to do everything within that time(a few minutes) and the extra Mach 0.3 is not justified.

Only a F-22 type supercruise is militarily relevant because of the time factor.

 

[SpArK]

Cannot justify the extra costs. The EF is just a little faster. Now sitting in my 0.9 Mach cockpit I can turn on my AB and manage a comfortable Mach 1.7 to Mach 1.8 for a good 25 minutes on the Flanker compared to 6 minutes on the EF.



You are talking about interception. The Mig-31 is even better than any other aircraft in the world, including the F-22 regardless of supercruise.

You see there is a time limit to supercruise and interception. You need to do everything within that time(a few minutes) and the extra Mach 0.3 is not justified.

Only a F-22 type supercruise is militarily relevant because of the time factor.

i demand to know how many people have died due to lunge accidents..?

How many people have died due to tripping over a loosely tied lunge?

 

[p2prada]

i can not agree, to say an aircraft that travels a full 300/km.hr with the same fuel and lesser IR as something Trivial is very very wrong. It is one of the key aspects of getting a 4.5gen aircraft. Super Cruise ensures that you reach the same place a full one hour faster with the same fuel load. That mean a lot in a nuclear world where time depends on split seconds.

I have answered some of your points in my post to Cola. Supercruise does not mean you reach an hour faster. With after burner I can be even faster and no missile can engage me at such time.

its far worse than a drag race, this is War. The fighter that gets their faster and more economically is more valuable. For instance for intercepting enemy aircraft.. To compare a VTOL aircraft to a STOL aircraft is first of all wrong. There are huge trade offs on both. However top speed does not matter much but it does talk about design quality.

Top speed does not talk about design quality. If that was the case then the Mig-31 is the best fighter on the planet. Let's not forget interception is different from air superiority. Interceptors were developed to kill enemy bombers. Air superiority fighters are meant to fight other fighters.

Coming to Rafale, it is not meant for either interception or air superiority in our context. None of these aircraft, including the F-22 are capable of releasing bombs at supersonic speeds either.

Not agreeable. We are not talking of U-2 tor SR-71 type space suit the EF fighter pilot does it with his usual g-suit.

The G suit is not enough. It is a killer on the pilot's health to fly so high. 60000 feet is a benchmark on pilot health. Any higher and there's trouble.

Not that, just the humality accept if your wrong.

I do, but only IF I am wrong.

 

[p2prada]

i am not convinced R-27 is even smaller missile;

technically, R-77 can be used as an anti-radiation missile. can anybody agree with me?

Yes it can. We can use the R-77 against targets like AWACS. This is something called home on jam capability. The Aim-120C7 and higher and newer versions of the R-77 have this feature. The R-27 already has it as it has a semi active seeker and can passively lock on to radar emissions.

 

[LETHALFORCE]

Eurofighter may revise bid MoD declines comment: Gerald Howarth


Eurofighter may revise bid MoD declines comment

 

[Cola]

Cannot justify the extra costs.

That depends on the price tag you put on your pilots' lives and ultimate outcome.

The EF is just a little faster. Now sitting in my 0.9 Mach cockpit I can turn on my AB and manage a comfortable Mach 1.7 to Mach 1.8 for a good 25 minutes on the Flanker compared to 6 minutes on the EF.

Well, EF is more than just a little faster.
Anyway, for the plane of its size, it's more than a serious threat to long range fighters.
And I'm not quite sure if Flanker can make 25 minutes on full AB @40k ft and M1+.
Theoretical limit at @40k ft and M1+ would be ~14 min.
In reality it's something like 8-10 min, so you see a speed difference of M.3+ is a very useful thing to have.

You are talking about interception. The Mig-31 is even better than any other aircraft in the world, including the F-22 regardless of supercruise.

Yes, Mig31 is even more useful in that sense.
Anyway, vast majority of air combats begins with interception, to the point that you can count on it.
However, I'm talking about same class of airplane here, EF and Rafale and Mig31/Su30 are something else.

Let's not forget interception is different from air superiority. Interceptors were developed to kill enemy bombers. Air superiority fighters are meant to fight other fighters.

Although this isn't addressed to me, I still think it's worth noting.
There are no fighters built against bombers or fighters...fighter plane is a fighter plane.
I believe you're thinking of multirole and singlerole fighters.
However, don't forget that it was Mig25 that scored a kill on US F18 in Iraqi war and overall posed most troubles for Americans.
Not Mig29s, or Mirages.