Basically, a portion of air flow is redirected not through the engine, but around it. It then cools the engine itself, and exits through an area between inner and outer nozzle. This helps both dissipate the hot exhaust by mixing it with cooler air and also cool down the outer nozzle / isolate it from the hot exhaust.
I know what u r mentioning but the current images in visible & IR spectrum proove that it is far easier said than done, especially in 4th gen jets. So it does help but it is not enough in 4th gen jets.
It is not enough in any jets. You simply cannot have an aircraft that is propelled with jet engine and especially capable of supersonic flight, yet is also stealthy in IR spectrum.
You cannot simply say "4th generation" vs "5th generation" as if it is a catch-all. Also, "top secret" is one of those bullshit excuses I am really tired of hearing.
This is precisely what Rafale does. As I have already explained, Rafale's M88 engine has additional cooling channel as well as an external nozzle. And unlike F135's nozzle, M88's nozzle partly shields internal nozzle and exhaust plume from outside observer located to the side.
That being said, F135 does have higher bypass ratio and, as you noted, ceramic coating on the nozzle. But higher bypass ratio as well as aerodynamic differences also mean that F-35 needs higher power setting than Rafale to achieve any given speed, so actual IR signature comparison would likely be advantageous to Rafale.
I am aware of that. Moving on...
Which is why Rafale's M88 is designed in such a way that inner nozzle is not just smaller than the outer nozzle, but also recessed relative to it. The end result is that the outer nozzle hides inner nozzle as well as the hottest areas of the exhaust jet plume from view, at least when seen from frontal ~180° arc.
It will affect aircraft's overall IR signature on several levels:
Hair dryer is not a good comparison to jet engine...
Wrong. Exhaust plume is not the same temperature throughout. The hottest part is the one closest to the nozzle. So while, yes, preventing aircraft skin from heating up is a massive benefit, it is not the only one.
And you just wrote that cooling down a layer of air doesn't matter...
Yes it seems it may not be possible to fool mother nature & full IR stealth may not be possible to avoid IRST but still this is just the beginning of aerospace tech & we have indefinite future to go. So what matters is which country leads in science & technology by a generation.
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.
Precisely? How? Where? Someone show us by labeled diagram & pics.
I'm not even comparing to F-35 particularly. I have actually criticized its huge exhaust & compared its afterburner plume to SR-71.
U r repeating my theory explanation but i don't see the implementation. Nozzle gap doesn't seem to be connected to any cooling channel unless someone can show by labled pic.
It was an analogy to show if an IR camera can see a hot air flow separately & if background is obstructed or the hot air is still transparent. In absence of HX treatment, the bypass air cooling the engine will become hotter before exit than it was during intake. Like i said it will be at intermediate temp. b/w ambient & plume.
What wrong? When did i say plume has same temp. throughtout? I'm showing all the diagrams & pics, u think i don't understand?
U r unable to comprehend my explanation which does not contradict the graphic which was the only one i could find through Google Images. It is a simple color diagram which a high-school kid would make, not an engineer. I said that it is far easier said than done bcoz it requires additional set of equipments & framework which requires additional space who's implementation was not considered for 4th gen jets.
I said just simply passing a layer of air (without HX treatment) doesn't matter bcoz it will absorb engine's heat & will be at intermediate temp. b/w ambient & plume. Hence for actual shielding the ambient air need to be cooled down further through HX system framework which 4th gen jets don't have. They have HX only for cockpit HVAC, avionics & some aux equipments but not for extended cooling & shielding plume.
5th gen jets are bulkier than 4th gen bcoz they carry weapons & more fuel, more sensors, more auxilliary equipments (including cooling HX system) internally, simple. That increases the weight hence they need a better engine too to maintain T/W ratio.
It is not that simple...
What matters is facts and characteristics, not labels. If you remove all-aspect stealth from definition of a "5th generation" fighter, then suddenly Rafale becomes 5th generation. Nevermind that generations are not a good estimate of capability. Second-generation MiG-21 was objectively superior to third-generation F-4 and F-111 in air combat role, and could hold its own against fourth-generation F-18 when in hands of a capable pilot.
Bypass air doesn't go through tubing... it simply wraps around the engine.
Eh, that was because nozzle cover kept falling off...
I am not repeating anything, and as usual, you are completely missing the point. I was merely listing the benefits of having a separated external nozzle akin to what M88 has, and only the last point actually requires a cooling channel to be present. All other benefits are present even with normal engine setup.
And in that case, even cooling will not help.
Yes, in fact I do think you don't understand. If you did you would have understood my point: that because inner nozzle is smaller in diameter, separate and recessed relative to the outer nozzle, it means that not only does outer nozzle not get heated up (as much) by the engine exhaust, but also shields both the inner nozzle and the hottest part of the exhaust plume from view. This alone would be enough to significantly reduce aircraft's IR signature from frontal and side aspects.
I am not unable to comprehend your explanation, but rather, you are contradicting yourself - and in general are just throwing random facts in my direction, most of which you do not seem to comprehend.
Design of engine and the exhaust, and even airframe, will have more impact than any cooling system. In fact, I suspect that F135's cooling mechanics are intended less for stealth and more to prevent overheating.
F-35 is bulky even for a 5th generation fighter, and it is slow besides.
I also said it is easier said than done
Facts & characteritics have to be explained & marketed using labeled infographic, pics, diagrams.
I don't understand French. Do you want me to give diagrams in Russian or Chinese?
Since 1990s i'm knowing all the benefits u listed but i just wanna see the connection b/w outer channel of M88 & the nozzle gap which is not there.
It helps that's why there are multiple diagrams explaining series of HX deployed to comprehensively cool the airframe, engines, equipments, shield plume.
In school & college we all saw few teachers who had great knowledge but they had bad explanation & presentation skills. Some simply read the books & students dozed off.
The graphic shows the basic theory but the M88 cutaway diagram doesn't show connection b/w outer bypass channel & nozzle gap. So there is the contradiction, not in my explanation.
Again u r shifting focus to F-35. We all know now how much u hate F-35. I have also criticized F-35's plume, what more do u want? They might have solution to current side-effects but it will increase cost of F-35. A small example, the A & C models don't have TVC like 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.
RCS can be measured in sq.m. but i have not seen any info mentioning IRS.
Not always... Vietnamese MiG-21s had shown themselves more than able to match US F-4 and F-105 in air combat, despite not having any kind of such MLU.
Ignore the turbine blades. What matters is the engine cutaway. Blade image is there simply because I couldn't find any better image.
I was not able to find it, beyond this image which shows IR signature differential:
First, cooling can only help so much. You do know that ambient temperature of the air at altitudes where air combat usually happens is well below what any cooling system will do?
Depending on the aspect, it also takes care of the plume. As I have already mentioned, plume is not equally hot throughout. So from frontal aspect at least, fact that there is a double nozzle will have massive impact.
I am using F-35 to show why merely discussing "IR suppression measures" is not enough. Besides, you were the one to bring F-35 (and other "5th generation" fighters) into this.
Throttle setting can be measured in, essentially, percentages of thrust. When anybody mentions throttle settings in fighters, that is what they usually mean.
I'm not an aviation or military historian so i can't comment on the Vietnam air battles.
You highlighted different concept bcoz this blade cooling is applicable only to high pressure compressor & turbine blades where temp. is high, not to the bypass channel in theory where ambient air is drawn from fan inlet like u said in 1st reply. Bypass means bypassing the compressor & turbines. And then i said that the bypass ambient air needs to be further cooled & an entire series & types of HX framework is involved.
It seems to contradict the screenshot which i shared where inside the exhaust a ring of concentrated heat is seen which would be this outer channel which u say. A cooling channel of air cannot glow hottest.
At high altitude bcoz the air temp. drops, an uncooled jet would be more porminent, hence the comprehensive cooling required. Otherwise so many diagrams from R&D sites, so many scientists & engineers working & already implemented equipment is waste of tax payer's money & hence all 6th gen development should also be stopped then. But this is not the pinnacle of mil. aviation, it is just the starting. A better Sword & then a better Shield are alternate aspects of repeatitive developments.First, cooling can only help so much. You do know that ambient temperature of the air at altitudes where air combat usually happens is well below what any cooling system will do?
-30 degrees Celsius at 15 000 ft, and -60 degrees Celsius at 30 000 ft. Both F-35 and Rafale have a service ceiling well above 30 000 ft.
So while we are talking about IR signature reduction measures here, it has to be kept in mind that "IR stealth" is actually an oxymoron.
How many time will i repeat that i'm also not fan of F-35's bigger engine & plume & also not of its dogfighting performance? The VTOL requirement has forced it into single bigger engine implementation. otherwise it would have been a 2-engine jet like J-31/35 & also with F-22 like nozzles or perhaps further improved.
Shrouded nozzle (w/o comprehensive cooling) is a small, cheap, common add-on till 4th gen jets, not sufficient beyond that.
I mentioned briefly in a generic way that the idea of comprehensive cooling is part of stealth/5th gen jet design. 4th gen jets don't have additional space required for additional equipement.
But same % level of 2 engines are not same.
It was also smaller and more agile.
Wrong. The cooling channel, if I am correct about it, would be between the nozzles.
Rafale has Hot Spot treatment, which as name suggests is designed to reduce Rafale's hot spots. But I do not know what exactly it entails.
I am not certain F-117 engine setup is viable for fighter jets, but I guess we'll see.
There is literally no aircraft that can eliminate inner nozzle signature. Even F-22 still has visible inner nozzle, though in F-22's case it is square due to TVC requirements and somewhat shrouded.
Majority of said "additional space" in 5th generation jets is taken up by internal weapons. So I fail to see why would they have any more space for cooling equipment than earlier aircraft.
It is relevant, in fact, it is the key when it comes to IR signature of a jet. And again, what matters are not so much total values, but rather percentages.
starting a chain reaction of wrong references & misconceptions. Later it becomes a marketting gimmick.
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.
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.
Inner nozzle signature is not supposed to be "eliminated" but "shielded" bcoz it provides the spine of thrust.
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.
No technical paper or person talk in terms of % thrust but in terms of international units & metrics.
This is what you said:
I have, from the start, said that if there is a second cooling channel then its exhaust is between the nozzles. It is outer nozzle's purpose to shield inner nozzle from observation, so best way to reduce IR signature is to help isolate outer nozzle from engine exhaust and inner nozzle itself.
Compare F110 and M88-2: especially how narrow is the space between inner and outer skin for F110 and wide for M88-2:
If there is a cooling channel, its exhaust is between the nozzles, not within the inner nozzle...
Reduced engine body heating was precisely part of my point, because it means that it reduces heating of the aft portion of the airframe.
Why would they have metal body? That would just mean creating a completely different production line for what?
Possibly. I imagine these vanes have exhaust of air which helps shield aircraft body from the exhaust plume.
That "technique" is literally what is used in your home fridge. Also, I believe it is mostly used to cool down electronics, not engines.
Irrelevant. I talk in thrust percentages because thrust percentages are what matter here.
Riiight... Thrust vectoring is not a magical "I win" button, and it cannot fully compensate for weight and aerodynamic disadvantage. In fact, it is merely a way to make heavy aircraft competitive with their much smaller counterparts, but it does not allow them to magically beat the opponents that are smaller, lighter, have superior aerodynamics and are consequently more agile.
historyandwarfare.wordpress.com
Which doesn't mean FCAS will be better than Rafale. But it is still in the future, so we will see.
Yeah so what I said through a real life pic of "Indian" Rafale is not convincing to have cooling channel. U could have provided pic of French Rafale to clarify which u have not till now.
So this is what i already showed that in M88-2 diagram the cooling channel open within inner nozzle, not in space b/w inner & outer nozzle where the actuator assemblies block the gap.
This was already understood & not the concern.
So that's why i said that it is a question, i'm not sure abt it. Separate production line is required depends on ordered numbers, size of fuselage parts, export policy, technology transfer policy, assembly techniques, etc. But looking at high cost of Rafale i think that it will have same composite body.
Same function of a cooling channel except the nozzle shape is different.
In my 1st reply itself I already showed u block diagram of series of types of HX still after some discussion u said u fail to understand why spend extra space for more cooling & now also u believe not for jet engines.
SI & Imperial units used by every industry including Dassault, Snecma, DGA are irrelevant to you? So u will go to fuel station & tell bluntly to fill 30% fuel in your vehicle?
Seems to be ur personal blog site.Riiight... Thrust vectoring is not a magical "I win" button, and it cannot fully compensate for weight and aerodynamic disadvantage. In fact, it is merely a way to make heavy aircraft competitive with their much smaller counterparts, but it does not allow them to magically beat the opponents that are smaller, lighter, have superior aerodynamics and are consequently more agile.
In fact, Rafale beat F-22 in a mock dogfight. Now, the outcome itself is not that important; what is important is that Rafale had held advantage throughout, despite F-22s thrust vectoring:
Commentary on the Rafale vs F-22 dogfight analysis
Video here is an analysis of the F-22 vs Rafale dogfight which happened in 2006. I will be providing additional commentary, which may help answer or clear up some questions. I am not however a pilo…
What thrust vectoring does is improve nose pointing ability. However, there are two issues here:
1) it comes with massive disadvantages
2) close-coupled canards give most of the same benefits
Aircraft with thrust vectoring can point nose more quickly, which allows it to initiate turn more quickly - but maximum turn rate is still dependant on lift / wing loading. It also can improve roll onset and rate of roll while in turn as control surfaces do not need to be used to maintain the turn. Major disadvantage is that the axis of thrust no longer corresponds to either axis of the aircraft or vector of movement, thus leading to massive energy loss.
Close coupled canards provide most of the same benefits, albeit in a significantly different manner. What canards do is that they - similar to LERX - create vortices, thus energizing air flow over the wing. This has two major benefits. By delaying the separation of air (stall) to a higher angle of attack, maximum lift and thus turn rate is improved. But energized airflow also means that control surface input becomes more effective, and remains effective to a higher angle of attack. This results in improved pitch onset, roll onset and roll rates, as well as higher controllable angle of attack.
All 6th gen have to be better otherwise it is wastage of tax payer's money. The makers still have time to think. When we are talking abt a gen leap then we hav to make a better jet, simple. 6th gen is expected to have DEW to eliminate gun-fight. When sufficient KW laser pods have been tested on AH-64 & perhaps legacy jets then there is no doubt that 6th gen can mount a flat laser turret like a DIRCM.
I meant the channel wall.
Why would that be a problem?
Problem with converging panels is not that panels themselves will heat up, but rather that plume is visible from increased range of angles.
Rafale was said to have RAM paint even back in 1995:
OK, thanks.
You know, thinking about what is being written would not be amiss. You use smileys, yet while I have made mistakes, you have shown yourself to be incapable of understanding basic concepts time and again.SI & Imperial units used by every industry including Dassault, Snecma, DGA are irrelevant to you? So u will go to fuel station & tell bluntly to fill 30% fuel in your vehicle?
Precisely. Which is why F-22 has thrust vectoring instead.
And again, outcome itself doesn't matter as much. What matters is performance shown by Rafale, which shows that it doesn't really need thrust vectoring, as it is able to fight and retain advantage in slow-speed regime where thrust vectoring shines.
He was not "screaming for breath"; these "screams" are actually grunts whose purpose is to help pilot cope with G-forces involved in hard maneuvers. F-22 pilot will have been screaming just as much.
Not all canards are equal. J-20 uses long coupled canards, which are merely a control surface - forward positioned tail, essentially. In aerodynamics terms, J-20 is quite conventional. J-20 itself is also very large and heavy aircraft, which is additional minus.
- document in fact outright points to close-coupled canard as an alternative to thrust vectoring
Actually, it can. Gripen has managed to achieve 70-80 degree AoA sustained and 100-110 degree AoA maximum during the testing. Normal FCS however limits AoA to 30 degrees or so.
First, F-22 weight of 19,7 t is the original production variant weight. So if you are using 19 700 kg for F-22, you should also be using 9 550 kg weight for the original production model of Rafale C. Both fighters had gained weight since, but I do not know how much fatter the F-22 had become.
Well, your take is wrong.
What, on air shows?
As I have said, being generation ahead does not guarantee superiority. Fact that they are aiming to make 6th generation fighters better doesn't mean they truly will be.
That's among the hottest parts of engine, need to be Ttanium usually to withstand heat & structural integrity.
Still u can't figure out why it is a problem after giving picture & diagrams which don't match?
Best of luck on ur own homework. I don't wanna go in circles.Plume is a very long thing but nozzles are just 1-2 ft. Converging them or leaving gap doesn't affect plume. If u wanna explain further then please use a drawing.
R.I.P. 5th & 6th gen design R&D & tax payer's money. The entire world should purchase Rafale.
After giving so many pics & diagrams, me incapable of understanding basic concepts, says a person who mixed up nozzle, cooling channel & blade cooling, hence the smileys
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? Have u seen any technical paper or speaker in seminar mentioning only %? NO. Why not? Bcoz those values depend on altitude, airframe design & load also. There are so many engine makers with series of engine, is there any engine considered as benchmark? NO. Is Rafale or any other jet the benchmark? NO.
Every product cannot have everything otherwise its cost will be unsustainable. So choices & priorities have to be made. if u prioritize stealth u hav to exclude canards & include TVC & vice-versa. I'm not USA fan but it is a rich country & their firms like Lockheed & Northrop are leading some R&D since 1940s with vast funding & test facilities. How many countries have an entire X-series, space shuttle & jets like SR-71, B-2, F-117, etc? So as per their tests, they had to choose if they wan't to take risk of getting shot in BVR, or prioritise stealth & include TVC. And the result is that F-22 is costliest jet but Europe had to dump 5th gen & directly move to 6th gen to close the gap. All they could do is improvise with 4++ gen with composite materials & avionics within their budget.
So i never negated Rafales performance which u think. I said that i witnessed impressive performance of Rafale & other jets F2F, i hope u hav that experience. It is much better than a video. I also said it will take care of Pak & Chinese jets, what more u want me to say?
A typical radar lock was characteristics till 4th gen. Since 5th gen it is sensor fused avionics which even Rafale has to considerable extent. The optical sensors can maintain lock with help of digital image processing, just like a phone or CCTV camera detects people, their faces or a Tesla car recognizes so many objects & takes decisions to stop, speed or maneuver the car.
F-22 has 6-axis AN/AAR-56 DAS, precursor to F-35's AN/AAQ-37 DAS. The 6 +ve & -ve axis positions give spherical coverage with no blindspots. And the RF antennas are there on spine, belly, rear, wing edges, rudder, again spherical coverage.
U r artist in side-tracking the focus somehow after telling u repeatedly abt my post's focus. From where my post began at aft end of the jet & where it has landed to front end? You could have made ur own independent post on Rafale's aerodynamics or usage of canards. 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. Since 25 years i'm maintaining a folder of such docs but my profession is different & have to manage family hence very less time to read everything. Imagine the kind of documentation flood i can bring here but nobody will read. Hence i prefer labeled diagrams & pics to which the members can correlate easily.And what is FCS limit of Rafale? How much it got to during mock dogfight? 31?
I used 9,900Kg. Did 350Kg difference create a huge difference in T/W ratio or in the mock battle? NO.
But as per ur logic U just praised a lighter 6.8T jet Grippen above for high AoA, so it is far better than Rafale in dogfight i guess. And FCAS will be bigger & heavier, so will other jets.
Hmm, says a guy who mixed up parts & concepts of engine & admitted to fail to understand why some jets need to have more space & weight.
Rafale doesn't go to airshows globally?
Apply same logic to compare Rafale with 3++ gen jets
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).
Please, do find one place where I claimed that it masks entirety of the plume.
US 6th generation fighter is basically Dassault Rafale in its basic concept:
militarywatchmagazine.com
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:
They could have easily made a bigger engine. Rafale A (Rafale prototype) used F404 engine, which is larger than M88-2:
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.
Cut the crap.
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.
Yes, because speed is so low that they would be dead.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Fighter jets always gain weight over time as they receive additional capabilities and upgrades.
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.
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.
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.
I am not an expert nor have any knowledge about technical things you have written. Few months earlier I have asked a very senior officer of Airforce about use of TVC in real fight scenario. He said" Not much, it's good for air shows but in real dog fight aircraft looses energy and altitude and becomes sitting duck". Being incapable to understand these things I didn't ask anything further.That's among the hottest parts of engine, need to be Ttanium usually to withstand heat & structural integrity.
Still u can't figure out why it is a problem after giving picture & diagrams which don't match?
Plume is a very long thing but nozzles are just 1-2 ft. Converging them or leaving gap doesn't affect plume. If u wanna explain further then please use a drawing.
R.I.P. 5th & 6th gen design R&D & tax payer's money. The entire world should purchase Rafale.
After giving so many pics & diagrams, me incapable of understanding basic concepts, says a person who mixed up nozzle, cooling channel & blade cooling, hence the smileys
Whichever field we talk about - engineering, banking, law, architecture, arts, etc, we need to use terms & standards of that professional domain. So tech domain measurments have SI & imperial units, but u wanna use ur own personal units & standards, that's good for ur personal understanding but confusing to others.
U can write whatever u want in ur personal blog. Even most defence journalists, youtube channel owners, etc are not even technically qualified & make content like they want. Back in my college days i also wanted to mke my own blog site.
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? Have u seen any technical paper or speaker in seminar mentioning only %? NO. Why not? Bcoz those values depend on altitude, airframe design & load also. There are so many engine makers with series of engine, is there any engine considered as benchmark? NO. Is Rafale or any other jet the benchmark? NO.
My post was only on "Indian" Rafales that too on its engine, nozzle but u pulled me into comparative performance. After that also i shared only theoretical diagrams & pics from conceptual PoV until now lately i had to give some specific pics & calculations.
All the ratios u mentioned can be for light, medium, heavy jets, depends on multiple factors. I showed u the calculation that a heavy jet like F-22 has higher T/W ratio bcoz making a strong engine was a priority. Tomorrow FCAS & Tempest will require even better engines than F-22/35.
Before Rafale they tested Mirage-4000 also but cancelled it. Rafale could have been bigger jet but perhaps they didn't have a bigger better engine then. There are many geopolitical, economic, strategic, business factors including export to customers otherwise a product can fail or come under heavy criticism like F-35. Most European countries are small & have NATO support which may not require a cross-country huge jet like Sukhoi with double internal fuel. Hence light to medium jets like Grippen, EF-2000, Rafale have worked well in 4th gen category.
But now it seems the era of light jet is over or only for poor countries bcoz technology has progressed, more sensors, equipment, cooling, internal fuel & weapons, etc needed means more space & weight. Our LCA is a classic example of massive delays & "can't spit, can't swallow" hence they are inflating the same airframe to MWF & calling it Tejas MK2. U can consider it as 1 engine Rafale. Then we will have TEDBF which is so identical to Rafale bcoz we don't have our own original R&D money being 2nd most populous country with high corruption & scandal rates.
In future we will still see 1 engine jets like F-35, Su-75 but they won't be lean & slim like F-16 for example bcoz new tech consume space & weight.
Every product cannot have everything otherwise its cost will be unsustainable. So choices & priorities have to be made. if u prioritize stealth u hav to exclude canards & include TVC & vice-versa. I'm not USA fan but it is a rich country & their firms like Lockheed & Northrop are leading some R&D since 1940s with vast funding & test facilities. How many countries have an entire X-series, space shuttle & jets like SR-71, B-2, F-117, etc? So as per their tests, they had to choose if they wan't to take risk of getting shot in BVR, or prioritise stealth & include TVC. And the result is that F-22 is costliest jet but Europe had to dump 5th gen & directly move to 6th gen to close the gap. All they could do is improvise with 4++ gen with composite materials & avionics within their budget.
So i never negated Rafales performance which u think. I said that i witnessed impressive performance of Rafale & other jets F2F, i hope u hav that experience. It is much better than a video. I also said it will take care of Pak & Chinese jets, what more u want me to say?
Your country also purchase Rafale so u r blind supporter of it, i don't feel compelled like that bcoz i simply consider both +/- points of any product.
Outcome is either death or survival, a live pilot or his/her coffin, that's the final thing. But it won't be same everytime. In every excercise, local or international, repeated BVR & dogfights are done & results could vary each day. You are so fixed on Rafale's performance that u don't wanna acknowledge anything about any other jet just bcoz ur country purchased it while i still acknowledge other jets where they desrve & raise concerns like with J-10C, etc. I already said that we should be smart customer, not marketing preys.
I'm aware of the pilot training during high G maneuvers but watch the 2nd video which u only shared in ur blog how those ex-pilots are making fun of the Rafale pilot & french propagandists. The HUD video also showed G & AoA values which Rafale's FCS allows max to avoid stall. The pilot was taking a lot of Gs due to high inertia. Go comment & discuss on their YT videos & share the screenshots here of their responses. You can watch Russian cockpit videos of MiG-29 OVT, Su-35, Su-57 during TVC maneuvers, they don't scream or even have to gasp much bcoz speed is so low which doesn't create high intertia & G. Rather it is like a roller coaster ride. Individual pilot physical tolerances may also differ. During F-22 & Rafale mock dogfight it also appears that F-22 may not be using much TVC bcoz during exercises they may disable some features as protocols like our MKI didn't use their radar to full limit at Red-Flag. So such minute details are seldom told to public. But TVC jet pilots won't scream, grunt, gasp like others, that's the whole idea behind good TVC to reduce effort, pain, but still maintain orientation, focus & situational awareness.
There are engineers who don't wan't pilot to struggle with high G, they don't wan't the pilot to tightly turn the plane in dogfight but make the missiles make U-turn. That's how technology evolves with time. Who doesn't wan't their pilots & soldiers to win a battle with minimum effort?
So i'm not making up any stuff, i'm merely sharing what i can find. But u don't wanna acknowledge any technical advancement of other platforms just bcoz ur country purchased Rafale & feel oblidged.
A typical radar lock was characteristics till 4th gen. Since 5th gen it is sensor fused avionics which even Rafale has to considerable extent. The optical sensors can maintain lock with help of digital image processing, just like a phone or CCTV camera detects people, their faces or a Tesla car recognizes so many objects & takes decisions to stop, speed or maneuver the car.
Similarly sensor fused avionics can detect a target by both active RF & passive EO sensors. But it depends on programming efficiency of engineers to control the radar & sensors & integrate them together.
If a radar takes several seconds to establish lock then either the H/w or the programming is obsolete. You can check this with some IT engineer in your friend circle if any.
F-22 has 6-axis AN/AAR-56 DAS, precursor to F-35's AN/AAQ-37 DAS. The 6 +ve & -ve axis positions give spherical coverage with no blindspots. And the RF antennas are there on spine, belly, rear, wing edges, rudder, again spherical coverage.
While Rafale's 2 DDM MAWS do give hemi-spherical coverage but the airframe acts as blindspot for lower sectors. The belly holds the weapons & fuel tanks hence no 4th gen can mount sensors there, except on chin.
The 3 jammers & 3 RWRs doesn't seem to give spherical coverage but only in horizontal plane. They jam & warn of RF radiation, don't lock a target. I'm not aware of additional antennas if any.
"Indian" Rafales got 3 more SPECTRA sensors "on demand"!!, not seen on oter Rafales. I'm not sure if vertical +/- axis are covered bcoz belly has loads & spine doesn't show add-ons.
So there is a diff. b/w "would be" & "it is" better. technically MLUs don't have limits but budget has.
In the mock digfight b/w the clouds the Rafale lost locks & took time to lock like u said but the F-22 was maintaing a sensor-fused spherical awareness actively or passively at all times & angles, that was the whole idea since beginning. Its HUD will always maintain a target pointer. In some 1990s documentaries it was shown, deleted on YT & elsewhere now.
France will develop FCAS to have all these things, close the gap & hopefully have DEW also.
I wonder what the EF-2000, Sukhoi, Chinese guys have to say, although EF-2000 has canards at higher level.
Su-57 makers might say levcons are best, not canards. Our Naval LCA test jet has levcons but TEDBF is identical to Rafale, what a split in thinking.
From diagram of long & close canards J-20 doesn't have long ones, it is also just ahead of wing. I already said J-20 didn't impress me but J-10C is a concern. And larger jet will require larger canards. U can imagine a bigger Rafale, then canards may have to be increased also. MKI's canards are bigger than Rafale's bcoz it depends on jet's size, design, weight, agility, etc.
YF-23's V-tails were almost big as F-16's wing & they rotated very quickly. Who would think to rotate an entire wing like a stabilizer, but it all depends on design requirement & maker's abilities. Now Su-75 is coming up with V-tail & no canards. FCAS has lowered V-tail but no canards, Tempest has delta wings but no canards. I wonder what the 6th gen guys are up to?
And what is FCS limit of Rafale? How much it got to during mock dogfight? 31?
Max limit demo is useless if FCS has to be limited & can't be used in battle, period. Either u survive or u r dead, that's all matters in end. Hence F-22 or any TVC jet was specifically designed overall with TVC to increase FCS limits get rid of unrecoverable stalls & spins.
I used 9,900Kg. Did 350Kg difference create a huge difference in T/W ratio or in the mock battle? NO.
If u think both jets gained weight then pls mention the potential components also.
Which is more capable, smaller, cheaper & lighter - a late 1990s PC or today's cheap range smart phone? Electronic component are getting smaller, lighter, cheaper, more efficient, so how r the jets becoming heavier?
And i myself showed u the variants of improved M88 engine, same might have occured for F-22 also.
If Rafale has F4 variant currently the F-22 is also going under 11 billion USD MLU Advanced Raptor Enhancement and Sustainment (ARES). It has already undergone Raptor Enhanced Development & Integration II (REDI II, readiness and software updates), etc.
But as per ur logic U just praised a lighter 6.8T jet Grippen above for high AoA, so it is far better than Rafale in dogfight i guess. And FCAS will be bigger & heavier, so will other jets.
Hmm, says a guy who mixed up parts & concepts of engine & admitted to fail to understand why some jets need to have more space & weight.
As as per ur logic all bigger & heavier jets are worse than Rafale & all lighter jets are better than Rafale
U feel oblidged as ur country purchased Rafale, i don't. I praised it a lot where it deserves, i criticized it where it is lags. There is no product which has everything or it will be unsustainable.
BTW, it is not my take but that of millions of people including ex-pilots. Go comment on their videos, ok? But it is natural to have people on both sides, so i don't hav any issues at all with other people's belief. However, the HUD video itself tells a lot.
Rafale doesn't go to airshows globally?
Apply same logic to compare Rafale with 3++ gen jets
The Su-30MKI guys, the pilots & the people who decided to have the TVC nozzle will be so delighted to meet this senior officer.
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.The Su-30MKI guys, the pilots & the people who decided to have the TVC nozzle will be so delighted to meet this senior officer.
The MKI's AL-31 engine is not enough, it should have minimum AL-41 type or F119-PW100 type ideally so that T/W ratio is always >1 with A-A load also, at least 8 AAMs.
TVC can help get behind a non-TVC jet.
The kinematics of TVC can help escape BVR missiles also, it has to be done at precise time window.
It is natural evolution of technology.
So it is like 1st a person learns basic self-defence then advance martial arts.
But just like in a class every student is not a high ranker, similary later in every professional domain every person in any rank is also not having same capabilities.
And we have so many defence organizations since decades but it is only now we have started gaining good experience & making our own stuff. AMCA will also have TVC i think, in MK2 if not in MK1.
| Thread starter | Similar threads | Forum | Replies | Date |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Rafale in Croatian Air Force | Military Aviation | 10 | |
| W | Rafale and F 18 super hornet shortlisted by Indian navy | Indian Navy | 21 | |
|
Indian Navy more likely to select F 18 than rafales | Indian Navy | 164 | |
|
|
Greek Rafale vs Turkish EF 2000 Who has the Technolocal Edge | Military Aviation | 5 |
