Know Your 'Rafale'

[Immanuel]

Rafale is good 4.5 aircraft, we made our choice and we should sleep in that bed, we could easily order more. That said, the Pilot in the F-35 even in the block-3 version will have bigger advantages while taking on any fighter including the rafale. The Helmet, the cockpit, the carefree flying, the decrease in work load, the sensor fusion, detection ranges and lower RCS is all a step above the rest. In combat, The F-35 will detect the Rafale first, will probably shoot first and put the Rafale or any other 4.5 gen aircraft at a disadvantage. While in a dogfight it's anyone's ball game (the F-4 beat Rafale, the T-28 Talon beat the F-22 in simulated dogfights). WVR and BVR will be dominated by the F-35 especially if it's carrying I-derby-ER, Aim-120D or Meteor, Asraam, Python-5 kind of weapons.

The F-35 due to fact that is being adopted by many airforces, will have the ability carry a wider set of weapons: Aim-120C/D, Aim 9X Block 2, I-Derby-ER, Meteor, Python-5, ASRAAM, SPICE Family, JDAMs (all types), Paveways (all types), JSOW/ER (max range 500km+), CBU-105SFW (cans of cluster fucks), SDB 1/2, HARM-Es, Harpoons, NSM, even JASSM-ER (900km) range. This kind of weaponry gives the F-35 very long reach while staying in uncontested or safe airspaces. Mission versatality is far greater. Also soon it will have HWAC hypersonic missiles. Heck even the F-18 SH Block-3 is most aspects beats the Rafale . The Rafale has better kinematics and can carry a shit ton of very expensive weapons.

With A Range Of 900 Km, Australia To Equip Its F-35 Stealth Fighters, Super Hornets With Cutting-Edge JASSM-ER Missiles (eurasiantimes.com)

Again Indian Rafale is fine for both against China/Pak but we should be strapping on more Indian weapons on it.

That said, under the Brandon Admin, the US is an untrustworthy partner so it's better India went with the Rafale. It's good enough for our needs.

 

[Picard]

Please don't use slang, personal, judgemental, defamingwords & comments.

I will listen to your advice the day when you manage to follow it yourself... personally, I tend to be exactly as polite as I perceive my interlocutor to be. Also, it pissess me off when I perceive somebody as misrepresenting arguments I had made, which you did multiple times, in addition to your constant utilization of logical fallacies through which you avoid actually answering my arguments (there is a very good example of that in the very post I am replying to right now).

Keep in mind - Common citizens ike u n me r nothing. What we r doing here is just time-pass. All this kind of discussions & arguements have been done in 1980s b/w qualified scientists, engineers & at least 5 countries are flying the products. So it doesn't matter if we can convice eachother here or not.

And? I had shown you arguments from qualified engineers, and you dismissed them. I had also shown you results of tests, yet you conveniently forget them with every new reply.

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

Engine exhaust is in hundreds of degrees of Celsius at least. Ambient temperature at high altitude is between -30 and -50 degrees. Basically, the only thing you need to do to shield the engine exhaust with cool air is to take air at something close to ambient temperature.

But the effect will not be that big. At mid to high altitudes where air combat happens, fighters can be detected at significant distance even through skin heating due to air friction - air is simply too thin up there, which means that IR radiation goes a far distance.

In F-117 at least, cool bypass air was used to cool down the heat-reflecting tiles that surrounded the engine nozzle. It also had an extended lip that masked first 8 in of the exhaust plume from below. So... F-35 has the first aspect, Rafale has the second. And optical blocking of hot parts (a la F-22 and Rafale) is more effective than any kind of cooled down air.

And as I have already explained, Rafale (as with other Eurocanards) is a fundamentally defensive design. So this "enemy can approach from any direction" is much less true for its intended purpose than it is with the F-35.

That being said, the effect of cooling down the engine exhaust will be significant at much lower altitudes. Air there is both denser and warmer, which helps masking aircraft's IR signature to begin with. This in turn means that any special cooling mechanisms will make much greater difference. Further, mixing hot air with ambient air through usage of notched nozzle is very effective in 4,3 um band, which is the primary IR band used for detection at low altitudes.

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

And that is why "generations" argument doesn't matter that much. I had already explained you that a well-designed 2nd and 3rd generation fighters can defeat 4th generation fighters.

So i also showed calculations which was actually expected from you proactively. But no articles or aero-professionals or videos, documentaries speak in terms of throttle %. % & ratios are derived from total values, not the other way.

Yet it is ratios that are always used for measuring performance.

There is no 'my point', 'ur point', 'validation', 'invalidation', 'my claim', 'ur claim', 'promotion', 'advertisement', etc here on unofficial forum. This is not some Expo site. R u an aero-professional or persuing a degree? Have u published international papers & seminars?

People like me who are not DoD or aero-professional can be wrong, v r just conveying what is seen in real life & that's what people buy. But people like u r using such concluding & judgemental & even personal slang words & lines w/o ur intro just bcoz u hav a personal blog site. U say it is my problem not understand but also say it mght be due to ur way of writing which indeed it is....u r speaking from both sides, what do u expect from others? Then improve ur way of writing & without slangs & personal judgemental words.

Are you? I had given you documents written by aeronautic professionals about utility of close-coupled canards. You ignore them and keep saying how close-coupled canard is a mere control surface and that TVC is unquestionably better than canards. So apparently you believe yourself to be better than professionals that you are now calling on to.

You have no room to lecture anyone about writing. You use slang and shorthands, you double back, you go into complete non sequitors, you utilize logical fallacies, you outright ignore and misrepresent my arguments when it suits you, you deliberately forget facts that are inconvenient to you, you display ignorance of even most basic facts about the aircraft being discussed, and even on the most basic readability level your way of writing is a pain in the ass to decypher.

FFS, just in the post I am now replying to, you thought that Rafale had a mechanical radar before upgrading to AESA.

That was Typhoon that was upgraded from mechanical radar to AESA. Rafale had PESA from the start.

U r pointing to an enitre company, country, industry, countless associated professionals who have done R&D & implemented things decades back & still using their products. It would be so intresting to witness a discussion b/w people like u & professionals from Russia, China, USA who are continiously implementing TVC.

Contunuously implementing TVC? Pray tell, where?

With United States, the only aircraft with TVC is F-22. The end.
In China, J-20 might get thrust vectoring.
In Russia, you have Su-30, Su-35, and Su-57.

One common thing is that these are all large, relatively long-ranged aircraft with conventional aerodynamics (except J-20).

I never said that thrust vectoring doesn't have benefits when compared to close coupled canards. But "extreme maneuverability" is not one of these benefits.

Also, this is one of the logical fallacies I had mentioned before that had me so pissed off. Authority has no place in science. I had provided you with documents and citations which show how and why aircraft with close coupled canards do not necessarily require thrust vectoring - and do not require it at all if maneuverability in close combat is your primary design goal. Yet your only reply was "professionals from etc. are employing TVC, therefore your argument must be wrong". That is a clear fallacy, especially since it is not "my argument" but rather an argument made by multiple professionals that is based on actual scientific procedure and research.

I had provided you with links to documents containing the research in question. I will do so again. Read them, and show me why you think that actual, physical data from experiments is wrong.

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

And congratulations, nearly everything you had written is wrong. You had also obviously NOT read the multiple citations from design documents and aerodynamic studies I had provided previously that discuss benefits of close-coupled canards, yet you have the gall to suggest that I should engage with "professionals". Why don't you engage with professionals whose entire research you had just dismissed out of hand?

Close-coupled canard is not a control surface. Yes, it can be used as such. But its primary purpose is that of a vortex-generating high lift device. In other words, what matters with CCC is not its control input but rather its interaction with the wing.

Primary effect of close-coupled canard is energizing air flow over the wing. This leads to delayed stall, leading to improved lift as well as control surface effectiveness at high angles of attack.

MACH Aviation Magazine - på webben

The aerodynamic advantages derived from the close coupled canard configuration, foremost its good vortex flow stability up to high angles of attack (AOA), that can be translated into a very high instantaneous turn rate, and which in conjunction with pivoting canards that are automatically trimmed to give optimal lift-to-drag (L/D) ratios for all cg positions, Mach and AOA, were not technically feasible for the Viggen generation of fighters. Only full span slotted flaps on the canards were present on the Viggen, for further improvement of its already excellent Short Take Off and Landing (STOL) characteristics).

The flow phenomenon, commonly called “dynamic lift”, perhaps more aptly called aerodynamic hysteresis, has been the object of intense interest in some countries for decades, not the least has this been the case in Russia. Its best public known, practical application may well be the awesome aerobatic display performed by test pilot V.G. Pugachev and his “cobra” turn in a Sukhoi Su-27.

When these hysteresis effects manifested themselves during high AOA/spin tests in the specially modified second Gripen prototype, they came as no surprise. Years prior, low speed wind tunnel tests with pitching motion of the model had already demonstrated the presence of marked unsteady flow effects, hysteresis, in the post stall alpha regime. Normal force hysteresis was most evident, but all the other components, except side force, had their share.

In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha. When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded.

Delta canard’s inherent good aerodynamics are:

· Stable detached leading edge vortex flow, high maximum lift coefficient.
· Positive trim lift on all lifting surfaces.
· Floating canard offers stable aircraft if EFCS fails.
· Good field performance (take off and landing), enhanced by special aerodynamic breaking mode.

· Battle damage tolerance good, “overlapping” control surfaces.
· Potential for future adaptations, like steep approach, fuselage aiming.
· Low buffeting levels made even better with leading edge flaps.

Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):

· Proven spin recovery capability for complete cg and AOR range.
· Nor risk of being trapped in a superstall, control authority exists.

Summary:
- good vortex flow stability up to high angle of attack = higher maximum lift due to delayed air flow separation means increased instantaneous turn rate, air flow stability also means control surfaces remain efficient at high angles of attack
- improved lift-to-drag ratios at all flight regimes as a consequence of delayed stall, improved lift and positive trim lift on surfaces
- improved safety due to ability to recover from spin and superstall

Cookie Absent

The results showed that the addition of canard would be able to increase the lifting force coefficient up to 5 - 12.1 %. The canard position on the main wing affects to the vortex flow interaction, the value of lift coefficient, andmaximum angle of attack. In the canard position on the upper side and adjacent to the main wing gives the best value against the maximum Cl value shift between 5 - 10 degrees which indicates a stall delay in the aircraft model.

Again, close coupled canard improves lifting coefficient and maximum angle of attack due to delaying stall.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA256311.pdf

The addition of the canard had a dramatic effect on the wing flowfield at an angle of attack of 22*. Without the canard, the flow across the wing was characterized by large areas of chaotic, incoherent flow with a resultant loss in lift. The addition of the canard vortex established a large crossflow component moving toward the wing surface which caused the flow over the inboard section of the wing to reattach.

In addition to reattachment, the crossflow provided energy to the wing vortex which delayed its breakdown. Therefore, with the canard in this position relative to the wing, the the wing leading-edge vortex was enhanced and stabilized. This crossflow-induced breakdown delay substantiates the conclusions made by Lacey, in Reference 2

The energy contained in the canard vortex is not lost. Consider the drag force as a measure of the energy required to propel two models with the same wing planform. The first model employs a canard/wing configuration and the second model a wing/conventional-tail configuration. If the flow over the wing of the second model remains attached (this study shows it would not), both models would have approximately the same drag. The difference is that the energy (in the form of drag) placed in the tail vortex of the second model would be lost to the freestream. In the canard/wing configuration, some of the energy placed in the canard vortex was used to benefit the flow over the wing thereby, making the canard configuration more efficient

- delayed stall resulting in improved lift
- delayed vortext breakdown resulting in delayed stall and improved lift
- improved aerodynamic efficiency

So let's see how your arguments stand up to facts:
Canard is a control surface dependent on enough air flow due to speed, TVC is independent of speed. - Only partly true. First, close-coupled canards are primarily a lift-enhancement / vortex-generating device, with ability to provide control inputs being a decidedly secondary characteristic. And in their primary function, close coupled canards had shown effectiveness at such low speeds that speed argument is practically irrelevant even though it is technically true.
Control surfaces don't work in stall regime but TVC does. - Correct, but only for classical wing-tail configuration. Close coupled canard allows control surfaces to be effective in post-stall regimes.
Control surfaces help in regaining stable flight in post-stall when sufficient air-flow & speed is regained which takes few seconds but TVC kicks in before it.- For traditional configurations maybe.
Points # 2,3,4,5 which u mentioned - the HUD video shows the limitations & i already said that FCS limitations for "practicality" are worthless if not used in combat.- so F-22's thrust vectoring is useless? Because F-22 has similar operational limitations to what Rafale etc. do.
Now J-10C is a delta-canard with TVC. Can u guarantee that Euro-canards won't implement TVC in future MLUs? Or will u say that TVC on J-10C is foolish?- I have already pointed out that TVC does have benefits even for aircraft with close-coupled canards. But these do not lie in the area of maneuverability.
And Rusian Su-57 is tandem-TRI-plane with levcons+3D-TVC.- It is also a stealth fighter.
I never said TVC is "i win" concept but theory of TVC is to reduce speed hence reduce inertia & G while still maintaining orientation, avoiding stall & attacking enemy before it can attack,that's all. - That is literally what close-coupled canards achieve.
Repeating myself, when i said Rafale will loose >50% of gun-fights, means i considered up tp 40% wins which is excellent figure for a non-TVC 4th gen jet against a 5th gen TVC jet, but u r still not just unhappy but furious & outragious. - I find it outrageous because your claims about close coupled canards are incorrect. You seem to believe that close-coupled canard aircraft are aerodynamically fundamentally equal to long-arm canard or wing-tail aircraft, and that close-coupled canards are merely a control surface. News flash: if they were, nobody would be using close-coupled canards. Canards in such a position simply don't have the moment arm control authority of either long-arm canards or conventional tail. Also, if canards are merely a control surface, how do you explain Viggen? It had fixed canards with movable slats - definitely not a control surface. How do you explain Kfir and Cheetah modifications of Mirage III, both of which have FIXED close coupled canards? They exist because you are wrong: close-coupled canards are far more than just a control surface.
Why don't u really engage with professionals who worked on TVC globally then we will see how good u r with ur facts. Go comment on YT videos of those ex-pilots & then paste screenshots here. - I engaged with a pilot, and he agreed with me on most points. Not on YT videos though, but through e-mail and on old defunct Indian Defence forum.

So it is ur choice to categorize Eurocanards, USA jets, Russian jets, etc as offensive or defensive but the world sees all of them as MRCA. F-22 & F-35 won't come everytime to save them. We didn't release the MRCA tender only for defence but also for offence capability jet. F-22/35 RCS is low hence they can avoid SAM engagement zones but Dassault projected Rafale with good EW capabilities against SAMs & AAMs to jam & escape them otherwise those SPECTRA sensors are worthless & 4++ gen concept is joke.

When did I say that Eurocanards cannot be used in offensive missions? Nowhere. In fact, Rafale operated over Libya from day one, when the only other aircraft operating there were US stealth aircraft and French Mirage IIIs. In fact, it was Rafales that provided ECM/EW escort for Mirages.

What I was talking about was design focus. Just as with tanks, where e.g. Challenger 2 and M1 have a defensive design focus (prioritizing armor), while Russian tanks have an offensive design focus (prioritizing mobility). It is same for the aircraft.

Anyways, let me again repeat that i also gave Rafale upto 40% win, that's not bad at all against F-22. So i never negated Rafale. Beyond that excessively praising Rafale & downplaying F-22 is also not fair.

F-22 is a large, heavy fighter with fundamentally BVR design philosophy. We were talking about close combat, and Rafale is smaller and with better aerodynamic design.

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

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

That is far from a given. And if there is anything more than two jets in the air, then, again, using post-stall maneuvers is stupid because it leaves you vulnerable to attack by a third party.

When it comes to missile combat, TVC does give advantage in terms of nose pointing authority, but so do canards. Advantage of a TVC jet there is that it is not dependant on air flow, so theoretically, TVC equipped jet should have better nose authority at very low speeds. Theoretically, but close-coupled canards also provide improved nose authority at low speeds, as well as lift improvement.

In gun combat, TVC can enable some maneuvers, but these again are death-or-glory maneuvers where you either succeed or you die, and they can be countered by an attentive pilot.

TVC does provide some benefits even to canarded fighters, but little in terms of ACM...

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

Rafale used PESA before upgrading to AESA, not mechanical radar. PESA is not fundamentally different from AESA except that AESA has multiple T/R modules to ESA's one, which means that PESA has only one beam and limited LPI performance. But none of that makes any difference in terms of ability to track a single target. Yet even in Rafale videos you still see that it takes a time to generate a firing solution.

D in DAS stands for DISTRIBUTED. The 6-axis positions for AN/AAQ-37 in F-35 were 1st used by AN/AAR-56 in F-22. We change phones, laptops/PC every few years & they get S/w update frequently, the phone & CCTV cameras can track bodies, objects, faces, ID the faces, then what would stop high grade military to MLU the sensors & avionics?
So F-22 has spherical coverage of RF & EO sensors fused by avionics for situational awareness.

That is no different from what Rafale does.

Now Su-35 & Su-57 are also using same cardinal positions for their MAWS.
So all 4 jets have DAS (simple engilsh dictionary meaning) but if all have capability which F-35 DAS providesis a different thing. IR & UV sensors provide different kind of images hence same image processing can't be done on both.

So what is special about F-35's DAS?

I have been watching doumenteries since 1990s, discussing since 20 years now, i share whatever pics, videos, screenshots i got in my folder. I'm merely conveying things, not my original ideas, conclusions, claims, etc.

Yet you have clearly not read actual research documents. I had shown you, multiple times, documents which show benefits of close coupled canards in terms of post-stall maneuverability and lift improvements, yet whenever you talk about canards you treat them as simple control surfaces, no different from tail or long-arm canards.

Documentaries are hardly a substitute for actual research.

But if u wanna convince others on fighter jet design then either u must be qualified student or professional or at least u must use labeled pics, diagrams, YT vidoes, etc. But all members must be able to comprehend or ur goal will fail. But please make separate post.

I had shown you actual aerodynamic documents which clearly show that close-coupled canards provide most of the benefits of the thrust vectoring. What more do you want?

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

Better challenging pilots than challenging physics.

I had already explained, TVC does provide some advantages but it also has disadvantages. And these disadvantages explain why it has not been deployed to most jets - same as why most jets don't have canards.

F-22 without TVC would still be superior to F-15, because it has a more refined aerodynamic design. Barring potential aerodynamic issues - e.g. lack of control authority at high angles of attack limiting aerodynamically usable AoA - even a TVC-less F-22 would beat F-15 (nearly) every single time in a dogfight.

So don't u think a modified Rafale with levcons & TVC would be better? Perhaps it will be a new jet altogether, good for export & supplementing FCAS.

Why use levcons when it already has canards? As for TVC - it might be useful in some aspects, but it is not necessary.

Many thanks for the video which gives partial answer to your questions. And u can't say that u hav not watched videos of all the TVC jets, so there is no comparison at all. From SAAB video we can see that it was such a short stunt that pilot cannot fire missile or gun nor can spin/roll or avoid stall, so that's all non-TVC jets can do. But TVC jet can sustain the cobra more, reduce speed to zero if required & then move up, down, sideways, roll, spin, etc.

For Draken, probably. Not so for Gripen.

MACH Aviation Magazine - på webben

In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha. When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded.

Parked at 70-80 degrees alpha. Maximum AoA was 100 - 110 degrees, IIRC.

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

F-15A had empty weight of 25 000 lbs, while F-15C had empty weight of 28 000 lbs, if memory serves me. F-18 has also gained weight over time.

So no, F-16 is not unique.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

I will listen to your advice the day when you manage to follow it yourself... personally, I tend to be exactly as polite as I perceive my interlocutor to be. Also, it pissess me off when I perceive somebody as misrepresenting arguments I had made, which you did multiple times, in addition to your constant utilization of logical fallacies through which you avoid actually answering my arguments (there is a very good example of that in the very post I am replying to right now).
And? I had shown you arguments from qualified engineers, and you dismissed them. I had also shown you results of tests, yet you conveniently forget them with every new reply.
You have no room to lecture anyone about writing. You use slang and shorthands, you double back, you go into complete non sequitors, you utilize logical fallacies, you outright ignore and misrepresent my arguments when it suits you, you deliberately forget facts that are inconvenient to you, you display ignorance of even most basic facts about the aircraft being discussed, and even on the most basic readability level your way of writing is a pain in the ass to decypher.
You have no room to lecture anyone about writing. You use slang and shorthands, you double back, you go into complete non sequitors, you utilize logical fallacies, you outright ignore and misrepresent my arguments when it suits you, you deliberately forget facts that are inconvenient to you, you display ignorance of even most basic facts about the aircraft being discussed, and even on the most basic readability level your way of writing is a pain in the ass to decypher.
Are you? I had given you documents written by aeronautic professionals about utility of close-coupled canards. You ignore them and keep saying how close-coupled canard is a mere control surface and that TVC is unquestionably better than canards. So apparently you believe yourself to be better than professionals that you are now calling on to.

I have not used personal words like liar, dishonest, etc or slangs or -ve words like arguement, lecturing, fallacy. Teens, typical 20s people do it & learn the hard way as they grow up. After reuesting also u r not listening. Nothing has "pissed me off" but if it does to u then it is ur behavioral issue. People should discuss as if it is a live online discussion. If u can misinterpret parts & concepts then anybody can misinterpret ur comments. 1st u misinterpreted engine parts & now external parts like slat, slots & flaps, then u accuse & abuse me as liar, dishonest, claimer, completely wrong, etc.
I didn't dismiss the work of EU engineers but have lagged so far till 5th gen. But I said there r lots of factors involved to make a product & EU also could have made F-22 like jet like they r making FCAS, Tempest, time changes things. The biggest contrast of EU nations is their small size & hence their disagreements. Whatever pics & diagram i hav shared is enough to negate ur accusation that i don't understand basics & i hav asked u to use diagram & drawing. No member will have time & patience to read thesis docs.
I'm a trainer in my office, i do lecture but only on my official topic, otherwise i said i'm nobody to lecture u here, this is not online tution class for aero-engg. students. Yes i use shorthand like u, c, v, r, etc which r used very commonly on mobile. At work i can't carry my personal laptop or access internet on official PCs so i hav to make some replies on my mobile & save draft & continue later. So i have introduced myself repetedly as non-DoD or non-aero-professional but some tech topics not all i understand well due to my qualification. But u have not introduced urself yet.
Yes, canard is just a control surface dependent on minimum air flow while TVC doesn't depend on it. That's how rockets, missiles, satellites, space shuttle, etc maneuver where air flow is not effective. When the non-canard TVC jets reduce speed drastically sometimes to zero & do tail-slide, J-turn, spins, etc then canards don't help until minimum air flow is regained. Some TVC jets don't have canards, some have. If canards & levcons were enough then TVC wouldn't have been required on Su-57 & J-10C. If non-TVC canard jets can remove FCS restrictions then TVC can be negated. I'm merey giving examples of products flying around, there is no question of me being better than aero-professionals when i'm not 1 of them, simple.

Engine exhaust is in hundreds of degrees of Celsius at least. Ambient temperature at high altitude is between -30 and -50 degrees. Basically, the only thing you need to do to shield the engine exhaust with cool air is to take air at something close to ambient temperature.

But the effect will not be that big. At mid to high altitudes where air combat happens, fighters can be detected at significant distance even through skin heating due to air friction - air is simply too thin up there, which means that IR radiation goes a far distance.
In F-117 at least, cool bypass air was used to cool down the heat-reflecting tiles that surrounded the engine nozzle. It also had an extended lip that masked first 8 in of the exhaust plume from below. So... F-35 has the first aspect, Rafale has the second. And optical blocking of hot parts (a la F-22 and Rafale) is more effective than any kind of cooled down air.
And as I have already explained, Rafale (as with other Eurocanards) is a fundamentally defensive design. So this "enemy can approach from any direction" is much less true for its intended purpose than it is with the F-35.
That being said, the effect of cooling down the engine exhaust will be significant at much lower altitudes. Air there is both denser and warmer, which helps masking aircraft's IR signature to begin with. This in turn means that any special cooling mechanisms will make much greater difference. Further, mixing hot air with ambient air through usage of notched nozzle is very effective in 4,3 um band, which is the primary IR band used for detection at low altitudes.

All techniques have to be used in different situation. As gen leap occurs, attempt is made to include previous gen technique + something additional. What Rafale is doing with nozzle gap, some other jets also do, i already said that it is common, cheap technique with ceramics & composites, etc but only for nozzles, not plume. I don't know how many 4th gen jet engines have cooling channel & blade coating & cooling, or if "Indian" Rafales have it. As per my post i shared observation & tried to corelate with M88 pics, that's all. A lot about F-22/35, Su-57 may not be known yet exactly how they do it like liquid cooling, plume shielding, etc. Their diagrams and pics don't reveal much.

And that is why "generations" argument doesn't matter that much. I had already explained you that a well-designed 2nd and 3rd generation fighters can defeat 4th generation fighters.

If lower gen defeats higher gen then purpose of higher gen is defeted, it could be due to overconfidence, bad pilot skills, etc. But passing statements like higher gen is based on some lower gen jet is very controversial when the ne jet has not been revealed yet. Let it be revealed then u can say if some parts or concept i very close to Rafale, etc.

Yet it is ratios that are always used for measuring performance.

yes ratios but not throttle % & ratios come from total values not the other way.

FFS, just in the post I am now replying to, you thought that Rafale had a mechanical radar before upgrading to AESA.
That was Typhoon that was upgraded from mechanical radar to AESA. Rafale had PESA from the start.
Rafale used PESA before upgrading to AESA, not mechanical radar. PESA is not fundamentally different from AESA except that AESA has multiple T/R modules to ESA's one, which means that PESA has only one beam and limited LPI performance. But none of that makes any difference in terms of ability to track a single target. Yet even in Rafale videos you still see that it takes a time to generate a firing solution.

That is no different from what Rafale does.

So what is special about F-35's DAS?

Where did i say Rafale had mechanical radar? I know it was PESA.

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

I said that the videos are old & then other legacy jets had older H/w mechanical radar & S/w.
And be it comparison of any electronic product - laptop, phone, server or jet fighter's computer, efficiency of circuitry & S/w differs. That's why there are MLUs & country-specific customizations in avionics.
Single target situation is a rare luxury so it is useless totalk on it today.
Rafale might take time to generate firing solution but F-22 will have a spherical sensor-fused lock & continious target indication.
I already explained what is different in Rafale's & F-22's RF & EO coverage + avionics programming differences leading to time taking in generating firing solution like u only said now & losing lock as seen in the HUD video. And u also know what is special abt F-35 DAS, it is a later product hence better sensor & digital image processing with HMDS. Other makers like Dassault, Sukhoi, etc can also do it, they also got intelligent professionals, they actually have something in pipeline, but it will increase the cost of jet.
"Indian" Rafale is the only version perhaps with 3 more SPECTRA sensors but still in horizontal plane, 2 more would be required to look up & down. But so far SPECTRA have included only RWR, LWR, jammer, DDM MAWS other ECM antenna but not a mini radar.
RWR, ECM, jammer antennas do not lock target. in future DDM may have EO locking but from HUD video currently it doesn't seem to have it.
Hene a future F5/6 MLU can incorporate increased # of RF & EO sensors, additional S/w code but cost will increase & better engine to power everything will be required.
So pls don't ask same question again in differnt way. On 1 side u pounce on me telling i don't understand basics & other side u ask me same questions differntly & pretend as if u didn't understand.

Contunuously implementing TVC? Pray tell, where?
With United States, the only aircraft with TVC is F-22. The end.
In China, J-20 might get thrust vectoring.
In Russia, you have Su-30, Su-35, and Su-57.
One common thing is that these are all large, relatively long-ranged aircraft with conventional aerodynamics (except J-20).
I never said that thrust vectoring doesn't have benefits when compared to close coupled canards. But "extreme maneuverability" is not one of these benefits.
Also, this is one of the logical fallacies I had mentioned before that had me so pissed off. Authority has no place in science. I had provided you with documents and citations which show how and why aircraft with close coupled canards do not necessarily require thrust vectoring - and do not require it at all if maneuverability in close combat is your primary design goal. Yet your only reply was "professionals from etc. are employing TVC, therefore your argument must be wrong". That is a clear fallacy, especially since it is not "my argument" but rather an argument made by multiple professionals that is based on actual scientific procedure and research.
I had provided you with links to documents containing the research in question. I will do so again. Read them, and show me why you think that actual, physical data from experiments is wrong.

Continiously means since 1990s there is a product flying & performing well in different nations as i wrote. I also said that there are possible reasons why other legacy jet not upgraded like budget allocation, cost of upgrading big fleet, hesitancy & skepticism, export considerations, etc. F-35's VTOL requirement killed its TVC. But what a future MLU will bring is unclear for all jets. Chinese are making progress with their WS series of engines, may be they tested TVC 1st on J-10C then they may implement on other jets. J-10c is not large & long-range. TVC has nothing to do on size & range otherwise it wouldn't have been tested on F-16, F-18, X-31, MiG-29, just on F-15 & Sukhois.
U must define & give example what do U mean by "extreme maneuverability". Non-TVC jets cannot reduce speed to zero, hover pointing up, then spin, roll, go wherever they want. Only 3D TVC can enable that.

And congratulations, nearly everything you had written is wrong. You had also obviously NOT read the multiple citations from design documents and aerodynamic studies I had provided previously that discuss benefits of close-coupled canards, yet you have the gall to suggest that I should engage with "professionals". Why don't you engage with professionals whose entire research you had just dismissed out of hand?
Close-coupled canard is not a control surface. Yes, it can be used as such. But its primary purpose is that of a vortex-generating high lift device. In other words, what matters with CCC is not its control input but rather its interaction with the wing.
Primary effect of close-coupled canard is energizing air flow over the wing. This leads to delayed stall, leading to improved lift as well as control surface effectiveness at high angles of attack.

MACH Aviation Magazine - på webben

Summary:
- good vortex flow stability up to high angle of attack = higher maximum lift due to delayed air flow separation means increased instantaneous turn rate, air flow stability also means control surfaces remain efficient at high angles of attack
- improved lift-to-drag ratios at all flight regimes as a consequence of delayed stall, improved lift and positive trim lift on surfaces
- improved safety due to ability to recover from spin and superstall

Cookie Absent

Again, close coupled canard improves lifting coefficient and maximum angle of attack due to delaying stall.

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA256311.pdf

- delayed stall resulting in improved lift
- delayed vortext breakdown resulting in delayed stall and improved lift
- improved aerodynamic efficiency
So let's see how your arguments stand up to facts:
Canard is a control surface dependent on enough air flow due to speed, TVC is independent of speed. - Only partly true. First, close-coupled canards are primarily a lift-enhancement / vortex-generating device, with ability to provide control inputs being a decidedly secondary characteristic. And in their primary function, close coupled canards had shown effectiveness at such low speeds that speed argument is practically irrelevant even though it is technically true.
Control surfaces don't work in stall regime but TVC does. - Correct, but only for classical wing-tail configuration. Close coupled canard allows control surfaces to be effective in post-stall regimes.
Control surfaces help in regaining stable flight in post-stall when sufficient air-flow & speed is regained which takes few seconds but TVC kicks in before it.- For traditional configurations maybe.
Points # 2,3,4,5 which u mentioned - the HUD video shows the limitations & i already said that FCS limitations for "practicality" are worthless if not used in combat.- so F-22's thrust vectoring is useless? Because F-22 has similar operational limitations to what Rafale etc. do.
Now J-10C is a delta-canard with TVC. Can u guarantee that Euro-canards won't implement TVC in future MLUs? Or will u say that TVC on J-10C is foolish?- I have already pointed out that TVC does have benefits even for aircraft with close-coupled canards. But these do not lie in the area of maneuverability.
And Rusian Su-57 is tandem-TRI-plane with levcons+3D-TVC.- It is also a stealth fighter.
I never said TVC is "i win" concept but theory of TVC is to reduce speed hence reduce inertia & G while still maintaining orientation, avoiding stall & attacking enemy before it can attack,that's all. - That is literally what close-coupled canards achieve.
Repeating myself, when i said Rafale will loose >50% of gun-fights, means i considered up tp 40% wins which is excellent figure for a non-TVC 4th gen jet against a 5th gen TVC jet, but u r still not just unhappy but furious & outragious. - I find it outrageous because your claims about close coupled canards are incorrect. You seem to believe that close-coupled canard aircraft are aerodynamically fundamentally equal to long-arm canard or wing-tail aircraft, and that close-coupled canards are merely a control surface. News flash: if they were, nobody would be using close-coupled canards. Canards in such a position simply don't have the moment arm control authority of either long-arm canards or conventional tail. Also, if canards are merely a control surface, how do you explain Viggen? It had fixed canards with movable slats - definitely not a control surface. How do you explain Kfir and Cheetah modifications of Mirage III, both of which have FIXED close coupled canards? They exist because you are wrong: close-coupled canards are far more than just a control surface.
Why don't u really engage with professionals who worked on TVC globally then we will see how good u r with ur facts. Go comment on YT videos of those ex-pilots & then paste screenshots here. - I engaged with a pilot, and he agreed with me on most points. Not on YT videos though, but through e-mail and on old defunct Indian Defence forum.
Yet you have clearly not read actual research documents. I had shown you, multiple times, documents which show benefits of close coupled canards in terms of post-stall maneuverability and lift improvements, yet whenever you talk about canards you treat them as simple control surfaces, no different from tail or long-arm canards.
I had shown you actual aerodynamic documents which clearly show that close-coupled canards provide most of the benefits of the thrust vectoring. What more do you want?

Control-surface/lift-device, is a general term & tail-plane, canard, aeleron, slats, flaps are specific terms. Fore-plane is a term precursor to canard. Lifting device are fixed & uncontrollable while control surface can be rotated & controlled.
In Kfir, Cheetah, etc where lifting foreplane is fixed it was the start of experimenting with foreplane lifting devices towards canards. Lift was there but no rotation hence they are lift-devices but not control-surface.
In Viggen, it is combination of foreplane & flaps, like a small wing, they actually really call it a 'forward wing" in labeled cutaway diagram. So it is combo of lifting-foreplane & control surface. Also, it doesn't seem to have "movable slats" either in foreplane or in wing. The leading edge of foreplane & outer 1/3rd segment of wing's leading edge are angled down little like slat but fixed. A fixed slat is called "slot" but they drop more like fully extended slat, so Viggen's leading edges of foreplane & outer 1/3rd of wing are intermediate b/w slat & slot.
1st u misinterpreted engine parts & now external parts like slat, slots & flaps, then u accuse & abuse me as liar, dishonest, claimer, completely wrong, etc?
Canard is like moving the tailplane forward, both can be controlled & fully rotate hence control-surfaces. And CCC is specific position w.r.t. wing.
Anything sticking out of a flying cyindrical body generates turbulance/vortex, like LERX, RWR/MAWS sensors, blade antennas, pylons, IFR probe, intakes, pods, etc.
All R&D on CCC is right but i don't need a deep-dive into its understanding bcoz when a jet is near zero speed, if there is no airflow then canard cannot energize anything over wing. If a canard jet goes vertial & reduce speed to zero, if it has T/W ratio >1 then it can move up otherwise simply tip over towards post-stall, just like a stick will tip over if balancing finger is not moved. Here is where 3-D TVC brings balance. When sufficient speed/air-flow is there then Canards can produce roll, pitch but not yaw. At insufficient speed/air-flow u expect a CCC to flap rapidly like a hummingbird's wings?
Even a middle school student observing a wind-mill toy can understand if there is no speed, no wind then no airflow hence no flat flap or blade like object/device like wing, rudder, canard, tailplane can work unless they flap like a bird to hover. So it doesn't really require reading thesis abstracts. And hence there is no question of dismissing any scientist or engineer who worked on canards. So If EVERYTHING i hav written is wrong then R.I.P. physics, school & college & i shouldn't have passed through class-9to12 then engineering college & become an IT engineer.
How F-22 TVC is useless? What are limitations of F-22 which Rafale can do? The Rafale HUD messages like "RELEASE STICK", "RECOVER", "TOO SLOW", "GND AVD"(Ground Avoid) do not indicate that CCC avoids stall sufficiently & reduces inertia & G. TVC jet pilots don't have scream/grunt/gasp so much.
I'm not qualified aero-professional nor it seems u r so pls stop using words like "claim" & introduce urself 1st b4 u use such words, a high-school/college student can also discuss here.
But Repeating myself, the geographical, geopolitical, financial conditions & disagreements led to non-TVC Euro-canards otherwise EU taken as 1 country would have made large long range jet, like u said above, with TVC, like F-22 & Su-57. What if tomorrow EU becomes USE? With Euro currency & NATO u guys r almost there towards USE.
Please engage with someone publicly so that others can verify anytime, anywhere otherwise anybody can "claim" to have agreement with pilots & aero-professionals. I wonder who writes & responds to emails to discuss when forums & Q&A sites have been there since 2000s. The pilot with whom u engaged, what was his nationality & which jets did he fly, what was his name & email-ID? Any pilot who has spoken on media or Expo can be traced.
Let me remind u that unofficial forums r not meant for R&D but easy comprehension & time pass by enthusiasts. No member is going to read theisis abstratcs. Nobody needs a deep dive, keep it simple by drawing, diagrams, pics, keep it interactive & edutainment.

When did I say that Eurocanards cannot be used in offensive missions? Nowhere. In fact, Rafale operated over Libya from day one, when the only other aircraft operating there were US stealth aircraft and French Mirage IIIs. In fact, it was Rafales that provided ECM/EW escort for Mirages.
What I was talking about was design focus. Just as with tanks, where e.g. Challenger 2 and M1 have a defensive design focus (prioritizing armor), while Russian tanks have an offensive design focus (prioritizing mobility). It is same for the aircraft.

So don't divide jets into offensive & defensive jets in the 1st place when Rafale is "omni-role", that's how Dassault projects & markets it.
We "Indians" don't have something like F-22/35 or even near it YET, we don't say "I/We will prefer F-22/35 like jet for air superiority & strike". We give examples of what we have. So as a Croatian, give examples of what u have & what u can make if u hav an aero industry. We know that USA intervened in Yugoslavian wars which let to downing of F-16 pilot Scott O'Graddy & loss of 1 F-117 also. We are also seeing F-35 flying in borders of Ukraine today. That's the reason u can mention F-22/35 in case of full blown war b/w NATO & Russia. So u wanna discuss so much against F-22's TVC but still wanna use it from NATO. Fight ur future wars w/o NATO then we will see.
For god sake please don't compare MBTs with jet fighters, please.

F-22 is a large, heavy fighter with fundamentally BVR design philosophy. We were talking about close combat, and Rafale is smaller and with better aerodynamic design.

Among 4th gen, yes, Rafale has superior aerodynamic design. I also said that it will defeat most non-TVC jets most of the times, that's why our country got it. I also said smaller jets have shorter turning radius & canard jets even shorter. I also said that F-22 w/o TVC would be like stealthy F-15. So u should be pretty satisfied & cease the debate but u r still furious & abusive
F-22 is large & heavy so what, to compensate it got stronger engines. And the ATF criteria was not just BVR but also dogfight, hence the TVC to reduce pilot effort & pain.

That is far from a given. And if there is anything more than two jets in the air, then, again, using post-stall maneuvers is stupid because it leaves you vulnerable to attack by a third party.
When it comes to missile combat, TVC does give advantage in terms of nose pointing authority, but so do canards. Advantage of a TVC jet there is that it is not dependant on air flow, so theoretically, TVC equipped jet should have better nose authority at very low speeds. Theoretically, but close-coupled canards also provide improved nose authority at low speeds, as well as lift improvement.
In gun combat, TVC can enable some maneuvers, but these again are death-or-glory maneuvers where you either succeed or you die, and they can be countered by an attentive pilot.
TVC does provide some benefits even to canarded fighters, but little in terms of ACM...

I have tried to explain all situations also mentioning where TVC won't matter.
Like i said, TVC success = function (strong engines, good FCS & avionics, pilot skills, load conditions). MKI doesn't have good thrust but F-22 has, so MKI will stall & enter post-stall but F-22 won't just like X-31 demonstrated which was also delta-canard but couldn't do it w/o TVC, LCC or CCC didn't matter there.
None to insufficient speed/airflow, no use of control surface actuation unless it can flutter like bird's wings, simple physics of air.
If missiles are there w/o LOAL, TVC jet will fire missiles 1st.
LOAL will render TVC useless.
In gunfight if stong engines are there then there won't be any stall, reduced kinetic energy would be regained quickly w/o traditional high G turning radius & TVC can be engaged repeatedly, that's what ATF team wanted.
If Eurocanards can relax their FCS limits & demonstrate all moves of F-22/Su-57 then only benefits of CCC over TVC can be proven. And what Su-57 has done is combined TVC & canards in form of levcons, best of both techniques.

Documentaries are hardly a substitute for actual research.

That means u don't watch documentaries showing interview of scientists, engineers & test pilots. I can also tell u names of some who worked on ATF team - Paul Metz, Tom Morgenfeld, Steve Rainey, John Beesley, Dave Fergusson, Jim Sandberg, etc. Just put their names in YouTube & have fun.
They also show diagrams, CFD model, assembly, testing footages, some mathematical modelling.

Why use levcons when it already has canards? As for TVC - it might be useful in some aspects, but it is not necessary.

To match requirement of future era, keep business open for countries who can't afford FCAS. Rafales will also retire afte few decades. FCAS is a big jet. A modified Rafale can be a smaller, more economical supplement.

For Draken, probably. Not so for Gripen.

MACH Aviation Magazine - på webben

Parked at 70-80 degrees alpha. Maximum AoA was 100 - 110 degrees, IIRC.

For every jet, the prototypes push the limits then a margin is left for safety & a limit is set which is adequate for missions. It was done for F-22,Su-57 also. But TVC jets with good engine & avionics don't require any AoA limit as seen publicly except for G limits for pilot & airframe. The whole idea was to close the gap of FCS limits from beginning for production jets & not just for prototypes.
I could not find any YT video of any Euro-Canard doing the maneuvers of TVC jets bcoz they have limited the FCS for "practicality" like u said which every customer will not buy. If the Americans, Russians, Indians, Malaysians, Chinese wan't it means they wan't it, if the Euopeans don't wan't it means they don't wan't it. Different country has different size, economy, geopilitics, like i repeated. They all will be responsible for consequences of their decisions.

F-15A had empty weight of 25 000 lbs, while F-15C had empty weight of 28 000 lbs, if memory serves me. F-18 has also gained weight over time.
So no, F-16 is not unique.

U r giving every 4th gen jet's example except F-22 & Rafale. F-16,18 are very skinny jets.
12% increase in weight for F-15A to C is hardly anything while for F-16A to E it is 41%. So like i said, the idea is to learn from 4th gen, anticipate future growth requirements, incorporate them today itself as much as posible & be prepared for marginal overhead in future if possible w/o modifying airframe & cardinal characteristics.

 

[BON PLAN]

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

If it is so easy, why LM don't use the F135 nozzle as a TVC? The non specially agile F35 would be pleased to have such capacity without extra weight....

 

[BON PLAN]

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

There are 2 batchs of M2000-9 : the first 30 are the older (delivery 1998+). Their remaining life is not known, but we can imagine it is less that 50% left. The 30+ others are newer...
Rafale for Morocco can be seen as a stop gap, before I expect a rafale order.
The AASM guided bomb , purchased by Morocco, is not integrated on M2000.... And M2000 can't use Meteor.... 2 good reasons for a futur Rafale order.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

If it is so easy, why LM don't use the F135 nozzle as a TVC? The non specially agile F35 would be pleased to have such capacity without extra weight....

I have already given u the answer that it depends on customers. Additional S/w code & testing required, all customers may not agree to pay extra but there is a possibility in future MLU, mat after 10/15 years. We have to wait & see.

 

[BON PLAN]

I have already given u the answer that it depends on customers. Additional S/w code & testing required, all customers may not agree to pay extra but there is a possibility in future MLU, mat after 10/15 years. We have to wait & see.

If the frame is not studied from the beginning to be TVC fitted it is over.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

If the frame is not studied from the beginning to be TVC fitted it is over.

In Engineering world nothing is ever over. Mentally surrendering & complaining w/o suggesting kind of people are unfit for engineering. If they can modify F-15, F-16, F-18, they can definitely modify any jet if required. The Netherlands F-35 for example has a parachute hump above engine.
In TVC nozzle the actuators just need to move in multiple axis rather than just radially in/out in a regular nozzle. It depends on intelligence of mechanical engineers of different makers/countries how they address the challenge of space & weight. Please revisit nozzles of F-16 MATV, MiG-29 OVT, Su-57.

 

[WolfPack86]

114 Rafale Assembly By DRAL

 

[Picard]

I have not used personal words like liar, dishonest, etc or slangs or -ve words like arguement, lecturing, fallacy. Teens, typical 20s people do it & learn the hard way as they grow up. After reuesting also u r not listening. Nothing has "pissed me off" but if it does to u then it is ur behavioral issue. People should discuss as if it is a live online discussion. If u can misinterpret parts & concepts then anybody can misinterpret ur comments. 1st u misinterpreted engine parts & now external parts like slat, slots & flaps, then u accuse & abuse me as liar, dishonest, claimer, completely wrong, etc.

Making mistakes in technical terms of a foreign language is quite different from misinterpreting the argument itself.

You claimed that I said Rafale's nozzles mask the engine plume, when I only ever claimed that they mask the hottest part of the plume.
You kept trying to dismiss my arguments as that of a fanboy merely because Croatia had bought Rafale, when in fact I had supported Rafale back since 2013, and even from 2012 in specific instances.
You misrepresented my argument about aircraft weight as if I had said that larger aircraft are automatically worse than smaller aircraft, when I had only ever pointed out that larger size and weight are a disadvantage in dogfight.
You interpreted the dogfight video I had shown you in a way that suited you and you also claimed that F-22 has 360 degree EO coverage, which is only true if you count MAWS - in which case Rafale also has 360 degree EO coverage.
You claimed that I had categorized Eurocanards as exclusively offensive or defensive, when I had merely pointed out that different designs have different focus (if you do not know what focus is, look it up).

Now, it is true that these might have been honest mistakes - God knows I had sometimes failed to keep track of the argument (e.g. when discussing M88's IR signature) - but the thing is, you were misrepresenting the very posts you were replying to. And your misinterpretations always go in a single way: in other words, you only seem to get things wrong when it suits your side of the argument.

And then there is your constant insistence on "using SI units" for... what? when the argument had always been about performance, which means that things that matter are ratios. You also repeatedly claimed I was "sidetracking" the argument when all I was doing was providing examples to help you better understand the point I was making.

If lower gen defeats higher gen then purpose of higher gen is defeted, it could be due to overconfidence, bad pilot skills, etc. But passing statements like higher gen is based on some lower gen jet is very controversial when the ne jet has not been revealed yet. Let it be revealed then u can say if some parts or concept i very close to Rafale, etc.

Not necessarily. It can also be due to bad design concept and overconfidence in certain technologies. It is something that has happened throughout history.

Before the Vietnam war, US assumed combat will happen at beyond visual range and that main task of fighter aircraft will be intercepting bombers carrying nuclear bombs. As a result, US fighters were designed for high speed, high altitude interception using radar-guided BVR missiles. F-4 didn't even have a gun originally, and while most fighters did have one, they weren't designed to use it.

And then Vietnam happened. US fighters were sent in - and had to fight other fighter aircraft. Yet because of this overconfidence in technological superiority, pilots weren't trained for air combat maneuvers, and didn't know how to use a gun even when their fighter did have one. As a result, US third-generation fighters got outfought by the second-generation MiG-19 and third-generation MiG-21. During first years of the war, kill-loss ratio was rather lopsidedly in the Vienamese favor.

Eventually, US did manage to turn things around and achieve favorable kill-loss ratio. All it took was... training pilots for close-range maneuvering combat. Most kills were made with IR missiles, but maneuvers were essential. Initially, USAF tried a myriad of technological fixes in order to change the things around: all of these failed miserably. What did succeed was USN's training program, epitomized in its "Top Gun" school for fighter pilots.

AIM-7 Sparrow had an estimated kill probability before the war of 70%. Demonstrated kill probability was 8%.
AIM-9 had demonstrated kill probability of 65% in tests. In war, it demonstrated kill probability of 15%.

During the Falklands War, AIM-9 kill probability was 73% - but what you do not hear is that Argentine aircraft were usually carrying bombs, ambushed from behind, and had no MAWS to warn them they were being attacked, and often had no flares either. When more modern AIM-9 variant was used against enemies with flares, kill probability fell to 23%.

Meanwhile, thanks to enemy air forces having no RWR or MAWS devices*, BVR missiles achieved kill probabilities of between 20% and 70%.

* During Iraq-Iran wars, you have multiple accounts of how Iraqi fighters went up in the air... and simply started exploding out of nowhere. It got so bad that at some point, Iraqi pilots refused to take their aircraft up. And both Iraqi and Serbian air forces had equipment that was in bad order by the time US attacked them. Also, the shots were taken often from close range: Major Shower shot down a MiG-29 from a distance of six miles (still BVR because it was nighttime) - out of four AMRAAM's he launched, only one hit.

So if you design a fighter around a certain technology or a concept, and then said technology or a concept proves less effective than what you had assumed... that fighter can easily end up being inferior to fighters that are, technically, less advanced and maybe even a generation or two behind.

Which is why I have said that we have to wait until we actually see new sixth generation fighters before judging their effectiveness. Still, fact remains that as discussed here:

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

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

militarywatchmagazine.com

the basic concept of the US sixth generation fighter sounds amazingly similar to Rafale:

Improvements in sensor technologies are increasingly threatening to undermine the viability of stealth and outpace the rate at which stealth technologies can provide countermeasures to being detected and locked onto. As a result, America’s next generation fighter could well be much less stealthy than expected, and instead place a much greater emphasis on electronic warfare to remain survivable.

Speaking specifically regarding America’s sixth generation fighter program, the Chief of Naval Operations Jonathan Greenert stated that the jet would need to focus on suppressing enemy air defences rather than outrunning them or hiding from them with a high speed or stealth airframe. “You know that stealth maybe overrated. I don’t want to necessarily say that it’s over but let’s face it, if something moves fast through the air and disrupts molecules in the air and puts out heat – I don’t care how cool the engine can be – it’s going to be detectable…. It has to have an ability to carry a payload such that it can deploy a spectrum of weapons. It has to be able to acquire access probably by suppressing enemy air defences.”

So yeah. Assuming that above predictions turn out to be true, then US Sixth Generation Fighter = Dassault Rafale.

At least in its basic concept.

yes ratios but not throttle % & ratios come from total values not the other way.

Throttle % matters because it is indicative of ability to supercruise.

Where did i say Rafale had mechanical radar? I know it was PESA.

You wrote this:

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

One of the videos I was referring to was video of a dogfight between Rafale and F-22, which I believe I had shown here before. You can see how it takes a couple of seconds for Rafale to establish a targeting lock when F-22 comes to its sights.

Rafale might take time to generate firing solution but F-22 will have a spherical sensor-fused lock & continious target indication.

Since when? Rafale is technically capable of the same with its DDM NG and SPECTRA suite, yet I have never claimed it can actually do it.

If you think F-22 can designate targets in the entire 360 degree sphere around it, show me some proof rather than making stuff up.

I already explained what is different in Rafale's & F-22's RF & EO coverage + avionics programming differences leading to time taking in generating firing solution like u only said now & losing lock as seen in the HUD video. And u also know what is special abt F-35 DAS, it is a later product hence better sensor & digital image processing with HMDS. Other makers like Dassault, Sukhoi, etc can also do it, they also got intelligent professionals, they actually have something in pipeline, but it will increase the cost of jet.

You had claimed that F-22 has, essentially, magical pixie dust. If you truly had explained it, then I must have missed it.

As for DAS, yes, I know it is claimed to be capable of generating firing solutions in the entire 360 degree around the aircraft. But that is no proof F-22 is capable of the same.

"Indian" Rafale is the only version perhaps with 3 more SPECTRA sensors but still in horizontal plane, 2 more would be required to look up & down. But so far SPECTRA have included only RWR, LWR, jammer, DDM MAWS other ECM antenna but not a mini radar.
RWR, ECM, jammer antennas do not lock target. in future DDM may have EO locking but from HUD video currently it doesn't seem to have it.

I never claimed SPECTRA has mini radar... all I ever claimed is that DDM is capable of tracking targets, as it already does so with missiles and is apparently accurate enough for potential DIRCM integration. But I never even claimed that ability to track aircraft had been integrated into DDM software.

So pls don't ask same question again in differnt way. On 1 side u pounce on me telling i don't understand basics & other side u ask me same questions differntly & pretend as if u didn't understand.

You have claimed I have claimed things I have never claimed. Who is the one who doesn't understand? Also, this discussion would be much easier if you could start writing in English.

Continiously means since 1990s there is a product flying & performing well in different nations as i wrote. I also said that there are possible reasons why other legacy jet not upgraded like budget allocation, cost of upgrading big fleet, hesitancy & skepticism, export considerations, etc. F-35's VTOL requirement killed its TVC. But what a future MLU will bring is unclear for all jets. Chinese are making progress with their WS series of engines, may be they tested TVC 1st on J-10C then they may implement on other jets. J-10c is not large & long-range. TVC has nothing to do on size & range otherwise it wouldn't have been tested on F-16, F-18, X-31, MiG-29, just on F-15 & Sukhois.

OK, so I misunderstood; I thought you meant that it was used in most jets.

TVC improves range, that is a fact. It also can compensate for some aerodynamic deficiencies. But as I had shown: post-stall maneuverability is possible without TVC.

U must define & give example what do U mean by "extreme maneuverability". Non-TVC jets cannot reduce speed to zero, hover pointing up, then spin, roll, go wherever they want. Only 3D TVC can enable that.

During tests Rafale has flown at 100° Angle of Attack and a speed of negative 40 knots:

During test flights for opening the flight envelope at very low speed the aircraft flew at an incidence of more than 100° and at negative speeds of '40 knots without loss of control.
'We consider that firing after a brutal nose-up like a Cobra are risked during combat because weapon separation problems can arise and pilot can be in a very dangerous situation if he fails to destroy his opponent(s). We prefer to use a very agile weapon, like the MICA and a helmet mounted sight' says Jean Camus, test pilot and ex-manager of the EPNER 5french test pilot school) and former M2000 test pilot.

That is more than enough for any supermaneuverability / slow speed dogfight requirements.

Control-surface/lift-device, is a general term & tail-plane, canard, aeleron, slats, flaps are specific terms. Fore-plane is a term precursor to canard. Lifting device are fixed & uncontrollable while control surface can be rotated & controlled.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that words often equal thoughts.

1st u misinterpreted engine parts & now external parts like slat, slots & flaps, then u accuse & abuse me as liar, dishonest, claimer, completely wrong, etc?

I confuse parts because English is not my first language, among other things, and it had been a while since I had read any specialist literature on the topic. You, on the other hand, misinterprented my arguments.

Completely different situations.

Canard is like moving the tailplane forward, both can be controlled & fully rotate hence control-surfaces. And CCC is specific position w.r.t. wing.

Specific position which also leads to specific interaction with the wing.

All R&D on CCC is right but i don't need a deep-dive into its understanding bcoz when a jet is near zero speed, if there is no airflow then canard cannot energize anything over wing. If a canard jet goes vertial & reduce speed to zero, if it has T/W ratio >1 then it can move up otherwise simply tip over towards post-stall, just like a stick will tip over if balancing finger is not moved. Here is where 3-D TVC brings balance. When sufficient speed/air-flow is there then Canards can produce roll, pitch but not yaw. At insufficient speed/air-flow u expect a CCC to flap rapidly like a hummingbird's wings?

First, "near zero speed" is relative term. How close to zero speed do you think 40 knots is?
Second, no sane pilot would ever drop his speed to zero in a dogfight.

If producing jaw is so important, why then most jets have 2D thrust vectoring? Even Russian jets have 2D TVC for the most part.

Even a middle school student observing a wind-mill toy can understand if there is no speed, no wind then no airflow hence no flat flap or blade like object/device like wing, rudder, canard, tailplane can work unless they flap like a bird to hover. So it doesn't really require reading thesis abstracts. And hence there is no question of dismissing any scientist or engineer who worked on canards. So If EVERYTHING i hav written is wrong then R.I.P. physics, school & college & i shouldn't have passed through class-9to12 then engineering college & become an IT engineer.

See above...

How F-22 TVC is useless? What are limitations of F-22 which Rafale can do? The Rafale HUD messages like "RELEASE STICK", "RECOVER", "TOO SLOW", "GND AVD"(Ground Avoid) do not indicate that CCC avoids stall sufficiently & reduces inertia & G. TVC jet pilots don't have scream/grunt/gasp so much.

Why do you think TVC jet pilots don't have to grunt so much? These grunts are way of dealing with g forces. Rate of turn at any given speed is dependant on how much g a jet can pull at said speed. Therefore, to achieve higher turn rate, you need to pull more g's. And g's mean grunts.

Nothing will get you past that. Not TVC, not magic pixie dust. What TVC does allow is 1) control at speeds where control surfaces become ineffective and 2) improved pitching moment in some conditions. But at such speeds, in any real combat you are dead already.

Also, you may not have noticed, but Rafale was above F-22 on at least one or two occasions, and in fact overall maintained superiority in fight.

I'm not qualified aero-professional nor it seems u r so pls stop using words like "claim" & introduce urself 1st b4 u use such words, a high-school/college student can also discuss here.

My specialty is in media and military history. But I have studied aerodynamics in my free time. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly made claims that would require jets to be powered by fairy dust to be possible...

Please engage with someone publicly so that others can verify anytime, anywhere otherwise anybody can "claim" to have agreement with pilots & aero-professionals. I wonder who writes & responds to emails to discuss when forums & Q&A sites have been there since 2000s. The pilot with whom u engaged, what was his nationality & which jets did he fly, what was his name & email-ID? Any pilot who has spoken on media or Expo can be traced.

Vstol_Jockey. I will not be revealing his real name here.

Let me remind u that unofficial forums r not meant for R&D but easy comprehension & time pass by enthusiasts. No member is going to read theisis abstratcs. Nobody needs a deep dive, keep it simple by drawing, diagrams, pics, keep it interactive & edutainment.

Simple is good, but not if it is wrong.

So don't divide jets into offensive & defensive jets in the 1st place when Rafale is "omni-role", that's how Dassault projects & markets it.

Marketing will not change the fact that Rafale was developed during the Cold War and with the intent of stopping a Soviet offensive into Western Europe.

In other words, a defensive design. Just like Typhoon, just like Gripen.

How can you discuss a jet without knowing circumstances in which its design had been conceptualized? No matter the later upgrades and developments, basic nature of the aircraft set during the design concept stage will not change.

Among 4th gen, yes, Rafale has superior aerodynamic design. I also said that it will defeat most non-TVC jets most of the times, that's why our country got it. I also said smaller jets have shorter turning radius & canard jets even shorter. I also said that F-22 w/o TVC would be like stealthy F-15. So u should be pretty satisfied & cease the debate but u r still furious & abusive
F-22 is large & heavy so what, to compensate it got stronger engines. And the ATF criteria was not just BVR but also dogfight, hence the TVC to reduce pilot effort & pain.

TVC does not reduce pilot effort and pain, it is not magic dust.

Look, we are not haggling here, where I will give up part of price, you will give up part of price, and then we will be happy. Compromise is worthless if it is wrong.

Yes, F-22 does have strong engines and good TVR. And yes, TVC will help in some circumstances. But nothing about F-22 indicates that it would be better than Rafale in a dogfight.

I have tried to explain all situations also mentioning where TVC won't matter.
Like i said, TVC success = function (strong engines, good FCS & avionics, pilot skills, load conditions). MKI doesn't have good thrust but F-22 has, so MKI will stall & enter post-stall but F-22 won't just like X-31 demonstrated which was also delta-canard but couldn't do it w/o TVC, LCC or CCC didn't matter there.
None to insufficient speed/airflow, no use of control surface actuation unless it can flutter like bird's wings, simple physics of air.
If missiles are there w/o LOAL, TVC jet will fire missiles 1st.
LOAL will render TVC useless.
In gunfight if stong engines are there then there won't be any stall, reduced kinetic energy would be regained quickly w/o traditional high G turning radius & TVC can be engaged repeatedly, that's what ATF team wanted.
If Eurocanards can relax their FCS limits & demonstrate all moves of F-22/Su-57 then only benefits of CCC over TVC can be proven. And what Su-57 has done is combined TVC & canards in form of levcons, best of both techniques.

CCC allows jet to engage in low-speed post-stall maneuvers. What more do you want?

That means u don't watch documentaries showing interview of scientists, engineers & test pilots. I can also tell u names of some who worked on ATF team - Paul Metz, Tom Morgenfeld, Steve Rainey, John Beesley, Dave Fergusson, Jim Sandberg, etc. Just put their names in YouTube & have fun.
They also show diagrams, CFD model, assembly, testing footages, some mathematical modelling.

And again, all that information and more will be present in design documents if you care to dig them up...

For every jet, the prototypes push the limits then a margin is left for safety & a limit is set which is adequate for missions. It was done for F-22,Su-57 also. But TVC jets with good engine & avionics don't require any AoA limit as seen publicly except for G limits for pilot & airframe. The whole idea was to close the gap of FCS limits from beginning for production jets & not just for prototypes.
I could not find any YT video of any Euro-Canard doing the maneuvers of TVC jets bcoz they have limited the FCS for "practicality" like u said which every customer will not buy. If the Americans, Russians, Indians, Malaysians, Chinese wan't it means they wan't it, if the Euopeans don't wan't it means they don't wan't it. Different country has different size, economy, geopilitics, like i repeated. They all will be responsible for consequences of their decisions.

F-22 is literally the only operational jet where US have used TVC. In fact, Russians are the only ones to repeatedly utilize TVC in their fighter aircraft. So where is that TVC popularity you were claiming?

U r giving every 4th gen jet's example except F-22 & Rafale. F-16,18 are very skinny jets.
12% increase in weight for F-15A to C is hardly anything while for F-16A to E it is 41%. So like i said, the idea is to learn from 4th gen, anticipate future growth requirements, incorporate them today itself as much as posible & be prepared for marginal overhead in future if possible w/o modifying airframe & cardinal characteristics.

F-15A to F-15C is equivalent to F-16A to F-16C, not F-16E. And growth from F-16A to F-16C is 21%.

We do not know how much F-22 and Rafale had fattened up, exactly, so I have nowhere to provide examples from.

 

[Super falcon]

These Rafales are very capable jets specially with METEOR missiles but oaf also putting J 10 with these PL 15 even on JF 17 these PL 15 missiles has more range than even meteor missiles estimated range night be 280+ range J 10 has very capable radar to track and lock on Rafales too

 

[space marine]

These Rafales are very capable jets specially with METEOR missiles but oaf also putting J 10 with these PL 15 even on JF 17 these PL 15 missiles has more range than even meteor missiles estimated range night be 280+ range J 10 has very capable radar to track and lock on Rafales too

How in the world PL15 a duel pulse solid rocket has more range than a Ramjet powered Meteor.
280 km bullshit chinese themselves piblished PL15E range as 145 km.
Meteor at 30k feet throughout will hit around 300 kms.
At 10k feet around 150 kms and with low level hits around 80 kms.

The published range of PL15E will be around 30k feet rest with dual pulse with more air friction the range will be much reduced with lower altitude.
And no PL15 wont be much superior to range than export version other than the seeker tech.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Making mistakes in technical terms of a foreign language is quite different from misinterpreting the argument itself.

You claimed that I said Rafale's nozzles mask the engine plume, when I only ever claimed that they mask the hottest part of the plume.
You kept trying to dismiss my arguments as that of a fanboy merely because Croatia had bought Rafale, when in fact I had supported Rafale back since 2013, and even from 2012 in specific instances.
You misrepresented my argument about aircraft weight as if I had said that larger aircraft are automatically worse than smaller aircraft, when I had only ever pointed out that larger size and weight are a disadvantage in dogfight.
You interpreted the dogfight video I had shown you in a way that suited you and you also claimed that F-22 has 360 degree EO coverage, which is only true if you count MAWS - in which case Rafale also has 360 degree EO coverage.
You claimed that I had categorized Eurocanards as exclusively offensive or defensive, when I had merely pointed out that different designs have different focus (if you do not know what focus is, look it up).
Now, it is true that these might have been honest mistakes - God knows I had sometimes failed to keep track of the argument (e.g. when discussing M88's IR signature) - but the thing is, you were misrepresenting the very posts you were replying to. And your misinterpretations always go in a single way: in other words, you only seem to get things wrong when it suits your side of the argument.
And then there is your constant insistence on "using SI units" for... what? when the argument had always been about performance, which means that things that matter are ratios. You also repeatedly claimed I was "sidetracking" the argument when all I was doing was providing examples to help you better understand the point I was making.
You wrote this:
One of the videos I was referring to was video of a dogfight between Rafale and F-22, which I believe I had shown here before. You can see how it takes a couple of seconds for Rafale to establish a targeting lock when F-22 comes to its sights.
Since when? Rafale is technically capable of the same with its DDM NG and SPECTRA suite, yet I have never claimed it can actually do it.
If you think F-22 can designate targets in the entire 360 degree sphere around it, show me some proof rather than making stuff up.
You had claimed that F-22 has, essentially, magical pixie dust. If you truly had explained it, then I must have missed it.
As for DAS, yes, I know it is claimed to be capable of generating firing solutions in the entire 360 degree around the aircraft. But that is no proof F-22 is capable of the same.
I never claimed SPECTRA has mini radar... all I ever claimed is that DDM is capable of tracking targets, as it already does so with missiles and is apparently accurate enough for potential DIRCM integration. But I never even claimed that ability to track aircraft had been integrated into DDM software.
You have claimed I have claimed things I have never claimed. Who is the one who doesn't understand? Also, this discussion would be much easier if you could start writing in English.

Foreign language? English is global common language. What's the difficulty in it? i don't thin any of my sentences were emantically wrong.
See again u r using "claim", "arguement". Just forget it & use basic word slike 'said', 'stated', 'typed', 'wrote', 'discussion', etc. We r not qualified to claim, validate, argue over anything.
How can Rafale nozzle or any 4th gen jet nozzle mask the entire plume?
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.
Sometimes u r Rafale supporter, sometimes Grippen supporter for urcountry's procurement.
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.
I saw the mock dogfight video as soon it was released year back. The HUD messages, data & symbols are self explanatory & don't have to suit any individual.
I use diagram, pics, calculations, so there is no ur or my side of "arguement".
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.
I told u that this is era of MRCA, there is no focus on offence/defence. Dassault calls Rafale as omni-role, that's it. And we have invested extra by adding more things. Different countries have different budget & geopolitics. Croatia will have NATO luxury so they may not spend more on customizations but our situation is different.
What is this? "i never claimed, i never claimed, i never claimed" BUT "u claimed, u claimed, u claimed"

There is a HUGE diff. how legacy jets used dedicated optical & RF sensors & how 5th gen jets use them.
There is also diff. in saying 360 degree which is a 2D term & 'spherical' coverage which is 3D term.
F-22/35 use 6 EO IR sensors AN/AAR-56 & AN/AAQ-37 in cardinal axis X-X', Y-Y', Z-Z'. The X-X' & Z-Z' axis are inclined by 45 degree, this gives spherical coverage while i showed pic of Rafale's DDM which gives hemispherical coverage but it wings & fuselage blocks bottom sector. I also mentioned that a 3rd DDM can be placed in chin like DIRCM of Su-57.
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?

Not necessarily. It can also be due to bad design concept and overconfidence in certain technologies. It is something that has happened throughout history.
Before the Vietnam war, US assumed combat will happen at beyond visual range and that main task of fighter aircraft will be intercepting bombers carrying nuclear bombs. As a result, US fighters were designed for high speed, high altitude interception using radar-guided BVR missiles. F-4 didn't even have a gun originally, and while most fighters did have one, they weren't designed to use it.
And then Vietnam happened. US fighters were sent in - and had to fight other fighter aircraft. Yet because of this overconfidence in technological superiority, pilots weren't trained for air combat maneuvers, and didn't know how to use a gun even when their fighter did have one. As a result, US third-generation fighters got outfought by the second-generation MiG-19 and third-generation MiG-21. During first years of the war, kill-loss ratio was rather lopsidedly in the Vienamese favor.
Eventually, US did manage to turn things around and achieve favorable kill-loss ratio. All it took was... training pilots for close-range maneuvering combat. Most kills were made with IR missiles, but maneuvers were essential. Initially, USAF tried a myriad of technological fixes in order to change the things around: all of these failed miserably. What did succeed was USN's training program, epitomized in its "Top Gun" school for fighter pilots.

AIM-7 Sparrow had an estimated kill probability before the war of 70%. Demonstrated kill probability was 8%.
AIM-9 had demonstrated kill probability of 65% in tests. In war, it demonstrated kill probability of 15%.
During the Falklands War, AIM-9 kill probability was 73% - but what you do not hear is that Argentine aircraft were usually carrying bombs, ambushed from behind, and had no MAWS to warn them they were being attacked, and often had no flares either. When more modern AIM-9 variant was used against enemies with flares, kill probability fell to 23%.
Meanwhile, thanks to enemy air forces having no RWR or MAWS devices*, BVR missiles achieved kill probabilities of between 20% and 70%.
* During Iraq-Iran wars, you have multiple accounts of how Iraqi fighters went up in the air... and simply started exploding out of nowhere. It got so bad that at some point, Iraqi pilots refused to take their aircraft up. And both Iraqi and Serbian air forces had equipment that was in bad order by the time US attacked them. Also, the shots were taken often from close range: Major Shower shot down a MiG-29 from a distance of six miles (still BVR because it was nighttime) - out of four AMRAAM's he launched, only one hit.
So if you design a fighter around a certain technology or a concept, and then said technology or a concept proves less effective than what you had assumed... that fighter can easily end up being inferior to fighters that are, technically, less advanced and maybe even a generation or two behind.
Which is why I have said that we have to wait until we actually see new sixth generation fighters before judging their effectiveness. Still, fact remains that as discussed here:

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

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

militarywatchmagazine.com

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.

the basic concept of the US sixth generation fighter sounds amazingly similar to Rafale:
So yeah. Assuming that above predictions turn out to be true, then US Sixth Generation Fighter = Dassault Rafale.
At least in its basic concept.

Media & journalism is a booming business sector in every country with international political & other types of links also. There are many private magazines, websites, thinktankers & spokespersons, private & even among DoD who are divided in favor/against a military product in every country. They could also be politically inclined or diplomatic. Hence who said what under what circumstances under who's political leadership is very complicated.
Today Google search is - what u want is what u find & get. U enter F-22/35/Su-57/Rafale is good/bad, u will get desired pages of articles. So if u r technically qualified then u r in better position otherwise best of luck.

Throttle % matters because it is indicative of ability to supercruise.

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.

TVC improves range, that is a fact. It also can compensate for some aerodynamic deficiencies. But as I had shown: post-stall maneuverability is possible without TVC.

yes it is possible but with TVC & good engines & avionics, post-stall tip-over is history & a choice for TVC pilot if he/she wantstogo up, sideways or come down with post-stall maneuver.

During tests Rafale has flown at 100° Angle of Attack and a speed of negative 40 knots:
That is more than enough for any supermaneuverability / slow speed dogfight requirements.

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.

I confuse parts because English is not my first language, among other things, and it had been a while since I had read any specialist literature on the topic. You, on the other hand, misinterprented my arguments.
Completely different situations.

Still using the wrod "argument"
U think Indians have English as their 1st language? An urban Indian might have to manage 3 to 5 languages.

First, "near zero speed" is relative term. How close to zero speed do you think 40 knots is?
Second, no sane pilot would ever drop his speed to zero in a dogfight.
If producing jaw is so important, why then most jets have 2D thrust vectoring? Even Russian jets have 2D TVC for the most part.
Why do you think TVC jet pilots don't have to grunt so much? These grunts are way of dealing with g forces. Rate of turn at any given speed is dependant on how much g a jet can pull at said speed. Therefore, to achieve higher turn rate, you need to pull more g's. And g's mean grunts.
Nothing will get you past that. Not TVC, not magic pixie dust. What TVC does allow is 1) control at speeds where control surfaces become ineffective and 2) improved pitching moment in some conditions. But at such speeds, in any real combat you are dead already.
TVC does not reduce pilot effort and pain, it is not magic dust.
Yes, F-22 does have strong engines and good TVR. And yes, TVC will help in some circumstances. But nothing about F-22 indicates that it would be better than Rafale in a dogfight.

40knots=78Km/h is enough for control surface to provide some deflection during vertical movement causing the rotation or tip-over but itwill be slower than induced TVC which amplifies or supplements the vectoring of jet. Near zero means so less that actuation of control surface won't produce vectoring.
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..


We see that F-22 didn't go down losing energy but can rise up, thanks to its strong engines & good avionics.
So non-TVC jets have to fly in circle for 360 degree loop but TVC jet can do it in a triangle or hairpin pattern. Hence they have higher chances of firing missile or gun. It is clear who will be dead already. But it certainly doesn't mean that TVC pilot cannot make mistakes in tactics.
2D TVC is 1st step & 3D TVC is next step. The Russians introduced 2D TVC in a V pattern in Su-3X to induce some yaw effect, then proceeded to 3D TVC.
In TVC maneuver the breath control is far shotlived than regular jets where it is persistent throughout the C-turn or loop. And once the speed is reduced, that lower speed can be sustained with higher AoA & shorter circle. it is like a drifter driver's car will move in shorter circle than a somone who doesn't know how to drift.
So it is not magic dust but it reduces effort & pain.

Also, you may not have noticed, but Rafale was above F-22 on at least one or two occasions, and in fact overall maintained superiority in fight.

I already said that pilot skills also matter & gave upto 40% win chance to opponents. And we don't have other side of the coin. let's not go in circles further.

My specialty is in media and military history. But I have studied aerodynamics in my free time. You, on the other hand, have repeatedly made claims that would require jets to be powered by fairy dust to be possible...

Again CLAIM I thought u might b working in insurance industry rejecting people's insurance claims.
Since 25 years a have also studied lots of things in free time. I know how to start, taxi, takeoff, fly, land, shut down Boeing 737, their simulators have been opened for public. U can also do it. But i cant CLAIM to be a pilot.

Vstol_Jockey. I will not be revealing his real name here.

typical answer as expected from a media guy. And i gave u at least 5 names whose videos are available.

Simple is good, but not if it 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.

Marketing will not change the fact that Rafale was developed during the Cold War and with the intent of stopping a Soviet offensive into Western Europe.
In other words, a defensive design. Just like Typhoon, just like Gripen.
How can you discuss a jet without knowing circumstances in which its design had been conceptualized? No matter the later upgrades and developments, basic nature of the aircraft set during the design concept stage will not change.

Not just to stop them but also go into Russia & attack.
When Dassalt projects Rafale as omni-role, i will go with their description, not of a Croatian media professional

CCC allows jet to engage in low-speed post-stall maneuvers. What more do you want?

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.

And again, all that information and more will be present in design documents if you care to dig them up...

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

F-22 is literally the only operational jet where US have used TVC. In fact, Russians are the only ones to repeatedly utilize TVC in their fighter aircraft. So where is that TVC popularity you were claiming?

Again CLAIM &same question
See previous replies.
BTW now we have MKI + Rafale & AMCA will also have it in MK2 if not MK1.

We do not know how much F-22 and Rafale had fattened up, exactly, so I have nowhere to provide examples from.

So talk abt it when u hav some data in ur media industry circle. Leave it for now, simple. But u got the idea that 5th gen designers observed the repeated MLU of 4th gen & wanted to leap so that 5th gen MLU would be less marginal. An important capability for that is to have strong engine to provide enough electricity to added sensors, avionics, aux. equipments & to avoid stall.

 

[Fonck83]

There is a HUGE diff. how legacy jets used dedicated optical & RF sensors & how 5th gen jets use them.
There is also diff. in saying 360 degree which is a 2D term & 'spherical' coverage which is 3D term.
F-22/35 use 6 EO IR sensors AN/AAR-56 & AN/AAQ-37 in cardinal axis X-X', Y-Y', Z-Z'. The X-X' & Z-Z' axis are inclined by 45 degree, this gives spherical coverage while i showed pic of Rafale's DDM which gives hemispherical coverage but it wings & fuselage blocks bottom sector. I also mentioned that a 3rd DDM can be placed in chin like DIRCM of Su-57.

Blabla showing that you are not even able to undertstand basic concepts.
All optics, all passive sensors make partial spherical coverage. the term 360 degree and all 2D terms are all marketing terms to help people undertand a concept how a sensor is looking all around himself even on the most old generation of passive sensors.
For example it's very easy to make a 2pi str coverage with only a line CCD of 1 x 3000 dot matrix by making a simple scan rotation.
What you have not taken into account is that every IR MICA are able to add datas to the fusion sensor and do it as soon as they are onboard. DDM are not the only optical sensor onboard the rafale. You seem to have forgotten for example the OSF and in some missions the pods.
Secondly rafale is not alone in the sky. There are many other rafale, and satellite and many others feeding its fusion.

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 &

Have you ever heard of kalman filter ?
Did you know that the french marine use sensor fusion onboard atlantics and all its assets since the seventies ? It is called SENIT. ANd it is use in the french navy from the seventies. SENIT are at the 10 generation in France. That's mean that we have a very deep expertise (more than 40 years) in France in sensor fusion. Of course rafale use sensor fusions with all its sensors from the very beginning.
Just to say ...

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

Blabla showing that you are not even able to undertstand basic concepts.
All optics, all passive sensors make partial spherical coverage. the term 360 degree and all 2D terms are all marketing terms to help people undertand a concept how a sensor is looking all around himself even on the most old generation of passive sensors.
For example it's very easy to make a 2pi str coverage with only a line CCD of 1 x 3000 dot matrix by making a simple scan rotation.
What you have not taken into account is that every IR MICA are able to add datas to the fusion sensor and do it as soon as they are onboard. DDM are not the only optical sensor onboard the rafale. You seem to have forgotten for example the OSF and in some missions the pods.

Have you ever heard of kalman filter ?
Did you know that the french marine use sensor fusion onboard atlantics and all its assets since the seventies ? It is called SENIT. ANd it is use in the french navy from the seventies. SENIT are at the 10 generation in France. That's mean that we have a very deep expertise (more than 40 years) in France in sensor fusion. Of rafale use sensor fusions with all its sensors from the very beginning.
Just to say ...

Do u even follow this thread & read properly before impulsively replying?
R U aware of diff. b/w 4th gen design & 5th gen stealth design?
Didn't i mention hemispherical coverage of DDM?

i showed pic of Rafale's DDM which gives hemispherical coverage but it wings & fuselage blocks bottom sector. I also mentioned that a 3rd DDM can be placed in chin like DIRCM of Su-57.

But the wing & fuselage makes a blindspot for them in bottom sector & for stealth, spherical surface is not good, hence the 6-axis positions.
What will u do after u fire all the MICA missiles? The missiles are positioned forward, can they provide rear coverage?
Didn't i mention the 2 EO sensors in front of cockpit?

Rafale has got radar+2 EO sensors ahead of cockpit + 2 DDMs

And these OSF sensors are also spherical, not good for stealth. They also cannot look down. But i did mention that a 3rd DDM can be positioned in chin.
Speaking of Kalman filter which is a very advanced topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalman_filter), can u pls introduce urself, qualification,, profession, experience?
And u wanna give sensor fusion example of a ship for a fighter jet? Well, we all know that in today's modern era there is sensor fusion in every asset-tanks, submarines, ships, jets, helos, etc, but it is customized for every platform.
Few pages back while comparing with F-35, i did say that Rafale also has sensor fusion, check on page 1033

Know Your 'Rafale'

Heck Rafale didn't even have an HMD till India paid billion dollars to French for it. Obviously, even the F-35's HMDS is also very very costly to such extent that it requires gadgets to calibrate each helmet specifically to the pilot.

defenceforumindia.com

But from the HUD videos it seems target indication is not continious & lock is repeatedly broken. Hence the sensor fusion is there but incomplete. It seems that Kalman filter has failed or not implemented properly. It just requires a MLU but every update costs money.
Next time pls read properly before replying.

 

[Fonck83]

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.

A simple camera can track people for less than a few hundreds dollar. The same camera can be educated to follow all the fighter you want. Imagines a network on hunderds of such camera can perfektly follows all stealth fighter of the world at a very limited cost.

 

[Fonck83]

And u wanna give sensor fusion example of a ship for a fighter jet? Well, we all know that in today's modern era there is sensor fusion in every asset-tanks, submarines, ships, jets, helos, etc, but it is customized for every platform.

If you can fuse data from video, radar, sonar in a tactical screen you can do it for all plateform even a simple And of course when you have decades of experience in that fusion it easy to do it in a fighter.

 

[Fonck83]

can u pls introduce urself, qualification,, profession, experience?

Begin by your own qualification.

 

[Bhartiya Sainik]

A simple camera can track people for less than a few hundreds dollar. The same camera can be educated to follow all the fighter you want. Imagines a network on hunderds of such camera can perfektly follows all stealth fighter of the world at a very limited cost.

Your English is unusual. But if i understand right then u r saying that all jet fighters with EO sensors can exchange info over their private network. Yes, obviously but if it is 1 jet Vs 1 jet then what will u do? Also, what if links are jammed by enemy's Electronic Warfare?

If you can fuse data from video, radar, sonar in a tactical screen you can do it for all plateform even a simple car.

I also said that all platforms in today's modern era use sensor fusion but they are customized as per platform. U can't take the S/w of a ship & load it onto a jet & vice-versa. So please don't talk about ships. Talk about Rafale.

Begin by your own qualification.

Already mentioned in my profile.

But i'm an average guy.

 

[Fonck83]

But if i understand right then u r saying that all jet fighters with EO sensors can exchange info over their private network. Yes, obviously but if it is 1 jet Vs 1 jet then what will u do?

You firstly have to define what info you have to exchange. And this question would directly give you why Picard is absolutly true when he said that Rafale has a 4pi str coverage. This question would also give you an indication of how Kalman filters are designed.