Kovy

Tmor > MP

Bon je pense que la (très longue) réponse de M. Pierre Legrand mérite d'être postée ici pour la postérité =D Comme quoi les charlots de strategy page peuvent nous permettre de lire des choses intéressantes écrites par des gens (semble t il) renseignés : ------------------------------------ PierreLeGrand 5/10/2009 5:45:11 AM NO disrespect but this quotes shows either the most basic lack of knowledge of the Rafale itself and its history, all this fuss means little in terms of aeronautic reality. One only have to look at US designs and the aerodynamic problem replicated from F-18 to F-35 including F-22, namely aerodynamic bashing of the vertical fins leading to excessive structural fatigue... Evolution is based on knowledge and doesn't necessarly means slow progresses, if there are conservative designs, the Rafale is certainly not one of them, and furthermore, performances speaks for themself. Requierements were somewhat different than what is writen here, and they didn't take nor the F-16 nor the Mig 29 into account either. It is proven today that the Mirage 2000 does a pretty good job of countering both these types and that Rafale is markedly superior to in in all aspects of A2A and A2G. Rafale designers never intended to make a VLO of it and its RCS is the lowest of all 4th generation fighters, another aspect of LO you dont mention and was treated at design stage (even in the case of the engines) is its IR signature. During the first simulated engagements of the 12F vs the USN and other allied aircrafts, fopreign pilots immediately reported problems with locking on a Rafale with their AIM-9 Ls, a Rafale can take on a Mirage 2000 flying on military power only. It have little problems outmaneuvring F-16/F-18, which pilots repports its incredible capability to point its nose where the pilot wishes at all speeds and AoA, even the AoA masters the F/A-18s pilots were impressed and mde these comments much recently. . Eurogither, SAAB and even Boeing mut be VERY desapointed. Let's make it CLEAR: 1) Rafale and Eurofighter only shares apparences and their design is fundamentaly different for those who know. 2) Rafale is the 4th generation aircraft with the highest instantaneous turn rate and have a sustained turn rate equal to that of Typhoon, its proven and demonstrated Max AoA is a whapping 40* higher that that of a Typhoon and well passed 10* higher than a Gripen. There is 12 to 20 kt/ 4* AoA difference in their approach speed and attitude and when a Rafale can easly be put throught the soft AoA limitation to save the day, a Tyhoon FCS will prevent any flying geniuse to do so because it is AoA limited. A recently published document on Rafale early flight test programe reveals that its all axis level of control at all speeds and hgigh AoA is far superior to most of its competitors: Maximum AoA of passed 100*, negative speed of 40 kt were achieved with NO LOSS OF CONTROL, while in dissimilar combat against the Mirage 2000 some agressive test pilots flew the aircraft at speeds as low as 18 kt (Yes, read eighteen knots). Post-stall maneuvers were firt simulated by ONERA then flown by several test-pilots. Rafale integrated canards have a lot more advantages than providing with a high level of variable lift, this compared to Typhoon long moment harm and to a much lesser extend, the less integrated canards of the Gripen. The vortices generated at both canard roots and tips allows for the natural close coupled canard configuration increase in airflow energy to be maximised, impossible with Typhoon actual design; it is worth taking note that EADS attempted in 2008 to remedie to this problem by adding LEXs to ex- GaF Typhoon 98+30. This soultion proved impractical due (again) to the original inlet design aerodynamic interferences and the design of the canards themself, in real life, add-on and patch-ups doesn't work for aerodynamic optimisation. Serie Rafale canards and LEX were fully integrated at design stage and are part of a combination including a TWO cones vortex lift delta wing to provide with variable lift and optimise their combined advantages. The designers went also a step further with full used of the boundary layer compressive and expensive waves characteristics, something no other design fully achieves even today, this furter increases airflow energy around the airframe at lower speed and higher AoA. SAAB couldn't do thid with the Gripen either, because the airframe had to be kept as small as possible due to its mono engine configuration they had to satick to a more conventional configuration. Instead, Gripen canards were given some degree of anhedral and strakes were later added in their proximity to obtain a lower level of boundary layer control and canard/wing vortexes interaction as what Rafale's design obtains without artifices. Obviously one have only to look at the designs of Typhoon and Gripen to see that the level of integration of these canards is lower and integration doesn't mean wing/canard only, the whole area have to be designed so that every feature CAN be optimised. The canard vortex roots have to be positioned very precisely in both plans so that they interact (like sprockets) with that of the wings before their energy dissipates. This set of vortexes acts as energisers for both the wing root vortexes and the fin which becomes shielded from embiant airflow at high AoA. Typhoon and Gripen achieves this by mean of additional strakes positioned BEHIND the canard surfaces, very much as in the case of the Mirage 2000 which doesn't have canards. Rafale design dispenses with them and goes much further in terms of aerodynamic optimisation. In the case of Rafale, the combination of the LEX/wing crank vortex and that of the canard tips increases further the airflow above the outter wing at similar AoA as does that of the canard root vortexes. They are positioned suffisciently outward to increase ailerons control up to AoAs where other aircraft have none left because there is no LEX vortexes there to interact with that of the canard tips and sustain their energies. As a matter of FACT Typhoon is known to have a lower roll rate by a 90* margin and a lower level of dumping than Rafale. Eurofighter Typhoon was originaly designed with close coupled canards in the form of EFA, but aerodynamic problems created by the proximity of the chin inlet left its designers with no other choice but to relocate these canards out of their zone of interference. This lead to a whole new set of problems, we will see in depth what causes them, why and how. Studies by the most advanced aerodynamicist including that of NASA demonstrated some intersting FACTS... Close coupled/integrated canards have several advantages over long moment harm canards. a) Higher level of DYNAMIC instability. This means in FACT that at all flight regimes, the canards/wing wortex interaction creates a level of instability unknown from other aerodynamic arrangements. The airframe can then be designed with a lower percentage of static instability, which leaves the designers with a much wider range of cg range for store position (partly explaining why a Rafale can carry 1.5 its own weight) and a much less vulnerable aircraft in case of damage caused to the canards. When in flight, the difference of instability bewteen a more staticaly instable design is NIL, while these advantages remains even passed the transonic sone, in supersonic flight, dynamic instability remains. A Rafale dynamic instability will always be present from low speed/high AoA to Max Mach, while static instability all but desapear in supersonic, in short, optimising canard/wing design provides with a more instable and controlable aircraft. This also mean that trim drag is reduced further throughout the entire flight envelop, a Rafale can be zero-trimmed in supersonic while at 30,000ft (9,150m) and a speed of M1.8, Typhoon requires a 4° upward flaperon deflection to maintain level flight. Superstall also is a well known problem with long moment harm canard-delta aircrafts, a close coupled canard doesn't depart, surface control remains at all AoA. The long moment harm lack of longitudinal control isn't only known to be Typhoon problem, it was also well advertised by NASA in the case of X-31 which never achieved AoA superior to 70*, Typhoon maximum AoA as well. To finish with this particular; Rafale never was put into a stall, this is yet another known characteristic of the integrated canard/delta arrangement while Typhoon is notoriously dangerous at speed below 150 kt which lead to EADS developement of Low Speed Autorecovery software. But it doesn't stops here. Another critical aspect of the maneuvrability classification matrix is greatly enhanced by the higher level of canard/wing integration: Natural DEMPING. NASA defines maneuvrability in all axis as a three stage matrix including; Transcient, Functional and Potential. Claiming that an aircraft is "more maneuvrable" than another by taking one particular out of this matrix doesn't mean anything in terms of combat effisciency. In some forums, some "knowledgeable" guys come up with figures they do not understand, like Maximum sustained turn rates at a given mach and altitude or G ofstet which btw, happens to be above the aircraft Max structural G load. In reality, maneuvrability is defined by the combination of all qualities (and defects) in terms of true response and response time to pilot imput. Where demping in so important, I ask this question: What would you do with a 2*/sec superior sustained turn rate when your instantaneous turn rate is inferior by twice this margin, your roll rate inferior by 90*/sec and your level of roll control (ignitiate/stop roll accurately) due to inferior demping characteristics way lower? According to NASA and the USAF, Nothing. Lack of Demping also have much more adverse effects than just a lower level of surface control which pilots learns to compensate for to a certain extend. In the transonic flight regime, when the cG shift occurs, depending of the level of instability of the design the effects can be ennoying and even dangerous... Rafale optimised design means that the transition is non-traumatic, but in the case of Typhoon it lead to Pitch-up Moment of such an amplitude that control flight could be compromised. An aerodynamic bump between M 0.95 and M 0.975 of about 6* AoA and 3g, forced EADS into their Transonic Pitch Up mitigation Programe. If most of this "bump" have now been dampened through software twicks the aerodynamic root problem remains today, explaining why EADS DID experimented with LEXs when Typhoon lower percentage of lift and lift control could be partialy compensated for with higher thrust. I think you know Rafale and Lavi FAR too litle (not to mention the aerodynamic characteristics of the formula) to elaborate this way... FALSE. Boeing and Dassault were working together on the subject for the X-32 programe. This programe was called Big Picture, developed, tested and rejected. A similar cockpit layout to that chosen for F-35 was tested but rejected on the ground that under high g combined with a high level of stress, an average pilot was loosing track of the informations provided by a single screen. It is already sometime difficult to a pilot to read datas in such conditions with well laid-out and disctinct instrumentation. The choice was made in the case of Rafale to separate these information not only in terms of positioning but also SIZE, so that in the most extreme conditions, the pilot will still be able to read and comprehend the most vital datas. Rafale S.A is a full 360X360* in both EM, IR and LASER threats. As far as we are conscerned no HMD equiped aircraft has ever achieved a 180* hit with a BVR missile, Rafale has done just that however it have to be fair to say that this was a remote target drone kill achieved through Link 16. HMDs have many disadventages, they results in higher level of pilot fatigue due to their weight, and their operational capabilties are limited by the IR missile seaker cone in most cases. Until all IR AAMs are LOAL capable which isn't the case for out of boresight targets... HMD have been trested on Rafale long ago and is available to foreign customers, the fact that the French procuerement agency chose to wait for the problems to be sorted before equiping the French pilots with one doesn't mean the aircrafts arent capable of using them... Rafale was the first western aricraft to boost fully decoupled interfaces, the pilot could engage A2A while the WSO could do pretty much what he needed to do, its level of advanced sensor fusion is equal to none, including all sensors and even IR wing-tip mounted MICAs. RBE2 was always meant as an interim radar, the passive array was to be replaced as early as the European industry would be capable of producing its own independently of the US. It requierements Were for a radar 30% lighter than that of the Mirage 2000-5 (RDY) and occupy half the volume. It had to have the same range, be nanalizable and be resistant to nuclear EM spikes. All RBE2 goals were achived but we never ear anyone complaining about Mirage 2000 5Fs RDY range being too short, expacialy not the exchange USAF pilots getting use to kill USAF Europe F-15 in BVR fefore they are detected themself. This RBE2 short range story is only a forum story, in reality Rafale F-1 pilots can acquier a lock on pretty much everything before been detected themself, and this for the same reasons than what are valid for the 5Fs... This is a visibly missinformed quote so I skiped most of it. SPECTRA is WAY superior in terms of performances to most of what is beig developed elsewhere. In terms of cost it is the most expensive part of the aircraft which negates claims of lack of funding. Pitted in its early developement form at NATO MACE-X exercise at the Electronic Warfare range of Cazaux in France vs the most advanced Western European defense systems in service, it spooked the observers, no less. I can pinpoint an EM threat on a 360X360* buble at more then 200 km with an angular precision of less than 1*, there arent many systems capalbe of this today and this was the F1 standard under-developed SPECTRA performances... SPECTRA EM sensors works both in PASSIVE and ACTIVE modes, they are AESA and besigned by Thales who as everyone knows is at the forefront of the technology, being provider of the USA with Raython on many AESA systems. With RBE2 AESA they provide Rafale with a full 360X360* detection capability which is still inequaled in europe today. The aircraft early interim F1 standard were equiped with an under-developed version of SPECTRA and three 2084 XRI processors which are those of the Mirage 2000, each of them 200 time more powerful than those fitted on the F-15 A. The Rafale was always intended to be different from the F1 standard which was rushed into service for the sole purpose to allow the Marine Nationale to replace their F-8 FN. Rafale F2 and F3 are the ONLY western aircrafts with Mirage 2000 Mk2/9 to feature a 5th generation core system architectrure, they share this particular system design with F-22 and F-35, they ALSO use interferometry for their ECMs. Rafale F2 standard 18 processors were already 50 time more powerful than the 2084 XRI, they have been recently upgraded to new generation multi-core processors in order to asses a fast approaching obsolescence problem. F-22 is also faced with such an issue, Typhoon too to the difference that Typhoon core system architecture isn't designed to integrate these new technologies and that only its processors and memory were upgraded with Tranche 2, NOT the core architecture. SPECTRA developement continued with the F3 standard and is set to lead to further developements, such as a totaly passive detection and targeting EM capability in Air to Air mode as is already offered in Air to Ground mode. If there are problems with Rafale, they aren't technical, are not in its developement and developement of technologies used, even less in future developement, passed the F3 standard. If anyone wants to know about it, this is well documented, there is no need for bringing more of this forum garbage... References: DATE:14/12/85 SOURCE:Flight International Canard Mirage on test (Archive) By Test Pilot Walter Spychiger Source: NASA Technical Memorandum 11394: ?Numerical Study of Steady and Unsteady Canard-Wing-Body Aerodynamics? Eugene L TU Aug 1996. NASA: Source: PDF_19940014975_1994014975 An_Investigation of Fighter Aircraft Agiliy. ------------------------------------

http://www.strategypage.com/militaryforums/6-57541.aspx Un certain Ruffus s'en prend assez violemment au rafale sur strategypage. Ce topic m'a interpellé car la méthodologie de cette personne est assez athypique. En gros elle reprend certains points forts supposés de l'avion et en fait des points faibles (en particulier réduction de la RCS, manoeuvrabilité, spectra, sensor fusion) Spectra en particulier en prend sérieusement pour son grade et est qualifié de système "simpliste" vous en pensez quoi ?

La photo est à moitié floue et en plus elle est ancienne, l'immat de l'avion est encore en 7-xx au lieu de 113-xx. Donc parler d'un retour au liseré jaune c'est un peu s'avancer ;) Ce liseré jaune mes semble un peu palichon. le vrai de vrai est nettement plus marqué :

L'une des pales d'une hélice s'est cassée. Le CdG a déjà assez de problème, inutile d'en rajouter ;)

4 aesa identiques ou des modeles differents ?

plait-il ? :lol: :lol: :lol: sinon tu peux aussi dire "60 2000-9", c'est plus court et on comprend mieux O0

Si on avait quelques 2000-9 ou -5mk2 remis à neuf en stock, on pourrait facilement faire des contre offres plus intérrentes que Saab... Si en plus on avait la possibilité de proposer du python 5 ou de l'iris-T à la place du mica IR ou de la jDAM à la place de l'AASM, sur ces mirage ce serait encore mieux... Enfin bon, tempis =|

pit être que le fonctionnaire à confondu avec le typhoon ? rafale, typhoon, gripen... c'est tout pareil pour un gratte papier... : >:(

Faut pas chercher du coté des performances, vu que le rafale n'a pas été évalué par le indiens. Tu ne discalifies pas un une offre sur des critères techniques en te basant sur des impressions ou des rumeurs. Au pire tu en prends note et tu les vérifies par toi même pendant une évaluation sur le terrain (comme l'on fait les Suisses). La question n'est pas de savoir pourquoi le rafale à été éliminé, mais pourquoi il a été éliminé avant son évaluation et avant tous les autres. On peut raisonnablement penser que ça n'a rien à voir avec l'avion lui même.

"by Edouard Billet in Paris" (Billet is a Paris-based freelance aviation industry watcher and journalist. He was formerly with the Rafale testing programme at Dassault Aviation, and has tracked the evolution of the French aircraft industry for over a decade. This column is exclusive to LiveFist) Pas hexagonal le point de vue ? :lol:

remplacer l'antenne mécanique du radar par une antenne fixe à balayage électronique serait déjà un bon début

Oui tout à fait. mais il ne s'agit pas seulement de Dassault. pour un pays aussi important que l'inde, je dirais que c'est surtout l'état Français qui a décidé de ne pas participer à aero india 2009 : j'ose espérer que cette décision émane des plus hautes autorités de l'état et qu'elle a été prise en connaissance de cause car sinon ce serait très grave ...quoique, après l'affaire marocaine, rien ne m'étonnerait :P . l'excuse bidon des rafale en Aghanistan (4 sur 50 machines dispo) fait doucement rigoler et personne n'y a cru... et surtout pas les indiens Après, il est logique que les indiens décident d'éliminer le rafale mais on peut raisonnablement penser que sans le "boycott" d'aéro india, les indiens auraient garder le rafale en compétition jusqu'au bout pour faire pression sur l'offre américaine comme en Korée et à Singapour.

plusieurs hypothèses plus ou moins farfelues : Les indiens ont été vexés que Dassault snob le salon aero india. Dassault à refusé de payer les commission qui vont bien Les américains ont exigés l'éviction du rafale avant la phase finale histoire d'éviter le forcing politique trop voyant pour faire passer le F-16/18 au dernier moment. Les indiens n'ont pas apprécié l'attitude des frenchies au dernier redflag (ecoute ECM sur le MKI) Dassault a fait une offre irréaliste par rapport aux concurents

En même temps, qu'est que c'est 3 ans de retard dans un programme d'avion militaire ? A comparer aux 10 ans de délais des rafale, eurofighter, tigre etc ... La seule différence c'est que pour une fois que ce ne sont pas les politiques qui sont directement responsables du retard :lol: mais les (més)aventaures de l'A400M sont aussi une bonne leçon pour les politiciens : A force d'étirer au maximum la durée de vie des vieux équipements et de lambiner jusqu'au dernier moment pour lancer les nouveaux programmes, on laisse dépérir les compétences de nos industriels et on augmente considérablement le risque de se prendre une bonne claquasse de problèmes techniques. C'est pas quand le bateau coule qu'il faut penser à acheter un gilet de sauvetage... ou apprendre à nager. menfin 8)

Comme quoi, dire que le rafale n'a pas été pensé au départ pour l'export est un non sens.

pff mais qu'est ce qu'on a toujours à tortiller du cul ! Ca m'énerve ! 1- on leur rachete leur -9 2- on leur developpe un M88 9T 3- on leur met des meteor avec point barre. 1- les -9 : Faut pas abuser, c'est pas comme si ils nous demandaient de reprendre des vieilles trapanelles inutilisables/invendables. Là c'est le top du 2000 et on pourrait trouver facilement une bonne demi douzaine de pays près à nous les racheter un bon prix (et rien ne nous empêche de les vendre avec une petite perte pour rafler un marché F-16/Gripen ou le rafale n'a aucune chance) Au pire leur intégration dans l'armée de l'air à la place de la modernisation douteuse de vieux 2000N/D/-5 ne serait pas du luxe. Les british n'ont pas hésité une seconde à reprendre aux saoudiens des bouses invendables de tornado F3 pour placer leur typhoon et nous on fait la fine bouche pour des 2000-9 ?! Faut arrêter les conneries ! Le deal est gagnant-gagnant et sur le long terme, on ne peut se permettre de perdre un seul client supplémentaire après le scandale de la vente ratée au Maroc. 2- M88 9T : La aussi ça fait des années qu'on lambine ! De toute manière il faudra le développer un jour jour ou l'autre pour nos rafale, ce M88 9T.... alors allons y, que diable ! c'est l'opportunité de le faire tout de suite... Du reste ça pourrait aussi relancer le rafale sur le marché Grec. 3- Les Météor : Alors là il n'y a même pas à réfléchir. C'est prévu pour nous et ça a été décalé... suffit de reprendre le calendrier initial. Les EAU nous donnent le bon coup de pied au cul dont on avait besoin... soit on boude et on laisse le marché aux autres, soit on comprend le message et on se sort les doigts du c*l.

Je ne sais pas si il les a tirées mais en tout cas, c'est du lisse ;)

Bon courage pour trouver des info là dessus ! la premiere réponse qui me vient à l'esprit est : Ca dépend. Ca dépend de : de la version du missile : il existe plusieurs versions de chaque missile et les différences sont énormes. Entre AIM-9A et un AIM-9X, c'est le jour et la nuit ! idem pour le sparrow ou l'amraam. De l'avionique de l'avion tireur (pour les missiles à guidage radar). le même missile tiré par des avions ayant un SNA différent et donc des règles de guidage initial différente peut conduire à des PK ... différentes. Ajoute à cela l'efficacité de la résistance au brouillage électronique du radar qui varie également d'un avion à l'autre. Des CME et de la manoeuvrabilité de la cible de la géométrie de l'engagement et dans quel domaine le missile est tiré (en limite de porté ? dans sa no escape zone ?) Bref, il faudrait déjà que tu figes certains paramètres avant de commencer à avoir un début de réponse qui ne sera de toute manière qu'une approximation très grossière faite à partir de bruit de couloir et de brochure publicitaire. Si tu prends les dernières versions de tous ces missiles, que tu prends une cible non manœuvrante qui ne leurre pas, avec une sigature IR/EM moyenne et que tu tires le missile dans la NEZ, tu peux considérer que tu es à 100% de PK (probability of kill). Après, plus tu dégrade la situation (distance de tir, géométrie défavorable, manoeuvres de la cible) plus le PK des missiles les plus anciens (R-550, AIM-7) vont souffrir.

Ça nous pend au nez : un ce ces quatre, un BPC va se prendre en gros pruneau dans les dents, les médias compteront les morts et crieront au scandale qu'aucun système d'auto protection digne de ce nom n'est été installé sur ce type de bâtiment O0. Perso, ça me dépasse. les BPC sont des centres de commandement et embarquent 16 helicos d'une valeur unitaire moyenne de €30 million (480 millions rien que pour les helicos embarqués). Ce sont donc des bâtiments de grande valeur militaire qui coutent très cher et il est impensable de négliger leur autoprotection.

En fait c'est une feature du forum pour couiquer les posts de pd7 dès qu'ils dépassent 29 lignes :lol:

Allez nico, faut aller nous les chercher ces put'1 de contrats ! >:(

j'ai comme l'impression qu'on a fait une croix sur le contrat indien :-[

Faut voir. Si la vente des 9 F1 au Bresil permet de securiser ce marché, il ne faut pas manquer cette opportunité quitte à les remplacer immédiatement par 9 F3 neufs : d'ailleurs 9 rafale de plus à produire sur 1 an serait les bienvenus pour la chaine de montage ...

mirage F1, C160, mirage IV :lol: