[Rafale] *archive*

[xav]

Nan ça confirme juste le fait que le Rafale est tellement LO et Stealth qu'on à pas besoin de ces aritifices à la noix  :lol:

Bientot ils iront en operation en livrée Tiger Meet.

[zx]

lol,  c'est quoi l'abreviation LO ?

[Kovy]

Le retour du liséré jaune sur les cocardes des Rafale de la "7" à de quoi surprendre,

:O

VaporZ

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 :

[Berkut]

lol,  c'est quoi l'abreviation LO ?

Low Observable. En clair, discret sur le champ d'observation, SER (détection radar) ou SIR (détection IR), voire visuel

[xav]

Ah, je croyai que c'etait surtout sur le plan visuel    O0

[fool]

je vais peut-etre dire une gosse bêtise , mais le liseré jaune ne pourrait pas etre là pour designer un biplace dedié a l'entrainement et/ou transfo opérationnelle des pilotes ? ( donc pas de " première ligne " ) ....

[Eise]

moi je pensait que c'était pour différencié la cocarde de celle de la RAF non ? même si les couleurs sont inversé, beaucoup encore confondes les 2 cocardes  ^-^

[Kovy]

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 ?

[Akhilleus]

je pense que strategypage c'est naze et que ca sert à rien d'y aller tellement les mods et le public est impartial  =)

[snikt59]

Que ça m'empêchera pas de dormir, vu que, mis à part les pilotes de l'armée de l'air, il y a peu de monde (surtout sur les forums) capable de savoir ce que vaut vraiment le Rafale en combat réel...

[Berkut]

Que ça m'empêchera pas de dormir, vu que, mis à part les pilotes de l'armée de l'air, il y a peu de monde (surtout sur les forums) capable de savoir ce que vaut vraiment le Rafale en combat réel...

Même pas parce que le rafi n'est pas combat proven, juste quelques pilonnages de barbudos au Merdistan. Quand ils auront collés quelques MICA dans le fion de vils paki, là on pourra dire qu'on sait ce que vaut la bête. Pour le moment c'est surtout du théorique, les exercices c'est bien gentil mais ça n'est pas tout, loin s'en faut.

Après pour le petit Ruffus, bah suffit de reprendre ses arguments et de s'en servir pour pulvériser le fion du zingue dont il va faire éloge, au pif, ça doit osciller entre l'avion de papier F35, le paléolithique européen, Typhus  et le superman des chasseurs qui flingue tout ce qui bouge... dans les reportages de Planète, aka Raptor.

Mais je suis surtout du même avis que mon cher collègue, Strategypage sucks.

[TMor]

vous en pensez quoi ?

Que là-bas, je m'appelle Seagull.  :lol:

[stormshadow]

c'est simple , tout ce que dit rufus est faux

[PolluxDeltaSeven]

Rufus dit:

Now they are trying to find some way to obtain more money through exports so they can replace the Rafale's mid-90s radar, computers, jammers, etc so that they can at least keep pace with other 4th generation designs for a few years before being completely surpassed by 5th generation designs.

Bon bah voilà, on comprends où il veut en venir: le Rafale peut faire ce qu'il veut, de toute façon, c'est le F-35 qui va tout gagner (c'est le seul 5ème génération de toute manière)

[Babou]

bon je vais pas vous dérangez :lol: mais pour en revenir au sujet de départ vu qu'en ce moment la menace de se prendre un missiles au cul est assez faible(mais en augmentation en A-stan avec la livraison de quelques SA-14) ça sert pas peut être pas a grand chose de cacher les couleurs? ? ? ? ça aide peut être les autres a t'identifier et justement a pas t'en mettre un dans tes 6H

[Kovy]

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.

Quote:Rufus

The Rafale was intended to catch up to, rather than leap ahead of, aircraft that were designed years earlier such as the F-16 and Mig-29.

  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.

"Quote:Rufus

and other serious RCS offenders."

  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.

"Quote:Rufus

the end result was of course disappointing"

.

  Eurogither, SAAB and even Boeing mut be VERY desapointed.

Quote:Rufus

lacking in comparison to its bigger brother, the Eurofighter".

  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.

"Quote:Rufus

As the US/Israel found with the Lavi design, the improvement in aerodynamic performance available with such a design was insufficient to justfy the cost of creating an entire new airframe and a generational leap in performance would require a new approach".

  I think you know Rafale and Lavi FAR too litle (not to mention the aerodynamic characteristics of the formula) to elaborate this way...

"Quote:Rufus

its designers failed to see the direction future designs were heading."

  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.

"Quote:Rufus

Today the Rafale's pit and human interface are at best mediocre in comparison to those found in other aircraft in production. It lacks a helmet mounted site, a serious flaw in a WVR fight".

  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.

Quote:Rufus

Probably the most famous and inexcusable design flaw in the Rafale is its unusually small and short ranged radar".

  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...

Quote:Rufus

Not only that, but because of nearly continual funding shortages in development, Spectra lacks now-standard features such as sophisticated towed decoys and next generation jamming waveforms that it simply lacks the processing power or antennas to produce".

  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.

------------------------------------

[TMor]

Ca ressemble à une super compilation des avis les plus favorables qu'on peut trouver sur le Rafale, sur les fora.

Est-ce que le monsieur est "bien" renseigné ? Est-ce qu'il "sait" ? Ou est-ce qu'il a passé trop de temps sur le WAFF ?  :lol:

[Kovy]

Tmor > MP

[FATac]

moi je pensait que c'était pour différencié la cocarde de celle de la RAF non ? même si les couleurs sont inversé, beaucoup encore confondes les 2 cocardes  ^-^

Ca ne change rien ... les avions de la RAF portent aussi, parfois, un liseré jaune autour de la cocarde, lorsqu'ils utilisent la cocarde tricolore - je n'ai jamais vu de liseré jaune sur les bicolores.

En outre, selon les clichés, le liseré jaune est soit fin (un liseré, un vrai), soit épais (autant que chaque couleur de la cocarde) ... tant chez les britons que chez nous.

Enfin, je dispose de photos des 2000-5F des cigognes, en 1999, où les cocardes françaises sont aussi cerclées d'un fin contour jaune, alors qu'il s'agit quand même d'appareils de première ligne en DA ... Et il en est de même pour les photos de III-E et de jaguar des années 1978/79/80 dont je dispose, alors qu'à l'époque ils étaient notre chien de garde nucléaire tactique ... Et pareil pour les Mirage IV de la fin des 70s, qui étaient notre composante stratégique aéroportée ... Alors 1ere ligne ou pas ... je crois que les textes et règlements ont parfois du mal à correspondre aux réalités du terrain. Ou bien il va falloir m'expliquer ...  

Et pour en revenir à l'aspect LO ou LowViz des marquage de nationalité, je ne crois pas que cela ait un impact sur les capacités d'acquisition par un autodirecteur IR. Cela facilite certainement le tracking sur une voie TV ou en visuel, mais en IR une surface noire, au soleil, a toutes les chances d'émettre plus qu'une cocarde rouge. Sans compter qu'une cocarde ne fait que ré-émettre une fraction du rayonnement solaire qu'elle reçoit, ce qui est TRES en deçà de ce qu'un réacteur ou une tuyère APU peut émettre pour sa part.

Quant à SP, je n'y étais jamais allé ... mais je n'ai pas l'impression d'avoir perdu grand chose.  ;)

[TMor]

M. Pierre Legrand :

  M88 High pressure turbine have three time the TBO of EJ200.

Source ? 

[xav]

Mon ami Signatory viens de m'envoyer la suivante:

A rumour...

In one of Brazil's more serious papers there's a note about Super hornet falling behind Rafale and Gripen in the evaluations. They claim to have seen military documents.

Even if true this is before politics... so it might not mean anything... but if true, also interesting when considering India :)

http://www.terra.com.br/istoe/edicoes/2061/artigo134330-1.htm

il faudrait traduire mais ça a l'air croustillant :)

[Skw]

En vérité, il s'agit du sommaire du numéro de la semaine à venir. Le texte concernant la compétition Super Hornet / Gripen / Rafale tient en 4 lignes. Et il n'y a pas de liens vers l'article. Il faut probablement acheter la version papier, ou peut-être attendre quelques jours. De toute façon les fora brésiliens traitant des questions de défense reprendront sûrement l'important de l'article dès que possible. Les 4 lignes expliquent approximativement ce qui est rédigé en anglais. On apprend, en outre, que l'info aurait été glanée par un journaliste ayant eu accès au rapport du Commandant de la FAB (force de l'air brésilienne). Un gradé aurait également confirmé que le Rafale et le Gripen "sont quelques ailes devant l'avion de Boeing".

Je garderai un oeil sur les sites brésiliens... pour vous faire part des éventuelles infos supplémentaires  ;)

---

Pendant que j'y suis, voici une info datant du 4 mai et provenant du magazine "Isto é", déjà publicateur de l'article précédent auquel faisait référence xav. Traduction rapide :

« Court dans le gouvernement un projet ambitieux pour tenter d’elever la participation de Embraer sur le marché international.

Il s’agit de l’achat du suédois Saab, responsable des avions Gripen qui sont en concurrence pour le projet FX-2 de la Força Aérea Brasileira.

Le président de la Embraer, Frederico Curado, reste sur la réserve, mais il y a déjà des gens du BNDES (Banque Nationale de Développement Economique et Social) avec un plan en main pour l’opération.

Embraer ferait un échange d’actions, prenant le contrôle de l’entreprise, sans débourser un centime.

Cela resterait secret jusqu’à ce que le gouvernement définisse le vainqueur de la compétition du FX-2 »

Source

A vrai dire, je vois mal le gouvernement suédois accepter le projet tel quel. Mais on peut imaginer une collaboration plus poussée.

[BPCs]

Marcel Dassault en complément de la superbe et très technique réplique de Pierre Legrand, aurait un fois de plus  ajouté :

''Ce qui est beau vole bien !''

[TMor]

S'il était le seul à l'avoir dit...

[zx]

Wouuf, ! La réponse de Pierre Legrand, c'est du concentré rafale pur jus,  c'est dans les habitudes anglosaxone, plus l'adversaire est bon et dangereux, plus ils font du "bashing", si il était si mauvais que  ca, ils n'auraient même pas prêté attention à l'avion.