the Hornet designed as a Air defence fighter?

i missed something here!

In Swiss service, yes.;) (Finnish aswell)

Utilizing the view “typhoon is more ADF, Rafale multi or omnirol”, would it not be exactly what the Swiss want. The F-18 initial were purely AD fighters, as were F-5’s etc… unless Switzerland has changed it stance recently (I believe the F-18s have been upgraded to carry AtG ordinance) a predominate AtA fighter should be want they want. But I’m not Swiss…

The biggest advantage Dassault have, I believe, is there organisation and speed of which they have advanced the Rafale. As JackoNicko said Dassaults programme has been run very well and with the addition of the AESA radar, possibly used in the Swiss trials, will more than demonstrate this.

This is a big competition, and Dassault look like their in prime condition to take it on.

Of course unless the typhoon demonstrates it superior SS agility, SC, MMI, performance etc… it will be different :diablo:

was an impressive turn, and Ive never seen another demo with a Flanker/hornet/mig-29 that even came close to a full 180 in that span of time/distance. For such a tight turn I was actually impressed that it didn’t lose more energy.

Try find some videos of the prototype M2000 or Rafale A if you want to see a really tight low speed 180 deg turn, they really are impressive considering no TVC. However, especially in the mirages case, alot of speed was lost.;)

Infact I’ll have a look myself 🙂

Start at page 16 i believe….

I’ll read them then I quiz you on a few questions. 😀

Rafale make FULL use of compressive and expensive shockwaves around the fuselage and this includes the intakes, there is NO build-up of pressure under the fuselage in the case of Rafale, only in the area covered by the diffusers which is normal considering the boundary layer and the compression zone there.

Ah, very informative.;) So basically no compression forward of the intake for the Rafale. Maybe the velocities are too low supersonic speeds. But mach 5+ the result of this is really, very impressive.

EXPECIALY for supersonic compression, the engine compressor needs to hit a SUBSONIC airflow so anything supersonic have to be slowed down by mean of creating shocks.

For the rest the laws of compression and expension applies:

Crompressed airflow =

Increased temperature and pressure, reduced velocity, compute the opposite for expension waves.

I understand yes subsonic airflow is required for proper performance in a turbine/turbofan engine, what I was saying is the diffusers do not account for all compression, before the airflow reaches the first fan 😉 Obviously though your diagrams have shown the rafale utilizing very very little. I am thinking at the low supersonic speeds the drag factor far outweights any compressability affects from the fuselage for the Rafale, hence the lack of it.

Those diagrams are quite a find. May I ask where they are from, any early techincal data book published by dassault perhaps?

I have never seen a picture of C01 or B01 cockpits myself but here is a list of sites with lot of Rafale pictures and even some walkaround :

Just search for Rafale B on stanakshot and photo.aerodream 😉

Thankyou very very much! 🙂

This may be a long shot, but its the best place I think I can ask. Does anyone have any cockpit photos/walkaround of an operational Rafale B, prototype B01 or Rafale prototype C01?

If anyone could point me in the right direction of post an images I would be very grateful. Thankyou.

IPA3 is there, GT015 has departed Neuburg and might have arrived in the meantime as well.

cheers 😎