So…
fuelfraction/(specific fuel*Cw*frontal area)=the winner 😀

This doesn’t detract from the fact that all rafales are compatible with CFTs, it’s only a matter of purchasing them.

I would like to know how a rafale with 4 1000lbs LGBs and 1 LDP + 2 CFT would compare in range with a Gripen NG with 4 1000lbs LGB and 1 LDP and 2 1700L tanks.

It carries less external fuel, but its loadout is less draggy too.

I don’t think it would compare too unfavorably. And if it does a ventral tank can be added.

Nic

i only suggested that it would be nice to see a comparison, due to 1 engine vs 2 and bigger vs smaller.
not that anyone beats the other in any way, rafale have probably the longest legs in this comparison.
But i dont think the win is with a big margin, as it was before.

self deploying lgb’s is on their ‘gunna get there’ list
they are going to put the old damacles pod on it ‘soon’

ok! i didnt know that..thanks for the info.

So they need its big dumbbomb loads to compensate 🙂
doesnt it seems strange to run a 4.5 gen Rafale in stoneage(afgan) with dumbbombs?

hopefully they solve it until the next war then.

Very nice pictures loke !

You can see the limitation of light aircraft however. The picture with the LGB miss the LDP to be make this configuration truly flexible in operational missions.

The picture with the Taurus shows that there is only one or two pylon left (for the NG for Drop tanks). You can bet that with two scalp/taurus the rafale or the SH could have much more range. This is quite valuable as these missile are usually used against high value targets which often require a long range flight. Especially true for the brazilian case as the country is very large.

To answer one of your point above I doubt that a gripen could carry only one taurus practically as that would be too much an asymmetrical load for an aircraft of that category.

specific fuel and fuel fraction is the important factors, but of course i see youre point.
specific fuel probably gets bad faster on a small jet. But “normal” <3,5t loads this will not be a problem, due to single engine and lighter smaller, means much better specfic fuel to begin with.
one 450gal tank adds 1000km for gripen to begin with.

war mission for the gripen so far is what ? 0% of missions flown? You’d say it’s a big price to pay for little use?

Nic

And rafale have loaded over 7200kg every time in afgan? whats youre point?

They fly with heavier config than this for deep strike (scalp, aasm, gbu12) for instance. However for practical reasons they don’t always need this kind of config to just train the procedures.

A future config for rafale in Astan which was brought forward by Colonel Moussez was 2*2000L drop tanks + 6GBU12 LGB (250kg) + 1 GBU24LGB (1000kg) + 2 laser rockets pods + Damocles pod (+ 4 micas if required).

But the real point is that even with lighter loads a rafale or a SH will see their performance degrading much slower in terms of range and TW ratio than the gripen. So you have to look beyond raw datas and look at the performance of the aircraft associated with these loads. You might not be able to fly the same mission or defend yourself if your aircraft fly like a brick at such loads. However with a bigger aircraft you will have more margin which give you more operational flexibility.

(They also have more flexibility as regard external load hard points : you can carry 6LGB or AASM with the rafale without compromising on external fuel or AtA weaponry.)

gripen small size has some assets (cheaper to buy and operate) but also drawbacks : less overall punch which can be describe with a minus on these factors : (range, payload, aircraft performance in war config, TWR, payload flexibility and less gross potential)

well, more than 7200kg missions for rafale is still… lets say 0,5% of the total missions flown? is it smaller?
Ok, its a flexability, but its a big big price to pay for little use.

Both fighters load about its empty weight, which to me seems very impressive. which is not the case for the F-35..

Funny, in the 13th slide the bad guys are rafale 😀

Yes in war at the moment 😉

The EJ200 in service today already has the potential to produce up to 15% greater thrust than the baseline standard, and Eurojet have stated that a 30% increase in thrust is feasible without changes to the basic engine architecture. A 30% increase in thrust would give the EJ200 ~26,000 lbs of thrust with a thrust-to-weight ratio of around 15:1 which would easily have fulfilled the requirement for a KFX powerplant.

Any chance you could tell me where you heard this from as I’ve never heard of Dassault making such a claim.

The EJ200 like most advanced turbofans runs very hot, using the same logic I wonder how LO the F119 is ?

The EJ200 has a higher dry T/W ratio than either the M88 or F414 and already allows genuine supercruise performance.

What specific methods do the M88 or F414 use to reduce infrared signature ?

Hotter engine means mostly, lower bypass and lower airflow, and therefore higher fuelconsumption. This also better hi speed characteristics due to, gas higher velocity. F119 and EJ200 is probably in this category.

F414 is the biggest diameter engine, “less hotter”, but this does not mean the engine core is less hot..

And the IR signature… F414 have a sofisticated cooling of the flameholders that is inherent from the RM12. the cooling of hot visible parts is critical for IR signature, and this is easier with cooler gases.