toanDassault declares that Rafale family’s empty weight / MTOW is around 10.0-tonnes / 24.5-tonnes class. It never says that it is Rafale C’s empty weight / MTOW to be 10.0-tonnes / 24.5-tonnes.
And since the data from French AF EC17 squadron’s declared the empty weight of Rafale C as 9.5 tonnes, and a French defense news for French Navy in the 2006 (http://www.meretmarine.com/article.cfm?id=101824) declared the empty weight of Rafale M as 10.2 tonnes. I really don’t think these datas have to be modified until a more reliable and official declaration confirms that the empty weights of Rafale B, C, M have been increased one day.
toanPlease do not post the outdated data about the Rafale any longer!
A:
I think this a very rude statement to me, and I don’t see the reason why I should obey the order from you.
It is your right to offer your data for comparison if you don’t think my data is not good enough. But I really don’t think you have the right to order me to do or not to do anything.
Empty equipped it is over 10 tons already!!
A:
Although I really don’t think the empty weight of 10.0 tonne or 9.5 tonne will make any significant difference of my comparison. Let me also provide my data’s origin of Rafale C’s empty weight:
http://www.ec17provence.org/rafalecaract.html
Internal fuel is 4700 kg by Dassault!
A: And here is a picture of the notice for refueling the Rafale:
http://dada4.free.fr/kero_rafale.jpg
Some other data are test data and do not have any relevance in daily operations like the allowed AoA f.e., which is limited to all three to no more than 30 AoA. 😉
A: And what is your evidence that both F/A-18E and Gripen FCS’s AoA limitations are no more than 30 AoA right now??
It is a nice work to collect all data to find about a given fighter, but it does become senseless to present that without the related details or do not update that from time to time. 😉
A: If you think you have the better data to offer, or you think you can do the better comparison among the 3 fighters, then just offer your data or show your effort here. And once again, I must say that I really think no one here except the Webmaster has the right to order others to do or not to do anything.
toanThrust: In the Gripen NG presentations I have seen it has been given as “> 22,000 lb”; this may indicate that the NG could get a higher thrust level than the current F414. Higher thrust levels have already been tested by GE.
So, with the uncertainty around both thrust and weight the thrust/weight ratio for NG would also be an uncertain estimate.
L
A: Yes, It is true that we can’t rule out the possibility that GRIPEN NG may use the thrust-upgrading F414 engine in the future. Howerver, both F/A-18E and Rafale may also use the new enigne with similar upgrading at that time.
toanAccording to this article, due to the will to reduce cost, the T3 Typhoon will get an AESA which purpose is only to get rid of the mechanical array : according to them, the electronically steered array won’t be exploited as a true AESA, it will just give the agility and reliability, without special modes, without much costly re-writing of the whole software, as would require a true AESA… The main hurdle is to make it as compatible as possible with the existing hardware/software… This also means (as written in the article) that the new radar won’t consume more electric power, won’t use a new cooling system, and interface and softwares won’t be modified…
A: The same question may be also asked to the AESA upgrading plans of Rafale and Gripen: Will they put new softwares / new functions / more power to their RBE-2 AA and PS-05A MK5 radars from the beginning ??
The future projects for PS-05A that I’ve heard in 2006 was:
2010：PS-05A Mk4 + E20 OFP software
1. Adding SAR modes with ultra-high resolution.
2. Adding spontaneous detecting mode for static target.
3. Improving GMTI/GMTT modes.
2012：PS-05A Mk5 AESA radar
1. New AESA with around 1,000 T/R modules.
2. Geo-positioning of targets and Geo-coding of SAR images.
3. Long-range detection and tracking of air targets in support of the future MBDA Meteor missile.
2015：PS-05A AESA radar with NOAR upgrading
1. A full, multi-channel AESA system.
2. Being subdivided into multiple sub-apertures capable of adaptive beam forming and digital beam forming of multiple beams for multi-tasking:
(a) Dominant battlespace awareness.
(b) Air target tracking and fire-control for BVR weapons.
(c) All-weather precision ground target capability.
(d) Non-co-operative target recognition [NCTR].
(e) Low probability of intercept [LPI] through a low radar cross section and flexible energy management.
(f) Electronic warfare inclusive of offensive jamming.
2018：PS-05A AESA radar EIRA upgrading
All-in-one multifuntional sensor: Active radar + Passive radr + Datalink + IEWS + Electronic suppressor…….
toan1. Dimensions:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Length: 18.38 m / 15.27 m / 14.75 m
B. Span: 13.68 m / 10.80 m / 8.40 m (*1)
C. Height: 4.87 m / 5.34 m / 4.50 m
D. Wing area: 46.45 m2 / 45.70 m2 / 30.00 m
*1: The wing span of F/A-18E is 9.32 m with folded outer wings.
2. Weights:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Empty weight: 14,288 kg / 9,500 kg / 7,100 kg
B. Internal fuel: 6,780 kg / 4,750 kg / 3,130 kg (*2)
C. Max. ext. fuel: 7,280 kg / 6,800 kg / 4,090 kg (*3)
D. Max. ext. load: 8,493 kg / 9,500 kg / 6,000 kg
E. Max. take-off weight: 29,937 kg / 24,500 kg / 16,000 kg
*2: According to the formula: 1 liter fuel = 0.8 kg
*3: F/A-18E: 1,820 L external fuel tank * 5
Rafale C: 2,000 L external fuel tank * 3 + 1,250 L external fuel tank * 2
Gripen NG: 450 Gallon (1 Gallon = 3.785 L) external fuel tank * 3
3. Flight Performance:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Max. speed, high level: 1.8 Mach / 2.0 Mach+ / 2.0 Mach (Clean fighter)
B. Max. speed, high level: 1.6 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+ (A2A mission)
B. Max. speed, low level: < 1.0 Mach / 750 kts / 1.2 Mach (*4)
C. Max. operating altitude: > 15,240 m / 16,760 ~ 18,400 m / 16,500 m
D. Climb rate, sea level: > 254 m/sec / > 305 m/sec / unknown
G. Normal G-limit: -3.0 ~ +7.5G / -3.2 ~ +9.0 G / -3.0 ~ +9.0 G
H. Max. upper G-limit: +10.0 G / > +11.0 G / +12.0 G
I. Normal AoA limit: 60.0 degrees / 29.5 degrees / 50.0 degrees
J. Wing-load for air combat: 402.6 kg/m2 / 280.1 kg/m2 / 323.3 kg/m2 (*5)
K. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 1.067 / 1.205 / 1.029 with A/B (*6)
L. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 0.679 / 0.797 / 0.655 with max. mil. (*7)
*4: It is said that F/A-18 E/F’s maximal speed is less than 1.0 Mach at the height below 10,000 fts.
*5 ~ *7:
a. The fighter’s weight for air combat = empty weight + 50% internal fuel + MRAAM*4 + SRAAM*2 + pilot and gun shells.
b. F/A-18E: 18,700 kg; Rafale C: 12,800 kg; Gripen NG: 9,700 kg.
c. Max. A/B thrust: 22,000 Ib for F414 and 17,000 Ib for M88-2.
d. Max. Mil. Thrust: 14,000 Ib for F414 and 11,250 Ib for M88-2.
4. Ferry range and Striking radius:
A. Ferry range:
Clean F/A-18E with internal fuel only: 2,346 km.
Clean Rafale C with internal fuel only: > 2,100 km.
Gripen NG with maximal fuel loading: 4,074 km.
B. Striking radius:
# F/A-18E:
a. 1,820L tanks*3, AGM-84 *2, ATFLIR pod*1, AIM-120*1, and AIM-9*2.
b. 805 NM or 1,135 NM with air-refueling*1.
# Rafale C:
a. 2,000L tanks*3, SCALP-EG *2 or 500 Ib LGBs*6, and MICA*4.
b. Around 800 NM (hi-lo-hi), or around 1000 NM including the effective range of SCALP-EG.
c. With the help of CFT if the customers wants: 920 to 960 NM, or around 1,100 to 1,175 NM including the effective range of SCALP-EG (*8).
# Gripen NG (*9):
a. 472 nm / 875 km in lo-lo-lo mission with GBU-16*3.
b. 607 nm / 1,125 km in lo-lo-lo mission with GBU-16*2 and external fuel tank*1.
*8: Personal estimation according to the declaration from French that the CFTs for Rafale will be able to increase 15 to 20 % fighter’s combat radius.
*9: Personal estimation according to the anticipation from SAAB that the combat range / radius of Gripen NG shall be around 35% more than Gripen C.
5. Others:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale C / Gripen NG
A. Pylons: 11 and 5 / 14 and 5 / 10 and 3, all and wet (*10)
B. Unit costs: 55.2 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs / 50.0 million USD (*11)
C. Maintenance: 15 / 12 / 10 Man-hours per flight hour.
*10: Wet pylon means the pylon that can carry and use the tank.
*11:
a. The unit cost of F/A-18 E is 55.2 million USDs per fighter in 2008.
b. The average unit price of Rafale F3 during 2008 to 2012 is 69.5 million USDs.
c. The price that SAAB sold Gripen to Thailand in 2007 is around 50.0 million USDs per fighter, including the costs for training and logistics.
toanAccording to the time schedule of FX-2 competition, Brazil AF will begin to accept its NG fighter at the time of post-2014.
In this time schedule, the French competitor that GRIPEN NG will face in FX-2 competition is not Rafale F3, but Rafale Roadmap / post-F3 ~ which will also equip AESA radar and get many upgradings and modifications of fighter’s electronic systems such as Spectra EWS, FSO, MAW, and MIDS.
Therefore, will GRIPEN NG be able to have the new sensors and electronic systems which can surpass the equipments that Rafale will acquire in the same period of time ?? Personally, I think there is no strong enough evidence to prove this anticipation right now.
toanIt’d be interesting to know if any aircraft has come close to the same weight in production as it was when it was a pipedream before a single pencil had touched paper.
Let’s wait and see if Su-35 will become one of such a fighter……….:rolleyes:
YF-16: 14,023 Ib / 6,360 kg………………………..100.0
F-16A Block10: 15,600 Ib / 7,080 kg………………111.3
F-16A Block20: 16,300 Ib / 7,400 kg………………116.4
F-16C Block25: 18,240 Ib / 8,273 kg………………130.1
F-16C Block50: 19,200 Ib / 8,710 kg………………136.9
F-16E Block60: 22,000 Ib / 9,980 kg………………156.9
toanwhat 40% heavier ? are you suggesting that its approx 2500 kgs heavier than planned ? :rolleyes:
The original plan of the empty weight for LCA was 5,500 kg, now it becomes 6,500 kg (18.2% increase), or around 6,000 kg (9.1% increase) if the weight reducing plan is successful.
toanAt that time it was more “we’d like the ATF to weigh about” rather than anything to do with reality.
So did 8,500 kg for Rafale and 9,500 ~ 9,750 kg for EFA at that time.
toanThe change of empty weight of some western NG fighters:
F-22A:
* The predictive weight in 1980s: 13,600 ~ 14,830 kg
* The actual empty weight today: 19,660 kg (33% ~ 45%)
F-35A:
* The predictive weight in 1990s: 10,000 ~ 11,000 kg
* The actual empty weight today: 13,170 kg (20% ~ 32%)
EF-2000:
* The predictive weight in 1980s: 9,750 ~ 10,000 kg
* The actual empty weight today: 11,150 kg (11.5 ~ 14.4%)
Rafale C:
* The predictive weight in 1980s: 8,500 kg
* The actual empty weight today: 9,500 kg (11.8%)
toanWhat are the common points among the three winners of the stage I competition of FX-2 project???
1. Relatively rich experience of proving themselves in the real battlespace and / or high gratitude exercises like red-flag.
2. Shall be able to get the main and basic NG equipments for NG fighter such as AESA radar conformatively before 2014.
3. Having the most complete and well-proved equipment and weapon packages for A2A, A2S, and A2G missions.
Simply speaking, it seems that Brazil AF wants a well-proved omnirole fighter more than an air-superiority fighter with very limited A2G capability, or a prototype fighter with nothing more than lots of promise/anticipation right now.
toan1. F-35 will have HMD and 360 degrees TV/IIR detective system from the beginning ~ It should be very unwise to dogfight with it without HMD.
2. At least four kinds of HMD (Gerfaut, Topsight-E, JHMCS, and DASH-4) had been evaluated by French AF. However, no one could make FAF satisified enough to adopt it. Now it seem that FAF won’t introduce a HMD formally for its Rafale until post-2015 at least.
toan1. The issue of incoporating HMD to Rafale is just like the issue of the issue of incoporating AESA radar to EF-2000 ~ Any foreign customer who wants to equip it before 2015 will have to pay the price by itself.
2. The schedule of new equipments for FAF’s Rafale and RAF’s EF-2K:
A. AESA radar:
* Rafale: from the end of 2011.
* EF-2K: around 2015 perhaps.
B. Helmet-Mounted-Display:
* Rafale: post-2015.
* EF-2K: around 2010.
C. Meteor LRAAM:
* Rafale: unknown, perhaps around the same time as EF-2K.
* EF-2K: post-2013~2014.
D. IIR BVRAAM with data-link:
* Rafale: 2009.
* EF-2K: no plan for such equipment.
E. Air-to-Ship missile:
* Rafale: 2009.
* EF-2K: no plan for such equipment.
F. Nuclear attack:
* Rafale: 2010.
* EF-2K: no plan for such equipment.
G. Range-off cruise missile:
* Rafale: 2006.
* EF-2K: post-2013 perhaps.
H. GPS-guided long range munition:
* Rafale: 2007.
* EF-2K: post-2013 perhaps.
I. LGB guiding capability:
* Rafale: 2009-2010.
* EF-2K: 2007-2008.
J. Tactical reconnaissance:
* Rafale: 2009-2010 with Reco-NG pod.
* EF-2K: 2007-2008 with Lightening III pod + Rover 3
K. Air-to-air refueling capability:
* Rafale: 2005.
* EF-2K: no plan for such equipment.
L. Large (2,000L) external fuel tank:
* Rafale: before 2001.
* EF-2K: post-2013.
toanAbout JSF:
1. GAO: http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d08388.pdf
2. Pentagon, 2008/04/07:
Program costs decreased by $981.3 million (-0.3 percent) from $299,824.1 million to $298,842.8 million, due primarily to the application of revised escalation indices (-$1,955.8 million), lower material estimates because of prime contractor’s material agreements (-$1,650.6 million), and incorporation of revised prime/subcontractor labor rates (-$879.4 million). There was an additional reduction for a revised estimate of support costs (-$7,445.0 million). These decreases were partially offset by higher estimates for elements of procurement nonrecurring costs (+$4,369.0 million), an adjustment to reflect manufacturing actuals for the System Demonstration and Development (SDD) flight test articles (+$3,849.9 million), and a revised propulsion estimate to include additional hardware and increased lift fan cost (+$2,769.1 million). Overall, it should be noted that the Nunn-McCurdy unit costs are stable relative to the current and original baseline estimates.
toanThe main advantages for AASM comparing with GBU-12:
1. Weapon for all-weather.
2. Much Longer range (15~70 km+ vs around 15 km).
3. Better accuracy (96% vs 72% according to the declaration of French AF).
4. Being able to fire-and-forget attack six independent ground target at the same time.
However,
The unit cost of AASM: 143,000 Euros, or roughly equal to 210,000 USD per unit.
The unit cost of GBU-12: 19,000 USD per unit, or roughly equal to the 9% unit costs of AASM.
Sign In
