The A400 has that resonance control thingy, which i don’t understand very well, can somebody explain me better?
If you direct me to the source i might be able to figure exactly what you are refering to, apparently it is linked to vibration coming to armony with each other…
I am VERY critifcal of what way Airbus handled the design of A400M.
The article states:
And in the data sheet (Rafale B):
This datasheet and article refers to the weights as basic Empty (with equipement and undrained fuel) NOT Empty, more to it the B01 is ALSO an instrumented aircraft.
Please inform yourself as to what the difference between them is.
Thank you. 😎


Here are the empty weights for the C and B versions as provided by the French Minister of Defense as well as that of the M (to compare with the actual Marine Nationale website) weights and difference between them EMPTY.
Masses :
à vide : 10 196 kg
maximale : 24 000 kg
à vide : 10 196 kg
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/decouverte/equipements/aeronefs/rafale_m
Q: Is 10.3 tonnes the empty weight of Rafale B or Rafale C??
Basic weight = Empty weight equiped, same as for the Rafale Switzerland PDF.
Rafale C weights 9.500 kg empty.
A: The same class of level acceleration as the one declared by RAF pilots for their own EF-2000 Typhoon.
We think that looking at their respective aerodynamic arrangements, Rafale would rival Typhoon on this field at up to M 1.6 >.
Full authority digital FBW controlling a highly agile (very aerodynamically unstable) platform.
Rafale stength are in the M 0.9/1.6 bracket, High AoA behavior, instantaneous turn rate, high level of damping providing with very high level of roll/pitch onset.
“I have never experienced any fighter aircraft start or stop to roll so quickly”.
A: A good reference for Rafale’s combat flight endurance with clean configuration.
Its fuel fraction is higher than many.
Nor for quite some time now.
Yes. Still for along long time to go.
Not only does it not accurately represent the ACTUAL area of the ‘wing’ but also ignors a quite significant amount of lift provided by things other than the ‘wing’.
LOL As if F-35 was a flying wing perhaps?
The problem for you then is DRAG, internal weapon baies works on low-drag designs not that sort of subsonic arrangements, see F-106, then mid-mounted wings reduces induced wave drag as well, not so much the case of cantilevers…
Whatever way you turn it, f-35 is way draggier and optimised for much lower Machs.
Thats what a lot of people (especially “fanboys”) forget, is the weight. No matter if its internal, you still have to lump all that weight about. If you watch Formula 1 you’ll hear the commentaters mention all the time that weight KILLS everything, speed, agility, acceleration, just the overall performance of the car. The very exact same can be said for fighters.
Sure, in which case a Typhoon, Rafale or Gripen have the clear advantage not to have to carry the extra weight and drag of the internal weapon bay (volume).
As for 30 kg for a M 2.0+/ 9.0+ AAM Pylon with negligeable drag even with the AAM fitted to it.
Since at least one of them demonstrated supercruise at M 1.2 with 4 AAMs and a 1.250 l/ 9.0 g tank, a configuration capable of M 1.6, you have the idea of the potential once the supersonic external tank is droped.
Clearly the specs were different. 😎
Making up stories from nothing?
That’s what you keep alleging people does and still do, so WHO dit it and WHEN?
It would be nice if you were to stop twisting people’s word in their mouth, you did it for the THIRD time in this very topic.
This is a totaly irrespectful and deshonest thing to do. 😡
But of course yourslef have no problem living with Mirage 2000 not being as modern and agile fighter as is F-16 MLU do you?
Those who are consistantly making this kind of unfunded suggestions about aircraft capabilties and pilots experiences are those who are making up stories.
NOT those who you keep alleging are, and if you can find the evidences of what you allege then post it, otherwise, just stop lying about other posters.
Here; another apparently knowlegeable (but having a different opinion) writer who could yes take the flack too, for telling things from a different perspective…
By Test engineer
on November 11, 2009 2:25 AM | Reply
The basic point of the Rafale is not well understood even P Collins (who participated to JSF) almost mentionned it.
In the nineties after the Rafale A aerodynamic demonstrator, Dassault had to made a choice:
-Either go to passive stealth level of USA which imply having internal bay (and to accept price)
-Or to carry external loads with a LO RCS and rely on active systems to achieve right level of survivability.Rough calculation show that having 0,001m² RCS of stealth need an internal bay but it increases by 50% empty mass of plane and so its engine and accordingly its airframe cost (and fuel consumption and so its life owning cost) .
Alternative was to achieve saying a 0,1m² RCS ( illustrative) then improving to 0,01 m² maybe a decade later while taking opportunity of increased super computing power for RCS calculation and design, and compensate by state of the art and outstanding ECM active systems to get proper level of survivability.
Moore law show that increase of the performance of computers per unit cost doubles every 24 months (and so improve active signature management systems).
While a passive stealth relying airframe have fewer margin of improvement.What makes more sense?
Adding 20 millions $ per airframe to achieve 0,001 m² RCS or invest in a 10 millions $ outstanding ECM system combined to a LO 0,1 m² RCS then less in the futur by incremental improvement?
Plus some special ammunitions like AASM to extend survivability against state of the art air defense, or Mica IR for BVR passive intercept.
For the systems, captors and datafusion Rafale follow 5th generation roadmap and approach.I consider that Rafale F4 will be probably a 5th generation aircraft since it is survivability which matters and not the way you achieve it.
Maybe USA have done a system engineering mistake with F35 approach.Does F35 compromise still make sense since less than 200 F22 would support them instead of 700+?I think a problem of USA programs are the way they manage contractual relations between DoD and aircrafts manufacturers with rigid internal rules.
In France Dassault define and proposed largely by itself what should be the design of Rafale and invested 25% of program cost itself.
http://www.flightglobal.com/blogs/the-dewline/2009/11/rafale-beats-f-35-f-22-in-flig.html
Funny, this guy describes exactly the principle behind the Rafale conceipt as explained to us years ago by its conceptors, and yet he is not French.
How bizarre.
I disagree!! 🙂
Try a technical discution with a Squadron pilot then with a test pilot.
You will realise how different the thinking is, a test pilot would analyse and compare performances according not only to what he knows by flight experience but also specific training, more stringent (and specific) standards and procedures as well as further theories and general knowlege of the subject of flying fast jests to their ultimate limits.
For example the Rafale Demo Pilots needs to train specificaly for it, it is already a different thinking and level of flying altogether.
He’s got a pretty good idea of what the performances in the Typhoon or Gripen are like, even so (we don’t know) he didn’t fly them.
He also have a great experience of modern, agile Aircraft with the Mirage 2000 unless you believe that this definition is reserved to F-16 MLUs.
arthuro
He is perfectly entitled to speak about 4th and 5th gen ! Hey we do it all the time and we even haven’t got a single ride in a 4th gen jet !
Since when is Rafale a 4th generation jet anyway?
It flew 5 or 6 years before YF-22, same for Mirage 2000 not being (modern and agile), Rafale is already equiped with “5th generation” systems and there are newer, more performant sensors to come, we know it (what we don’t know for sure is the state of the 90 Kn engine developement).
Simultaneous Firing of the AASM-IR and the MICA-EM
(Source: French Air Force; issued Nov. 9, 2009)
(Issued in French; unofficial translation by defense-aerospace.com)
A French air force Rafale has for the first time fired an AASM guided bomb and a Mica air-to-air missile during the same mission, demonstrating its operational flexibility. (French AF photo)On Tuesday, October 27, 2009 a Rafale belonging to the French air force’s trials unit, the Centre des Expériences Aériennes Militaires (CEAM) at Mont-de-Marsan, fired during a single mission two types of weapons into the Biscarosse firing range.First, the aircraft fired an AASM-IIR (air-ground modular weapon) equipped with an infra-red imaging (IIR) homing head to engage a ground target. The AASM-IIR hit the target area with the expected accuracy after having traveled thirty miles from the point of firing off the coast.
The aircraft then fired a Mica EM (missile interception, combat and self defense) air-to-air missile fitted with a radar homing head, and hit a remote-controlled target simulating an aerial threat. Both firings were successful.
These firings demonstrate the Rafale’s ability to deliver long-range precision weapons while retaining its self-defense capabilities against aerial threats.
The AASM-IIR is an improved variant of the AASM INS / GPS (inertial guidance hybridized GPS) guided bomb used since 2008 in Afghanistan.Like the previous version, the AASM-IIR has a guidance system that combines GPS and INS (inertial navigation), but adds an infrared guidance system.
With hybrid GPS/inertial guidance, the accuracy obtained is metric (between 5 and 10 meters). By adding an infrared imager, accuracy increases to less than five meters.
After release from the aircraft, the AASM-IIR heads to the designated target area whose coordinates were previously programmed into the inertial navigation system. In the terminal phase, the weapon is guided to the target by comparing the observed scene to the one in its memory, thereby increasing accuracy of the point of impact.
Both versions of the AASM offer a flexible precision-guided attack capability, while allowing the Rafale to remain outside the effective range of enemy defenses, thereby adding to its operational versatility as it can simultaneously fly close air support and deep strike missions.The CEAM hopes to deliver the AASM-IIR to operational units in early 2010.
A third version of the weapon, the AASM Laser, whose use would be preferred against moving targets, is currently under development.
Tir simultané de l’AASM-IR et du MICA-EM
Mardi 27 octobre 2009, un Rafale, du centre d’expériences aériennes militaires (CEAM) de Mont-de-Marsan, a délivré, au cours de la même mission, deux types d’armement, dans la zone du centre d’essais et de lancement de missiles de Biscarosse. Le Rafale a tiré dans un premier temps l’AASM-IIR (armement air sol modulaire) équipé de l’imageur infrarouge (IIR), destiné à traiter une cible au sol. L’AASM-IIR a touché la zone avec la précision attendue, après avoir parcouru une cinquantaine de kilomètres depuis le point de tir au large des côtes. Puis l’avion a tiré un missile air/air Mica (missile d’interception, de combat et d’autodéfense) équipé d’un autodirecteur électromagnétique, sur un objectif téléguidé simulant une menace aérienne. Ces deux tirs ont été réalisés avec succès. Ils démontrent la capacité du Rafale à délivrer un armement de précision de longue portée, tout en assurant sa défense face à des menaces aériennes.
L’AASM-IIR est une évolution de l’AASM INS/GPS (guidage inertiel hybridé GPS), utilisé depuis 2008 en Afghanistan. Comme la version précédente, l’AASM-IIR possède un système de guidage GPS et INS (centrale à inertie), mais aussi un système de guidage par infrarouge. Avec un guidage inertiel «hybridé» GPS, le niveau de précision obtenue est métrique (entre 5 et 10 mètres). En ajoutant un imageur infrarouge, la précision du tir est inférieure à cinq mètres. Après son largage de l’avion, l’AASM-IIR se dirige jusqu’à la zone désignée, dont les coordonnées géographiques ont été au préalable programmée dans la centrale à inertie. Dans sa phase terminale, l’armement se guide en comparant la scène observée au modèle renseigné dans son système afin d’augmenter la précision du point d’impact.
Les deux versions du l’AASM offrent une capacité de tir de précision modulable, tout en permettant au Rafale à rester hors de portée des moyens de défense antiaériens ennemis. Cette précision confère au Rafale une grande polyvalence dans les misions. Il assure simultanément des missions d’appui aérien rapproché (CAS – close air support) et des missions d’assaut avec un tir en profondeur (AI-air interdiction).
Le CEAM espère pouvoir livrer l’AASM-IIR aux forces début 2010. Une troisième version, l’AASM-laser, dont l’utilisation serait privilégiée contre les cibles mobiles, est actuellement en cours de développement.
Texte : Ltt Relly Laetitia
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/base/breves/2009/novembre/tir_simultane_de_l_aasm_ir_et_du_mica_em
But the F-16 in its original configuration is about as useful as a bus load of pregnant women. It wasn’t until it assumed its multi role duties that it came into its own.
We know what the specs where, it doesn’t mean it performances in this configuration are lower, if we can’t compare them in this one then the comparison becomes unfair in heavier configuration.
The next generation is designed to be capable of higher performances with more useful A2A loads.
I see 4 GBUs on the Falcon, and 2 AAMs.
That’s 33% more than the internal capability of the F-35.
So what’s the standard load? 6 weapons? or 4? Make up your minds already.
Well, becoming Multi-role is precisely what took the F-16 from it’s original (requiered/designed) configuration.
Compare original Combat weights to get the real difference in performances.
F-35 combat persitence have increased by two AAM so far but i am not sure it beat F-35 in this configuration gun only, on maneuvrability only.
There’s no suggestion that he’s ever flown the F-35.
Even so he wouldn’t have, the guy got a knowlege base you can only dream of.
Since i don’t suppose you know many qualified Flight test pilots even less flew with some, i can insure you that while you have little clues about F-35 flight envelop on what you write about it, he would know tons more than you do just looking at it.
So those who are consistantly trying to imply he doesn’t have the experience to compare should qualify at Edward AFB IPNER or better before suggesting such a thing.
you’re using fanboy maths, arent you
it has been stated that a loaded rafle is m .9
.9 is not half of 1.2.
Well theres the story its not the typhoon vs rafale experience… its the Rafale vs the F-35.
Precisely; didn’t Serge Dassault said, years ago (2002/04?) at the Singapore Airshow that they viewed F-35 as their only technologic compertitor?
Passedthe amount of braging involved it sums up exactly what the Rafale programe is all about.
Interesting
Cheers
As always courteous and straight to the point.
Pleasure.
well i was close to a f111 being nearly twice as fast 😎
NO you weren’t, from where i’m standing 750 X 2 = 1500 and 0.90 X 2 = M 1.8.
Forget about Rafale it is way more pefromant than F-111 appart in the top right corner of the flight envelop, and it does the best A2A there is too.
Read this. 😎
Tir simultané de l’AASM-IR et du MICA-EM
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/base/breves/2009/novembre/tir_simultane_de_l_aasm_ir_et_du_mica_emTir Mica depuis un Rafale F2 : quand le chasseur devient la cible…
dont be silly, with internal bombs and juice @ m 1.2
whats rafale low max. with external bombs and juice ?
M 0.82 cruise, Mach 0.90 maxi, 5.5 g; these are the loads of the weapons, a Rafale in A2A configuration is cleared to 750 kt (although perhaps without tanks and not all AAMs), the external tank limit is M 1.6, 9.0 g (empty for the 2.000 l).
http://www.interestinwine.co.uk/images/categories/le_pin/le_pin_1.jpg
😉
Cheers
LOL!
This is the choice of a connaisseur, but you can bring the mousseux if you wish. 😉
Evénements
Dates
Premier vol du premier avion de série Air Nov. – 1998
Premier vol du premier avion de série Marine Oct. – 1999
Première livraison à la marine Juil. – 2000
Qualification du standard F1 Déc. – 2001
Mise en service opérationnel (MSO) de la flottille 12 F Juin – 2004
Première livraison à l’armée de l’air Déc. – 2004
Qualification du standard F2.1 Déc. – 2005
Qualification du standard F2.2 Juin – 2006
Inauguration du premier escadron Air à Saint-Dizier
Juin – 2006Livraison du centre de simulation Rafale (CSR) de Saint-Dizier Déc – 2007
Qualification du standard F3 Juil. – 2008
Livraison du centre de simulation Rafale (CSR) de Landivisiau Nov. – 2008
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/dga/dossiers/le_rafale
True it could have gone faster but…
I have always tried to look at the best aspect of things…
The systems are coming out after a long developement (still some doubts about the ECO 9K though) and if France had three time the number of Rafale today, the cost for upgrading them (F1, F2, F3 to the future F3+) would be simply enormous.
So at the end of the day it’s just as well deliveries were initialy slow, and developement steady and sustained.