True, but the guy swallowed half and the rest spoke as one word. My French is a bit rusty.
Now as for square dance, it’s actually less demanding than sustained 9g turn, being broken into 4x9g turns. Each roll off between the turns recovers some of the energy.
However, if not already, I’m quite sure the Rafale will be able pull sustained 9g turn with new engines.
As for EF, well both planes have their pros and cons, BUT they together are a league of their own, compared to other planes in the air.

if you want to see a full sustain 9G turn take a look at this video…The turn begins exactly at 6’04…The turning rate is quite amazing…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqx9X85AAQ

“Rafale handles magnificent during the square dance maneuver compared to Typhoon”.

“Thanks to its excellent FCS” to be more precise. A square dance is four 9 G turn in a row at each corner of the square with a roll on each side. The square dance is very requiring in terms of sustain maneuvrability. So if your air flow is not laminar you will quickly lose your energy despite a high trust to weight ratio.

Ok the typhoon has also its own tricks…It was just to higlight a specificity of the rafale. I know that some one is going to shout here now !

Thx, arthuro (no problem with the French > mostly ).
You’re right, but Rafale does it so easy that it seems 3/4g lower, than actual loading. I forgot how canard planes fly, watching all this elevator-ed c**p. Anyway, great show, thumbs up.

If you can understand french I invite you to listen to the pilot comment from 2’32 to 2’39 precisely (about the square dance). But shhhht ! it’s a secret !;)
don’t tell anybody !

As a modern fast jet, Rafale’s life will be governed not by hours, nor simply by applications of g, but by consumption of fatigue, measured as a Fatigue Index.

As built, and without structural upgrades, you would assume that Rafale would have a life of 100 FI (100% FI). A subsequent upgrade might increase that to 112 or 125 FI, or more.

The calculation has obviously been made that 100 FI will equate to 7,000 hours, assuming a particular sortie profile, and taking into acccount the 8 g service limit. This might represent an increased number of flying hours, or might simply allow an aircraft to meet its planned life if fatigue was being consumed more quickly than had been anticipated.

A nice easy, gentle sortie might consume a small proportion of an FI point, while a more aggressive sortie, heavily loaded, with lots of low level, high g manoeuvring and a high weight landing could consume a whole FI point.

Fatigue consumption is a complex business – as evidenced by the problems with monitoring it in the C-130, whose fatigue meters are inhibited when the aircraft is on the ground, even though wings flexing as the aircraft taxys on a rough strip produce more damage than flying does! Similarly, flying the Tornado F3 without underwing tanks proved to have a dramatic affect on fatigue consumption, while flying with tanks had the opposite effect on the Jaguar.

If every sortie was a ten minute display, pulling 10.5 g ten or more times, a Rafale wouldn’t last anywhere near 7,000 hours (you’d be amassing six landings per hour, as well, so your jet might last less than 600 hours).

The same is true for any and all aircraft.

I won’t speculate on suggested limits we don’t have or we can’t check (we don’ta have all the parameters) but this is true.

Good question I honestly don’t see who will buy them. I had a dinner a few monthes ago with a thales top executive (he is at the head of a division; airborne electronic equipment if I remember well) and told me that many country are interested. But I couldn’t know more about it…

Any particular reason why the B-variant appears to be preferred over the single-seat C-model? Ruet was not in company of a GIB, going by those photos…

An official answer :

Gen. Stephane Abrial
French Air Force Chief

Published: 8 June 2009 Print | Email

Gen. Stéphane Abrial, chief of the Air Force, is bringing the new Rafale frontline fighter into service as aircrews fly combat missions in Afghanistan and forward air controllers wait for delivery of video transmission equipment, expected in the autumn, that allows tighter air-ground coordination with allied forces. He holds industry to delivering the A400M airlifter to specification. The delivery delay forces the service to keep 40-year-old Transall airframes up in the air for the flight hours and operations needed for vital pilot certification.

Gen. Stephane Abrial is chief of the French Air Force. Meanwhile, Abrial is in line for a top job in NATO’s Allied Command Transformation, an appointment seen as a reward for France’s return to the integrated military command structure. Abrial attended the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1974 and won his fighter pilot’s wings in 1976.

Q. Given that a Western air force has not engaged in an aerial dogfight for decades, what is the French Air Force’s main mission?

A. The main mission is deterrence because the nation’s survival is at stake. We’re responsible for the airborne component with the Mirage 2000N and soon, the Rafale with the ASMP/A missile. There is national air security, which guarantees sovereignty of the skies. We assign significant resources in detection, command and control, and interception.

There’s intervention. As you say, for years there hasn’t been an aerial engagement. Does that mean there will never be one? I don’t think so. One day, there’ll be an urgent need for opposition in the third dimension. And there has been the emergence of new actors with drones. The drone marks the beginning of “robotization.” Robotization permits access to the third dimension by new actors. We’re beginning to see that in conflicts, such as in South Lebanon, where there has been an interception of an unmanned drone by a piloted aircraft.

Access to the third dimension becomes easier for nonstate actors and that’s why it’s important to ensure the primary mission, mastery of the sky, because without that mastery, it’s much harder to conduct other aerial operations, and without mastery, you can’t impede the adversary’s movements.

Q. You recently told the corps of military engineers that to be fully interoperable in the Afghan theater, you need the Rover terminal. Will the Damocles targeting and Reco NG reconnaissance pods be compatible?

A. We’re totally interoperable. We demonstrate that every day in Afghanistan with the Rafale and Mirage 2000D, which are fully integrated into the network, into communications, command and control, in the concept of operations and planning. We’re able to exchange information in real time between the air and ground. What’s lacking is a piece of equipment which allows real-time video transmission between air and ground. This equipment appeared recently and imposed itself extremely quickly in operations. We were a bit late because we started off with exchanges of fixed images. Steps are being taken. I have every hope we will begin to equip our forces this autumn. Our approach is to apply lessons from the battlefield to equipment.

Q. What do you say to critics who say that with engagements in complex urban environments, UAVs and precision-guided missiles, there is less need for a Cold War weapon like the Rafale?

A. The operations we’re doing in Afghanistan show the contrary. The Rafale is the only one in its category which is truly multimission. It is equipped with fully fused sensors, with a remarkable man-machine interface, the only one of its generation to be combat-proven. On its third campaign in Afghanistan, what we see is that the choices that were made correspond to operational needs, with the capacity to be inserted into a complex network, with great autonomy, with highly precise sensors and a range of weapons which allows response to all situations.

It is a new aircraft designed with an open architecture, which allows for evolution to meet future strategic environments. The fighter has a long life ahead of it, working in a mixed environment with the drone – which I never call a pilotless aircraft, because there is always a pilot flying remotely.

Q. Connectivity is seen as key to the F-22 and F-35, which are described as flying combat systems. How far are you in developing a concept of operations which fully uses the Rafale’s sensors and communications?

A. The progress the Rafale brings is that it is equipped with a large number of sensors capable of receiving and transmitting real-time information. The information gathered by the sensors is easily usable by the pilot and neighboring aircraft thanks to command-and-control aircraft and satellite communications.

Q. Does the greater workload require more twin-seater Rafales?

A. Yes. Our concept is a mixed fleet with single and twin seaters. The final ratio has not been decided. We’re working on a lot of the lessons from Afghanistan. The initial choice was to acquire twin seaters for training/transformation and the toughest missions, such as nuclear deterrence, and complex and demanding operations. The Rafale has an interface that allows it to be used by a single pilot, but there are situations where two on board is a plus. The ratio of twin seaters at the start is high as first we need to train, and second, we’re equipping the nuclear squadrons, and we need to acquire experience. Eventually, a ratio of 30 [percent] to 60 percent.

This comes from a poster who talked with a rafale pilot at the paris air show. I put it here as a piece of information (It is up to everyone to make its own opinion). Please this is not an occasion to flame…Don’t need to comment for ages…:eek:

Have you been confronted with the Typhoon? And how did it go?
“Yes in close combat and they are surprised” (these are his words). I confirm that the Rafale has the advantage over the Typhoon in this circumstance.
He also tells me that another rival machine (Typhoon, F16, F18, F15) equipped with a helmet sight could seriously complicate the task and make them lose that advantage.

I also asked what the pilots thought the Rafale abroad (exchanges in rear)? “The English and American drivers are impressed by the man-machine interface of the Rafale and the merging of data … and I quote his words” They with envy when they see what we have. “Indeed it near Typhoon I confirm that work on data fusion will be undertaken.

On the issue of super cruise: “It is interesting Air / Air only to intercept fast without too much consum” However he told me “that a missile drop beyond Mach 1.2 did not a significant advantage on the speed of the missile and that it could rather be seen as a disadvantage, because the attacker from even faster in the circle of struggle of his opponent, (and do a turn at high speed after firing for away … hard! hard!) which can also quickly pluck! ”

As regards the fight BVR: I confirm they have never done exercise against the Typhoon. It tells me that the older generation of AMRAM they are close with Mica and that it may be harder with the latest (amram) versions.

The question do you want to have more thrust engine: The answer “A fighter pilot will tell you he always wants to work in hot climates and to be more comfortable in heavy configurations” He indicated that the Rafale to 26 tons is in the pipes!

The question do you want to have more range radar: “Yes, because for an interception is an advantage and I asked if it was not against productive? his answer was “No!”

http://www.air-defense.net/Forum_AD/index.php/topic,2759.8125.html