arthuroin fact we agree on most points.
to finish about PR:
PR is not about lying but putting forward some of your strong points. This article is written in a typical PR style, but I don’t see where they are lying if you make an abstraction of the “lyrical” aspect of this report.
arthurook,
in fact we tend to agree.
The post above yours sum up what I think about PR. It can be an indicator…
just one point:D
but the programme is still profitable and on schedule, which is rare for most military aircraft that call for the introduction of so many new-age systems
which is true according to the french senate inquirery (of course with the new schedule!)
arthurothis is more intresting.
If you eliminate the enthousiasm (we all agree that the style look like PR it is obvious), such as “one of the best “etc etc… I don’t see where is the problem. I mean “sur le fond”
I thought it was so obvious that there was no need to mention it, plus I have every confidence that people are able to understand it by their own. I don’t undererstimate anyone here on this forum.
The article may not be very informative for us, but still I think it deserves to be posted in this thread.
Every one is free to think where the truth lie. I just give the information and then it is up to you to make your own opinion.
But what I would like to stress is the fact that even PR can be interesting if understood carefully.
PR is always an indicator of what is beeing advertised. Lockeed will communicate on F22 strenght such as stealth, SC…Does it mean they are lying due to the simple fact they are speaking about their own product??
Every firm on this planet will try to advertise its products’ strenghts. Perhaps it is a little bit “shiny” but it it still a good indicator of an aircraft strenght in this case.
The discussion I had with people workindg for dassault tell me they are very proud about rafale FCS. For me this is a valuable information, and I m not the kind of person who will start believing “nothing can match rafale FCS…”
This is important because we need to cope with the information which is available, and it is never perfect. The idea that you would have the absolut truth, the perfect info is impossible. I doubt that even a pilot or engineer have it about its own aircraft.
So we must do with what we have, and to lookdown PR is just beeing pedantic.
arthuroYou really have a problem with so called “propaganda”. maybe you should say Public Relationship instead when dassault is speaking.
I know we should be cautious when reading such articles and to talk about it with a critical view, but don’t think everybody is lying to you. This is beeing paranoiac and childish. (I noticed it is a very common habit on internet; I remember after the crash that some people on libeblog were convinced they were manipulated when they said disorierntation was the most likely explaination)
So according to you, if someone is enthousiast it is automaticaly “propagenda”, and there is no ground to talk about that in order to sort out what is pure PR and what is more realistic.
Again, the US navy pilot maybe over enthousiastic, but still he was not obliged to say so if he didn’t beleve a word of what he is saying. It is a good indicator that rafale RCS is good; (I am not saying it the best)
arthuroScorpion 82
anyone here is older enough to be able to take some distance from that kind of article.
Still when the pilot raises some good point like rhe FCS, it confirms the conversations I had with some Dassault or AdA pilots and employees. The FCS is maybe the thing they are the most proud about the rafale.During the last paris airshow one of dassault’s top executive told me that FCS know how will always remain in this firm and they are very attached to this; (they are doing the fcs for the neuron)
Even the mirage 2000 was praised for the quality of its FCS. I can remember a canadian exchange pilot who said it was the aircraft main quality in “air actualité”
That being said, every aircraft have their strong and week points. For instance, they make no mystery that the mirage 2000 lake a bit of power in comparison with their american counterparts, especially since it has a delta configuration.
And there is no need to be paranoiac and to see propaganda each time there is an article about the rafale. When it comes from dassault’s mouth its called propaganda, when it come from an AdA pilots it is called propaganda, and even when it comes from a foreign independent paper with a foreign pilot (US) it is called propaganda!!
I am perfectly aware that in his enthousiasm he could overstate a bit, but still, this pilot is a US navy pilot so his words have a value.
Scorpion, you are one of the most wise poster here, but don’t see any plot theory here exept maybe a little bit to much enhousiasm.
arthuroA nice rafale video from Astan deployement.
intresting to see the OSF working at the beginning of the video.
arthuroThe very little information we have on the F4 tell that this standard is for the AdA as a mid life upgrade, not especially for a foreign customer.
The AdA wants:
-A stronger EW capacity through jamming pods. (There was already a demonstrator called “carbone”)
-and other things still to be defined according to Dassault’s CEO
The F4 is very likely to exist, but not before the end of the post f3 deliveries (60 aircrafts to be ordered next year*) which will start in 2012 and should end in 2015.
*This order is expected for the next budget, but still need to be validated by the programme review scheduled this spring.
arthuroEdelstennes (dassault’s CEO) stated in an intervew for DSI, that the F4 standart is likely to be introduced between 2015-2018 as a mid life improvment. He said they were still at the brain storming stage, but sattelite connexions or EW pods are likely to be integrate in that standart.
In more “speculative” articles in the weekly A&C they spoke about plasma technologies for stealth and jamming.
arthuroAbout stealth, I read in the French weekly air&cosmos a few months ago that Tales found a way to detect stealth at long ranges with a fighter radar (presumably the RBE2 or its AESA variant?). They achieve this by focusing on the turbulences behind the aircrafts, like a weather forecast radar are able to do. They are now trying to make it operational. Not more was said.
arthuroKKM57P,
You are preaching in a desert. I think nobody really takes your arguments seriously…You are the typical guy trolling with the mine is bigger than yours syndrome as there are loads over the internet. You are dragging the discussion to a childish flame war.
Don’t forget to grow up!;)
arthuroAbout RCS,
As I said RCS reduction is always welcome because a contact is very different from a stable lock. With a lock you can know the speed, altitude and direction enabling to give the info for the missile. But to have a lock you need to have the time that your processor calculates all those data. If the contact is not stable there is no chance to have this very useful information. If you add to RCS reduction EW then it may be even harder to have/keep stable lock. So RCS reduction combine with EW is a very worthy solution to increase survivability.
arthuroIn reality, BVR engagements rarely happen at max possible range. In fact in NATO engagement doctrine you must have a positive identification of your target before firing. These stringent rules were implemented to avoid tragic events such as during gulf war1 when blue forces killed blue forces or civilian being killed. (IFF is not always working very well, plus not all NATO aircrafts have the same kind of IFF). In a complex combat theatre where things can evolve very rapidly it is understandable to be very cautious.
During the last tiger meet where rafale f2 were engaged, I remember pilots from st dizzier who praised rafale’s OSF for allowing long range visual identification of ground and air targets enabling them to be the first to engage (simulated mica and AASM)
In addition I have a small experience of using radar on a sailing boat, ands I can tell you that by night it is quite difficult to tell “this spot on the screen correspond to this light on the sea” when they are very close or in the same axis…And it is very hard to have a stable lock on small boat vs container ship (the spot appears an disappears a few seconds later). So to take a decision is not always easy when you want to cross a “cargo sea track”. (There is a big difference between a contact and a stable lock, so I believe RCS reduction is always welcome for military aircrafts)
So I can imagine in an aircraft with much more complex environment, the stress, the fast pace of the decisions to take, the fact that there are many nationalities etc etc…That a very bad mistake could be made.
Indeed, when the rafale entered in service with the French air force (France first Network centric warfare aircraft) pilots quickly learn that a possible common mistake with that kind of aircraft is to over rely on the information provided by the sensor fusion and off board sensors. Your first reflex is to “play” like a video game loosing the appreciation of the complexity of a scenario. And if there is a mistake as it sometimes happens with such complex software, you are disoriented because it is vary hard to return to the basics immediately.
Another drawback of such “god eye view systems” is that pilots are sometimes focusing so hard on one aspect of a tactical situation when the environment becomes very complex (looking at all their screens) that they sometime forget that an aircraft is chasing them!
All this comments are from an 80 pages thesis made by sociologies doctors to explain the impact of the rafale arrival in the AdA. I can post this thesis this evening if someone is interested. (In French of course).
Just to say that we often overlook other factors such as engagement doctrine or human aspects which also have a significant impact: Air warfare is not only a question of theorical performance
arthuroDjcross,
first thank you for giving me your opinion about my post.
I agree with you SC can have an intrest in a AtoG mission to give your bomb more kinetiks. But you must assume you know where to strike at the beginning of the mission. I don’t think you will supercruise above an ennemy territory waiting for a potential threat. If so combat persistance can not be very good.
Where I disagree is about Lgbs. They are complements to SDB, JDAM, AASM…
And it is note a question of generation since passive sensors exist on 4th gen fighters an F35 will be able to carry LGBs;
SdBs are used almost every day in Afganistan and iraq for CAS. The main intrest over GPS bombs is that you have better human control over it. (you have a visual indentification of what you are striking reducing blue on blue strike). SF on the ground can designate targets with their portative laser.
the reactivity an the degree of safness of lgbs make it the perfect counter insurgency weapon. (iraq or afganistan)
A taliban isn’t a radar emmiter allowing indentification throw sophsticated passive sensor!
arthuroI am always amazed to see how people are obsessed with AtoA confrontations (in a mine is bigger than yours syndrome), When the reality of modern air warfare put a much bigger emphasis on the action towards the ground.
The debates “my aircraft can kill your aircraft” or “my aircraft is faster than yours” are just very childish and not interesting at all and the only valid argument is the added value an aircraft bring to the true (and not hypothetical) battlefield.
The combat worthiness of super cruise is close to zero nowadays. It was very valuable in a cold war scenario where the interceptors had to scramble to intercept Warsaw pact aircrafts with ground radar or AWACS support in a defensive stance.
But today I don’t think an aircraft will super cruise for hours waiting for the enemy due to the lack of persistence in such a configuration. Even F22 pilots admit they prefer to fly slowly to remain over the battlefield as long as possible and if needed use the tremendous power of the f22’s engines with AB to make an interception.
And don’t forget super cruise is often achieved at the expense of other characteristics such as payload or range. An F22 is a superb fighter but isn’t able to drop lgbs, harpoon, 1000kgb bombs etc. For the price and the combat worthiness in the war against terror of the f22, we can understand that some American senators or military make fierce criticism.
The typhoon doesn’t have the versatility issue of the f22 but is limited by the amount of external fuel it can carry in AtoG configurations.
So enough of this buzz about SC. It is not the magical thing it is just one parameter among many. It would be smarter to invest in a better AtoA missile rather than making other compromises.
Aircrafts like the SH, F35, SU35 or rafale, are or will, be better multirole platform and thus more combat worthy. They can be very potent air dominance fighter if needed and the claimed edge of the typhoon on this task (not the f22) is far from being obvious.
I would like to add that aircrafts rarely operate alone but with a global support. A Su-30 may be an excellent aircraft, but I don’t think that a dozens of them from regional powers such as Venezuela, Algeria…would be a big problem for NATO. The combination of stand off weapons from air ground and sea, real time intensive high tempo military operations will give NATO an absolute edge. SH, F35, SU35 or rafale with the support of AWACS would be highly sufficient and more useful in the air to ground role.
When one think about air dominance, we should never forget the bigger picture of global military operations. This point is to respond to the usual “what if?” argument.
SH, F35, SU35 or rafale are certainly better compromise than the typhoon or the f22. The f22 and the typhoon are excellent for what they have been design for, but in a post cold war environment there is no need to put so much emphasis on the AtoA role, especially for the typhoon which can’t even claim absolute superiority in this task.
To conclude I would say that comparing aircrafts performance is useless if you don’t ask you “what do this performance bring to the real (and not hypothetical) battlefield? The guys who are fighting against the Taliban today don’t care to much about supersonic agility….And I read on some British forums such as Pprune that some people are very upset that huge amounts of money are spent on the typhoon when there is a lack of hellos and mine/ambush resistant vehicles. I think it would be more interesting to discuss about the global worthiness of an aircraft rather than focusing on specific performances which mean nothing.
Regards.
arthuroKKM57P,
I made a post about a close issue in october on this forum:
I have no figures like everybody, but fom what I have heard from people working for Dassault (I have several relatives who works/worked for this firm starting by my father) they say the AdA choosed the F probe for several reasons:
-The AdA and The MN considers that the refueling probe is a critical element of the aircraft. A failure can have very bad consequences over A-stan or during blue water operations from the CdG
-It saves internal space and weight
-It needs less support. If you look at the bigger picture, it is just one of the solutions found to reduce maintenance and costs. Fixed air intake (for RCS reasons also) and no dorsal brake but the ability to use its canards to be in the max drag configuration.
-effects on the RCS or drag are marginal. From what I have been told, the rafale has a surprisingly low RCS. The whole aircraft have been redisigned with special algorithms to make it stealthier after the “A” demonstrator. A case in point is the junction of the fuselage and the wings. The following rafales after the demonstrator have a blended fuselage and were made more compact to reduce global radar signature (see picture below about the junction). To simplify a little bit, the process went further to just hide the engine blades and put radar absorbant paintings. The shape of the whole airframe changed after the A to make it stealthier. Of course it is not a LO aircraft such as the F22 or the F35, but the process of reducing radar signature went furhter than competing 4.5th gen aircrafts
Just to let you know that there are also sources that tell a diffrent story:
The new aircraft was named the Rafale by Dassault, and the ACX technology demonstrator became
Rafale A. Among the requirements for the new aircraft, three elements were especially
interesting: the decision to design the aircraft with the use of available stealth technologies, while
keeping the accepted aerodynamic lay-out, including radar-absorbing materials (RAMs), shaping
of some features (such as the fuselage, inlets, etc.), and extensive use of composite materials; the
decision to equip the aircraft with a glass cockpit and employ a hands-on throttle and stick
(HOTAS) and fly-by-wire controls; and the decision to integrate all of the avionics, navigation,
fire-control, and self-protection equipment into a single system controlled by a central mission
computer.
The requirement for stealth led to redesigning the fuselage, which produced the Rafale’s present
characteristic shape. A single air intake was split into two side-mounted intakes that were carefully
shaped to prevent an enemy’s radar from observing Rafale from the front hemisphere by getting returns
off the moving parts of compressors. The vertical fin was made of electromagnetic (EM)-
transparent composites. The RAMs initially used caused the black color of the Rafale C
prototype,prototype, but special EM-transparent paints were later developed so the aircraft could receive
any color scheme. All of those undertakings dramatically reduced the radar cross-section (RCS)
of the Rafale, especially from the front. It is very difficult to assess the Rafale’s RCS due to the high
level of classification, but sources have unofficially said that Rafale has a much lower RCS than the
Typhoon, a fighter of roughly the same size.Initially, a more stealthy version of Rafale was to be developed. It was named Rafale D (D for “discret,”
or stealth) and was to be built in land-based and naval versions. But it was later decided that the serial
Rafale would be of reduced overall size and that, with the end of the Cold War, such high levels of
stealthiness would not be required.
this is an extract from this article :
The Rafale is poised to become Europe’s premier fighter-bomber
by Michal Fiszer
Jun. 6, 2005
That being said, I don’t want to be drag in any flame war (which is something very hard). What I post is not aimed to offend you, but to show you that sources which claim that rafale has a lower RCS also exist.
PS: and also, most of the intrest of close coupled canards are the interaction with the wings. If it was only a matter of longer moment harm, I don’t understand why all the engineers pass phd degrees and the like to make such a basic mistake of close couple canards:D !
-supersonic agility is not very combat relevant today (and it is often et the expense of other more combat relevant caracteristics such as combat persistance, or load out configurations)
This is my point of view and it is debatable.
Sign In
