Range and NEZ can be very different things, old feller. I should have made it clear that I wasn’t disputing that Mica has a longer max range than ASRAAM, just that accurate missile parametrics, especially when you get into ‘Poles and NEZ figures are not openly available.

TMor,

When we come to relative agility, I’d gently point out that while Fonk’s analyses were, as you suggest, simplistic (where has he gone, by the way?), the para I wrote about Rafale’s short moment arm limiting the range of CG variation, and thus limiting agility in all but the basic AA configurations, was an almost direct quote from a trained TP and professional aerodynamacist.

Both aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages, but they are optimised for slightly different roles. Optimised. That doesn’t mean that Dassault ignored A-A any more than EF GmbH ignored A-G. It’s about the way in which priorities are weighed. But A-A was less of a priority to Dassault (who HAD to address the A-G requirement and 10 tonne limit and carrier approach constraints before addressing A-A performance) than it was to EF GmbH.

Even in a sustained turn, lift alone is unimportant. Turn performance is still a function of lift, drag, thrust and control power. And because of the sophistication of l/e devices, etc. you can’t say that Rafale’s wing produces more lift because of its better optimised l/e sweep. It’s just one factor among many.

Wing sweep brings advantages AND disadvantages

Pros
Delay and reduction of subsonic drag rise
Reduction in transonic trim changes
More gradual variation in CL (lift coefficient) across the transonic region
Extension of buffet boundaries
Drag reduction in supersonic flight
*
Cons
Reduction in lift curve slope
Higher drag-due-to-lift (ie lift induced drag)
Sweep increases roll due to sideslip (roll/yaw coupling= badness)
Sweep contributes to tip stall tendencies
Reduced effectiveness of contol surfaces and high lift devices

and many of these can be addressed in other ways.

Read that in Jane’s did you, Nic?

Any aircraft that would double in amplitude every 0.7 seconds without its FCS is unstable. Like the F-16 and the Rafale. I don’t think that Robban or I were inferring otherwise. But truly unstable aircraft like Typhoon, Gripen, and F-22 are an order of magnitude more unstable, and, given equal or greater thrust, control power and lift/drag, are significantly more agile.

“But fast AoA build-ups only change incidence, not the vector. Lift and thrust do.”

You mean Alpha or Angle of Attack, rather than incidence, really. But that is why I’m defining agility as the product of lift, thrust and control power.

However, the ability to pull the nose off axis has its own applications and relevance in BFM, so pointing the nose, whether or not you change the vector, can be useful. Isn’t that exactly why we got quite so excited by the MiG-29 and Su-27 15-20 years ago?

Robban,

Thanks, that’s interesting. The figures are close to the more recent figures I had for what the Brits call “time to double amplitude.” This is*what happens if the computers fail, or when the actuators reach their rate limit or freeze.*

TMor,

It’s not anti-French, it’s simple fact. Because of the longer*moment arm Typhoon has compared to Rafale its canards are able to hold a greater*destabilizing force ‘in check’. Simple physics. The unstable aircraft needs to have sufficient control power to arrest the rapid build up of pitch rate that the basic configuration is capable of generating. (This control power is provided by the long moment arm on Typhoon, and by very powerful actuators on Gripen). It doesn’t require the computers to react faster, since these*are already running at 50 Hz which is quite fast enough.*

It’s symptomatic of a difference in philosophy, in which Eurofighter stressed instability, and Dassault didn’t. Without wishing to reignite old controversies, this was because Dassault were producing a light, carrier capable fighter bomber, while Eurofighter wanted an agile unstable fighter. Both aircraft have their advantages and disadvantages, but they are optimised for slightly different roles.

This is why Dassault chose a close coupled delta canard configuration
this gives a short moment arm to work with which must mean that the range of CG variation must be quite small, and this will limit agility in all but
the basic AA configurations, but will have advantages in the A-G role.

Before Fonk leaps in with yet more accusations that Typhoon’s configuration and sweep means that its wing produces less lift than Rafale’s and that Typhoon is thus less agile, I’d point out that: “agility is defined as the ability to quickly change your ‘vector’* (ie direction and velocity combined). So you need to define agility as the product of lift, thrust and control power.”

Lift alone is unimportant.

And in any case, an unstable aircraft will be able to use canards, leading edge and trailing edge surfaces to trim the aircraft to give the same lift at a given speed, without increasing angle of attack or angle of incidence.

Not a bad comparison, but you could equally pick a non-upgraded F-16 or something like an F-5S. The FRS.Mk 1 could also carry Sea Eagle, various dumb bombs, SNEB (IIRC) and WE177!

The key to FA2 is APG-65 with two AIM-120 (practically), two ‘winder, Sea Eagle/dumb/LGB

Why would he look for something that challenged his narrow minded nationalistic prejudices?

Where do you think JSF would be without UK technology?

No FCS for the STOVL version, for starters, and both engines would be the poorer.

Shouldn’t you be thanking us?