JackonickoAnything called a Dossier de Presse is not what I’d describe as “you can’t get more accurate.”
And when Dassault themselves now give the C weight as “about ten tonnes” and when other good sources give 10,300 kg as the empty weight, 9,850 kg (the old Jane’s figure) is plainly out-of-date and wrong, and 9,500 kg is even more so.
Bear in mind that since M.Fonk was giving the weights as:
Rafale C = 9,090 Kg
Rafale B = 9,540 Kg
Rafale M = 9,650 Kg
back in 2005, several countries have been briefed in detail on the aircraft, and while Rafale’s weight is not given in detail to the press and public, they would have been accurately briefed, and I suspect that these countries are behind some of the 10,300 kg reports, while AdlA sources have also given empty weights in line with the 10,300 kg figure for Rafale C (10,650 for the B, for example).
Unwittingly, Pilot THX gave some credence to this kind of weight figure when he posted that:
“There was a nice report from a french journalist flying in the backseat of Rafale B302. He claimed the takeoffweight was 16,4t with a 1250 l tank and 4 MICAs.
So let’s subtract 16,4 t minus 1,4 t (should be the weight of tank and for MICAs). So you have 15 t.
Oh it’s becoming interesting let’s subtract 4,3 t of internal fuel and we have at least 10,7 t empty weight for a Rafale B.”
Now that’s for B302, a test aircraft with test instrumentation, but also then without OSF and Spectra, and without the beefed up production landing gear, and limited to a 21 tonne MTOW.
Moreover, I suspect that Fonk’s figures date back from before the production RBE2 installation, before Spectra, and before the landing gear was beefed up to allow the 24.5 tonne MTOW.
On weight, it should be pointed out that Typhoon was never 9,750 kg – that was only ever a target weight at the time of the Turin agreement, and that requirement changes meant that by the time metal was cut, even the TARGET weight was higher. This disparity is, however, what lies behind the claims of a 1.1 tonne weight increase in Typhoon.
JackonickoOK, I’m not being rude, but what empty weights, fuel weights, wing areas and MTOWs do you blokes think that you’re using?
Typhoon’s empty weight fluctuated around 10.65 – 10.7 tonnes during the design phase, and is 11 tonnes now, including some ballast for optimum CofG (the price of maximising the instability and pitch rate, and of the supersonic agility).
That’s for Blocks 1/2/2B. Block 5 jets are about 25 kg heavier thanks to the HMS and its associated power supplies. All other kit (PIRATE, etc.) from Block 5 is ballasted in earlier blocks. Tranche 2 jets are fractionally lighter.
The weight difference between a single-seater and a two-seater is negligible – thanks to the two-seater’s smaller airbrake.
Contrary to some suggestions, the RAF T1 jets deployed to Singapore were full weight aircraft. When you’re maintaining the C of G within a ‘box’ the size of an A4 sheet of paper, stripping them to reduce weight would have been impractical.
The only Wing Area figure I have is 50 m2.
As far as I can determine (and Dassault and the Armée de l’Air are coy about weights), Rafale C weighs in at 10,300-kg empty in operational fit. That DOES NOT INCLUDE CFTs. Dassault now admit only to “about 10 tonnes” (“une masse à vide d’environ 10 tonnes”) – the old 9.1, 9.3-9.4, 9.850 tonne figures were an aspiration, but were seemingly not achieved, and are superceded if not discredited. Wing area is 45.7 m2.
Rafale B is claimed to be 350-kg heavier than Rafale C, and Rafale M is supposed to be 670 kg heavier than the C.
Typhoon carries 4,990 kg of fuel (4,840 kg for the T1A). Rafale C carried 4,560 kg – though this has been increased in recent figures to 4.7 tonnes. Whether or not this increase is a ‘real world’ increase or a newly blurred figure is unclear.
JackonickoI see nothing that suggests that delivery of any aircraft is imminent, only that the proposal (prepared during the Chirac era) is ready to be signed.
Interesting that it’s a Government to Government deal, and not a sale by Dassault. This might imply generous (even subsidised) or flexible terms or that the sale is part of a wider deal including training and technical support from the Armée de l’Air.
One can only applaud this long awaited first export sale of Rafale, and hope that nothing happens to derail it.
Rafale is an excellent ‘fit’ for Morocco, and one can only hope that Libya’s rehabilitation will be quick enough to allow another North African sale.
If aircraft are to be diverted from French deliveries or line positions, it would be interesting to see whether the Armée de l’Air took the opportunity to divest itself of its few single-seaters.
JackonickoIt’s all gone a bit quiet with the PR9s….
JackonickoWhat’s this “not until 1942 in India” jazz?
And why would anyone want to remember the Defiant, Blenheim, or Gladiator?
JackonickoThe Canberra’s frontline military career is over, the IAF having retired its last few aircraft. A number of aircraft are still performing useful service in the USA, and two PR9s may yet go back to the UK MoD on lease, while the status of Peru’s aircraft remains uncertain.
And the jet has just celebrated the 58th anniversary of its first flight.
Jackonicko1) “I don’t think the typhoon is in another class in terms of kinematics, better, yes but in a other class is exagerated.”
We’ll have to agree to disagree. Supercruise with 4 BVR AAM and two IRH, and 4 g at Mach 1.6 are decisive advantages that do put Typhoon in a different class – at least in this narrow area.
2) “Plus you forget what high off bore sight missile+new helmet bring into the fight. It is an equilizer…… you see, even a mig21 can be as capable as a F22!”
I don’t forget that at all. But I was talking BVR, where they are less relevant. But even ‘visual’ when the enemy has an HMSS and a high off boresight missile, then you need to be able to accurately and reliably point the nose off axis so that you can get him in your own helmet sight, and get your missile seekers on target before he does, or even to get a shot off with the missile coming straight off the rail (by pointing the nose at him) without burning a huge amount of its energy in a 90° turn off the rail, reducing its effectiveness and range.
3) “And rafale in falklands should grant absolute superiority without a doubt.”
True, today, but at the moment even Tornado F3 guarantees it. But give Argentina a dozen Su-27s and the situation would be too much for four Rafales to deal with.
4) “Singapore choosed the F15…older than rafale and typhoon…If it was so vital for them to have absolute air superiority why didn’t they waited for typhoon. The 3 contender are all formidable air superiority machine able to face any adversary efficiently.”
The reasons for Singapore’s choice have more to do with politics, timescale and historic uncertainty about Typhoon’s A-G capabilities than A-A capability. Neither F-15 nor Rafale are in the same class as Typhoon in the A-A environment, though both outclass Typhoon as A-G platforms.
“(F15 is mach 2,5 very nice kinematics for a BVR shot in your logic).”
The F-15 would have wonderful BVR launch performance clean, climbing to height and accelerating to speed very rapidly – but hang any missile on it, and far from being a Mach 2.5 aircraft, it’s not even Mach 2, while its supersonic turn rate is modest, so the ‘Kinematics’ are unimpressive.
5) “But exept that you overstate a little typhoon AtoA superiority (in the same league as rafale, probably a little bit better but nothing decisive) I agree with most of what you said.”
Rafale and Typhoon are not ‘in the same league’. Rafale enjoys significant advantages in the air-to-ground role, while Typhoon enjoys a decisive edge in air-to-air BVR, and a modest advantage WVR. It’s a mistake to view them as being equivalent, as both were optimised for slightly different role priorities.
JackonickoArthuro,
There’s no doubt that Rafale has impressive legs, and a very good payload.
It’s perhaps the best fighter-bomber in service today, and it has a very healthy air-to-air capability – outclassing the best ‘developed Flanker’ type of threat.
Often that will be enough – because there won’t be an air threat, or because the air threat will be poorly flown, or because it will be somewhere short of the best ‘developed Flanker’.
But when the air threat is more capable, then exchange ratios are crucial. If you lose one Rafale for every three enemy aircraft you down, public support and political will will erode far quicker than if you were losing one for every seven or eight enemy aircraft you shoot down. Raids that you might stop with a better fighter might ‘leak through’.
And while Rafale has a very impressive WVR capability, it’s ‘kinematics’ are simply not in the same class as those of the F-22 or Typhoon. It may be ‘too close to call’ when compared to the F-15 or F/A-18E/F BVR, but not when compared to the F-22 and Typhoon.
Now it may be that BVR air combat against the most difficult threats is something best left to your coalition partners – and that Rafale represents a better and more sensible and “more useful more often” asset than Typhoon. Perhaps France, with its Mirage 2000Cs and geopolitical situation needs its “unmatched fighter bomber that is also a great air to air aircraft” more than (say) the UK, which might have a need to defend the Falklands, or (say) Singapore, which might face someone else’s Su-30s, and which mmight need an “unmatched air to air aircraft that is also a great fighter bomber.”
The LDP is placed on the centreline for rigidity, field of view, ease of airframe masking, to avoid screwing around with the AMRAAM launch sequence, and because operational analysis suggested that two tanks were sufficient for the kind of ops envisaged by the customers.
And it’s 3,000 litres external, not 2,000.
JackonickoHmmm.
It’s easy to under-state Typhoon’s reach, multi-role capabilities and payload/range.
Remember that IPA3 recently flew with:
1 Litening pod, 4 x 1,000 EPW, 2 tanks, 4 BVRAAMs and two SRAAMs.
If that’s not sufficiently ‘persistent’, then you’re in trouble.
In Iraq and Afghanistan in 2007, BVR capability is as irrelevant as you think, Arthuro, and you’d be better off with a B-26 than a Rafale or a Super Hornet – but who knows what the next situation will demand?
We should not make the assumption that tomorrow’s war will be the same as today’s.
There are plenty of potential opponents out there with potent BVR threat aircraft – and if your own BVR capabilities will result in a 2:1 exchange ratio, you’ll win, but at prohibitive cost. That’s where and when the much higher exchange ratios enjoyed by Typhoon and F-22 are valuable.
JackonickoKovy,
If Data Links and offboard sensors were all-important, the poor old Tornado F.Mk 3 would always have been the king of BVR. And sometimes they helped it to be exactly that. But in many (even most) circunstances, the fundamental physics of a BVR engagement remain fundamental.
I can see why someone with a vested interest in a platform with less impressive supersonic agility would want to minimise its importance, but you’d need to be very dim, or very indoctrinated, to swallow that line uncritically.
Opit,
When you engage, you turn to the gimbal limit as quickly as possible. Speed, acceleration and supersonic agility are crucial.
“Speed is crucial in that you really don’t want to be supersonic at this stage, in order to not decrease your A-Pole and F-Pole.”
You want to be supersonic at launch – the reasons should be obvious even to you.
You want to be fast enough to maintain energy as you break to the gimbal, because you want as much displacement from the target as possible, to make life hardest for your opponent’s missile.
You want your A-Pole (The distance between you, the missile-firing platform, and your target, at the instant the missile becomes autonomous) to be as great as possible, but at that instant you want to be turning 180° and bugging out (fast enough to survive the return missile shot, which you hope will be running out of energy). You really don’t want to be coming out of that turn subsonic, with a Mach 2 missile bearing down on you. Being supersonic at this stage guarantees the biggest possible F-Pole (The distance between you, the missile-firing platform, and your target, at the instant your missile reaches its target).
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that all this talk of my bias, arrogance, narrow-mindedness and stupidity is just a French thing, or that it is a function of your misguided enthusiasm and poor command of English (if only my French were half as good as your English…) and I’ll refrain from name-calling.
But your analysis of BVR makes it unnecessary for me to call you names. :rolleyes:
JackonickoOpit,
You don’t understand BVR, do you?
When you engage, you turn to the gimbal limit as quickly as possible. Speed, acceleration and supersonic agility are crucial.
You don’t go steaming on towards the target until your missile hits, you know. You turn away as soon as your missile goes ‘active’ and the more supersonic agility you have at that point, the more chance you have of escaping the enemy missile that’s been fired at you. Speed, acceleration and supersonic agility are crucial.
You don’t seem to understand English either. Try:
“Were it not the case, why would they be going to quite the amount of effort and expense in developing DRAAMA?”
Trouble does not mean ‘difficulty’ in this context. To take trouble means to take great care.
And Selex are not having headaches with CAESAR, which seems to be going very well, and which will soon be flying on DA5.
My characterisation of Rafale’s MMI is entirely accurate, whereas your attempt to equate Typhoon’s with teen-series fighters is beneath contempt.
Your lack of courtesy, and your stooping to call others ‘narrow minded’ when you trot out quite such infantile regurgitation of Dassault PR spin make you appear to be a fool. I’m sure that you’re not, and that your enthusiasm has got the better of your manners. Thank goodness for equally passionate, but rather less ignorant French enthusiasts like TMor.
JackonickoThat’s a fascinating question, TMor.
I don’t have reliable figures for Mirage 2000’s radar range, and scan angles, nor for the type’s supersonic acceleration and agility.
I’d suspect that it might (MIGHT) be impressive first shot, but that it would bleed energy like a good ‘un making it a bit vulnerable thereafter.
But it’s clear that only radar range and grunt give the F-15 any edge over Rafale, and that outside the BVR arena, it doesn’t even enjoy parity with Rafale.
Jackonicko“I’m curious as to why the arming of the RAF’s new Reapers is a news-worthy article……”
Perhaps it was the only faintly newsworthy thing that Glenn had to say when he had dinner with the Independent Defence Media Association last week? 😉
JackonickoTMor,
Both Joust and SILVE were BVR based, but took account of second and third BVR shots and of ‘leakers’ that had to be dealt with WVR.
I wouldn’t want to make too much of JOUST or SILVE, but equally, though JOUST under-estimated some Rafale capabilities (and over-stated others!) the way in which JOUST is routinely dismissed by French enthusiasts is ignorant and silly.
JackonickoWRONG!
The optimum speed for BVR combat is up in the Mach 1.6 area, any faster and you’re closing too fast, any slower and you’ll lack the energy to defeat and out-run the return shot and to then re-engage, and your own missile won’t have maximum acceleration imparted to it at launch.
Supersonic agility, gimbal limits and radar range at the gimbal are key. If you can’t get to the gimbal as quickly as the other guy, and if your gimbal limit is narrower, you will be making his missile’s job easier, and your own missile’s job harder, while dramatically reduced radar range at the azimuth limit (a real problem with the RBE2 array, and inherent in any AESA relying on phase shifting for beam pointing, for obvious reasons) will reduce the range at which you can support your missile in flight.
Were it not the case, why would they be going to quite the amount of trouble on DRAAMA?
As to blindness and stupidity, perhaps – but that’s a discourtesy that you should either justify or avoid. You’re not Fonk/PilotGHT/Foofoone, for goodness’ sake, so you should avoid behaving like him.
Rafale’s display formats and modings, and the way in which displays change in response to inputs are closely based on the way in which M2K formats and modings work – quite deliberately, and quite naturally, and as the Armée de l’Air required.
Sign In
