glitterWhich aircraft needed nine extra sorties to complete its evaluation?
No idea.
But the Rafale team was asked several extra flight by Armassuise for “special” tests.
Let’s see if Typhoon focus so much attention.
glitterTechnically its not an insurmountable problem but it would be costly and time consuming. The Swiss would have to pay for the integration process or accept MICA into the inventory.
I don’t understand. It’s seems to be too expensive to integrate the AMRAAM on the Rafale but the difference of cost Rafale <-> Ef2000 which is much more for 22 machines isn’t an hindrance ?????
Also I doubt Dassault will be that keen over Raytheon getting a close look at how the Rafales avionics work.
Have you got more irrational argument ?
BTW the avionics is from Thales, not Dassault.
Frankly it would be such a difficult process that Dassault will be keen on going for a French weapons package.
Anyway, since Swiss seems interested with modern AtG weapons, I fear their Hornet is quite limited for now.
glitterHere are some official infos about development.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/Fox_Three_nr_2.pdf
These information are quite obsolete. GlobalPress posted much newer informations.
BTW, the new FOX Three is available.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/gauche/sponsors/sponsor_rafale/index.htm
glitterThe problem for Dassault in the Swiss contest is the Rafale doesn’t use the same air to air weapons as already fielded by the Swiss Airforce whilst Gripen and Eurofighter does.
On the other hand, with the relaxed position between France and USA, perhaps the use of AMRAAM would be allowed by the american administration.
glitterMr Gliter you already ridiculed yourself several time over, the BOY as you say was flying aircrafts and servicing weapons in the AdA you weren’t even a bad idea between the ears of your genitors.
I asked for a link and got an insult.
You failed.
BTW my dear fonky, it’s gliTTer
Further improvements are planned as part of the program’s “R&D feeding policy,” although not all have been approved or funded to date. These will ultimately include uprated Snecma M-88 engines each delivering 9 tonnes of thrust
I suppose that the use of the word “ultimately” doesn’t ring a bell in your head ?
I think you guys should look at post #351 in the EF thread. This article was posted;
http://www.flugrevue.de/index.php?id=4187
and it mentions the GAF EF’s were very pleased with mock AtA combat against Rafales. Does that stand as evidence now? Finally some hard fact evidence you Rafale fan boys have been asking for. 😀
Just one interesting information, Rafale piltos are A2G specialist.
Then, about the article, we can understand that in WVR, the Typhoon won the day but in BVR …..
I think that Dassault had this quality: The Taiwan no-choice is the reason for the boost of AESA integration.
Sorry to ask but what is that “Taiwan no choice” ?
glitterYou say the French Airforce prefer cheaper operating/maintainence costs and longer lifespan with the M88, could this be seen as a disadvantage with the M88 engine? Purely speculating atm P&W engines and GE have been uprated by massive amounts in the F-16A-F,F-15A-SG,F-18A-F and they seem to fine
with no problems really, so do these engines have an advantage in terms of “engine thrust growth vs increase maintainenece, costs etc..” Basically are they more economical/less troublesome in terms of maintaineence/lifespan to upgrade than the M88?
One interesting point rised by Globalpress/LordAssap is that the engine must keep the same physical size and weight AND with no worst performance with maintenance.
For what I know this isn’t the case with upgrade known with american engines since the more powerful version could be done on other version
F-16 block 15 – 30 – 50 …
And I heard that the maintenance is rising a bit each time while the goal of ECO is to have a HUGE improvement in maintenance.
glitterOf course they DID and this from 24th January 2005 = first succesful TEST at 90 kN, but you guys dont REGISTER informations.
Several years to check the feasability of a dumb software modification ? Wow, SNECMA must fire his engineers very quickly.
NO but they certainly KNOW what TWR means as well as growth potential.
And they perfectly know that a plane is the air is much better than the same plane in maitnenance.
That’s YOUR PoV not that of GIE who have been pushing for a more powerful M 88, what do you think? DGA and SNECMA spent all this money for FUN?
As usual you’re rewriting history.
SNECMA pushed the M88-3 (and according to you, Dassault refused because it was heavier) but finished the program shortly after the Korean comeptition.
After a while, another program for an update M88 arrived but it was for ECONOMICAL reason.
There are LOADS of thing you do not comprehend yourself….
And there is LOADS of things you think to understand …..
More power fort the SAME maintainance cost and SFC this is what the futur version of M 88 offers, you missed a bit again…
What you missed is that there is two 90Kn M88:
M88-3: bigger and heavier; same mainetnance cost and SFC. Dead and buried.
90Kn ECO: no real information about maintenance or SFC, except that yuo took the most optimistic informations from these two programs and mix them together.
Sorry but the words used in the french articles about the ECO clearly show the emphathis on the economical side.
And “vérifier la faisabilité” means that no way they have done the 90Kn; which is in contradition with others article from SNECMA.
So, in doubt, I shut my mouth and I know some posters who whould follow that advice.
Exageration and totaly fantasists examples to sustain your points are needed, i’d rather stick to reality.
I don’t know for other posters but, sometimes, I really like your input :D:D:D:D:D
You are the one oversimplyfying here, it you were right, F-22 wouldn’t be that powerful, but it is and you are wrong.
When you don’t rewrite history, you rewrite posts. He didn’t restrain the perimeter only to TWR.
Stealth? Come on then tell US that spuercruise is NOT part of the stealth conceipt for a laugh. looks like you do not comprehend it either.
Fonk mode ON
Pathetic looseeeeeeer
The OSF will catch your flying brick via the almighty IRST
TWIST FACTS
BAE sucksssssssss
Fonk mode OFF
Just like the wing of the F-14 or Mirage F2, your definition of stealth is at “géometrie variable” :p
OK tell US how you manage to escape an AAM at its max range with less poWer => less turning/maneuvring capabilties?
Go ahead little boy, show us the article from pilots of SNECMA/RR/GE/Saturn about the fact that with a more powerful engine they will easily dodge AAM in the close future, we are waiting for you.
glitterECO is a 9t engine, the E24 is a 7.5t engine!
It seems you have difficulties with french.
But since you’re the last person on that thread who hasn”t understood the problem.
lading distance and noise+ range ? gripen?
if Dassault was to beat the gripen they would push somes mirage 2000-9
Range ? I spke of landing distance, price and noise .
I don’t have any data about the noise but I doubt that the dual engine Rafale is quieter than a single modern engine like the Gripen.
Mirage 2000-9 ? From where ???
But if that was the case, why not produce this version?
The Rafale, is currently underpowered and could use all the extra thrust it could get! I dont think it is so simple.EDIT
What they clearly say is that they CAN produce a 9t M88, but WONT.
Probably the cost will go sky-hi, or they need 2-5 more years for development, or some technology import from the other side of the Atlantic, or bypass ratio might increase or all the above.
1) If the Rafale is udnerpowered, the Typhoon is close to be underpowered too. 🙂
2) At first there was 2 programs, M88 ECO and M88-3.
ECO same thrust but cheaper to use and maintain.
M88-3 more thrust but no gain with maintance.
I don’t have more information about the price of these engines as you can easily understand.
But what is obvious is that most AF would be more insterested with the “cheaper” one and as a fact, the 90Kn is a part of the ECO program, but only that, a part.
Any customer who wish to have 90Kn M88 will get them, for sure.
Speaking of that more powerful version, I only heard some pilots from the Navy who would prefer to have the 90Kn, but officialy, it’s totally out of question to buy them for now.
glitterAll that aircraft are built in blocks or related lots. Adding capabilities does mean adding weight in general. All that is common knowledge and has to be kept in mind, when someone will stay serious.
Be careful between the Rafale F2 and F3, there is many pure software modification, specially around SPECTRA.
He says that the big influence will come from the fighter that will stay longer in the sky, and the country that gets air bases closer to swiss!
All this designate the Rafale F3, with aesa osf2 and Eco 90kN engines produced in 2012!
If range is very important, the ECO 75Kn is the engine to have.
they look for a short landing aircraft and a noise friendly fighter, for the cheaper price!
I fear it’s a 100% win for the gripen here.
glitterBecause you DONT read and because this article is about M 88-3 and was published in 2002 for a programme dating from 1999.
It wasn’t an article, it was about the figures of the M88-3.
Greg said: the size and weight are up by a bit.
You said: not at all, do you think the M88 ECO @ 90Kn use 2002 technologies ?
So what should we understand from the FACT that orders for the M 88 were coming by less than 16 for the year 1997?
What the hell are you talking about ?
At that time, there were M88 E2 then M88 E4.
The 16 engines Pack CGPs are for the year 2011 and definitly YES ALL Pack CGPs engines will be rateable at 90kN,there isn’t a single M-88 to the original standard today.
There is a contract for 16 M88 ECO and it’s not said which version is it.
The cheaper 75Kn or the expensive 90Kn ?
Come on, you really believe that the AdA has funds for 90Kn ?
AGAIN, it will depends on the customer choice as to wether they want to use this setting or not.
I don’t know, I haven’t read anything like that from SNECMA.
That’s GLITTER’s speciality
he’s got a grudge against Dassault (not to mention the rest of the country but it is less showing) and he keep thinking no one noticed he knows too little about the subject to make an impression.
Damn, that nasty Glitter doesn’t love Dassault ?
glitter@glitter
Showing your true colours, ignorance and low IQ helping you manage to forget the subject and tackle the posters which BTW are TWO different persons.
I don’t have color, sorry, but thanks to recognize that for you everybody must choose his side while it’s pointless.
As usual you take your lack of awarnes and knowledge for everyone’s standard, SNECMA announced the ECO first run at 90kN setting in January 05.
According to your link, by FALL 2004, Snecma “kicked off tests”.
There is some news in january 2005 as you quote them.
And the conclusion happen in “End of 2007”, again as shown in your article.
So, everything by january 2005 was quite new and nothing was official.
Yes, there were two engines, one for endurance (better words than ECONOMIC :D) and another was for performance and
Cette campagne d’essais a permis de caractériser les performances stabilisées du moteur avec un réglage du moteur en version 7,5 tonnes de poussée ainsi qu’en version 9 tonnes de poussée au plein gaz avec post combustion. 17 January 2005
What is a 2 months long devellopment ? What happened between 01/2005 and end/2007 ?
What can we deduce from that ? The engine reach 90Kn for a short moment ?
But the best part it now:
These evolution have a lighter Afterburner and the 90Kn M88 has the SAME WEIGHT than the M88-2.
Obviously, there is something that GAIN weight but where ?
And sorry, but NOWHERE there is written “SAME SIZE”.
And at the end of the article, what have we about the 90Kn ? Well, close to nothing, everything is about the M88 ECO (75Kn).
Then, a short extract
-The M88-3 thrust increase comes from a new, increased-flow, low-pressure compressor now being developed, on which tests began in Snecma’s Villaroche plant, near Paris, on 17 February.-
DATE:03/05/95
SOURCE:Flight International
Honnestly, don’t you think it’s a typo and the right date is 2005 and not 1995 ?
SNECMA, ONERA and French Universities (CNRS, CEA) have been labouring hard for several DECADES R&D programmes such as PHT and CENTOR have allowed a significant increased in airflow rate and temperature tolerences, = 2050 K.
Meanwhile RR, Saturn and GE don’t do anything I suppose ?
All these newly developed technologies of course are now integrated into ECO and the result is a 90 kN M88 retaining the SAME size and WEIGHT as the E4.
Again, you have no link about the SIZE and even about the WEIGHT, do you think SNECMA would write “it’s within X% of the same weight” ?
That’s TEN years after M88-3 was tested bench-tested at 90 kN and reached 95kN at the end of the program.
As I wrote, I never heard about a tested M88-3 en 1995 and I never heard about a 95Kn M88 in 1995 neither.
Dassault had and repeatedly expressed their discontent about having (1) to resize the inlets and (2) about 166kg extra behind the CG.
1) No, but Fonk wrote it quite often while a french magazine said the total oposite.
2) Where is the genius from Dassault who can handle ay situation 😀
From M88-E2 to M88-E4
New:
—-Three-dimensional high-pressure (HP) compressor.
—-Turbine blades.
—-Blisks (one-piece blades and discs).
Wait a second.
In your first link, you have
“Several areas of improvement: blisks”
Qu’est ce à dire ?
greg/glitter = In Brief: There are more than TEN good years of well documented efforts from SNECMA, ONERA and French Universities into increasing the M88 thrust while retaininng its original weight and sise and you two geniuses are coming up with datas from 1995 and tea saloon gossips…
Idiot, newhere they spoke of the SIZE 🙂
For your Info: They actualy managed to reach 90 kN with ECO for the SAME SFC and a slightly reduced weight, plus lower IR signature…
BAM
And suddenly, an information that come from nowhere about wonderful performance but nothing to prove that.
What EVERYONE else can READ when they wishes is the future M88 will be perfectly ratable at 90kN and it will be up to the client to use this setting or NOT.
What we can READ is that they built two engines:
– One with the same thrust of 75Kn but less expensive to use.
– Another at 90Kn but with no improvement on SFC or maintenance cost.
Where can you read that they are both identical ? that you can switch easily ?
Nowhere.
What is hard to beat is your level of ignorance and insistance into writing about what you do not read about, do not understand and do not know either.
Oh yeah, I forget that Fonk is a specialist of aerodynamic, mechanical structure and now engines.
Again this is a military forum and a topic about Rafale and its systems, engines , if you dont bother reading about it at least you could have the courtesy to stop implying that everyone else is as leasy as yourself, or totaly uninterested.
Calm down little boy.
glitteras the m88-3 never was a peper engine, they tested it alot!
A what ???
dear Glitter, you knowledges about all aeronautics stuffs look so minced at time, and spining around or trying to make look the realities as “waste of time”
is just ridiculous, you still take time to answer me lika punk!
Yeah, yaeh, big time.
9t engine is asked by the navy for ten years now
In your dreams, for sure.
Snecma will deliver it in 2011, this articles claims that the new pack eco is avarded and in production!
The ECO is a 7,5t engine, I hope you have understood after 2 pages about it.
Preciselsy (as one would say) 2002 technology.
Because an engine tested in 2007 use 2002 technologies and not those from 2006 or 2005.
Never suited Dassault, too bulky too heavy.
I thought that the Navy asked for a 9t engine for a full decade ?
Customers had little say on this matter; Dassault never planned to equip Rafale with an engine 75kg heavier requiering resized inlets although they went through the matter to design and produce a set of inlets for validating the possibility of increased airflow rate for them.
In A&C, they said that Dassault designed a larger (but lower RCS) air intakes for the M88-3, in case of.
the star you will never reach by your cleverness?
I think he was talking of Star49 🙂
engines 2 years long to output parts for this new engine are starting production, this mean that in 2011 engines for the rafale will be over 90kN ,
there’s nothing new in that, Dassault publish it for years now!
Because 16 M88 ECO have been bought and that ECO can evolve to a 9t version, you understand that all post 2011 Rafale will use the 9t M88 ?
As King Arthur said:
“You’re a looney”
Answer from GlobalPress/Fonk/Thunder
“French aircrafts are invincible”
glitterwell, the insult in my mind is first to compare me to Lord “who need noone to defend his views” and that you brings more BS than anyone over here, keep on spining you “UK general said typhoon beat the F22” like on the whinnies topics, but here, as Gitter pls don’t try to speak about things you aren’t able to understand! Cheersss
My dear Funky, I think you just post enough BS about French aircraft über alles in your previous post to convince everyone that you definitively can’t prevent to mix real informations to mistakes/pure lies/phantasm (pick one) which turn any of your post into waste of time.
Le M88 ECO est un démonstrateur technologique en cours d’essai. Il doit permettre
d’optimiser le coût de possession du M88-2 et d’augmenter sa poussée jusqu’à
9 tonnes.
So, the M88 ECO is an evolution of the M88-2 that we know, and an evolution to a 9t version is possible.
YEs, it’s what I wrote since the beginning.
Le M88 est conçu pour générer une famille très large de dérivés pour avion de combat : avec le même corps HP, il peut conduire à des dérivés à 9 T pratiquement dans le même encombrement et jusqu’à 12 T avec un système BP plus conséquent.
You quote “même encombrement” => “same size”.
But the important word is “PRATIQUEMENT” => “close”.
so, an M88-3 was supposed to be just a big bigger.
Again, it’s what I wrote since the beginning.
glitterNice.
How many parisian newspapers will both of them hold? :diablo::diablo:
It’s the main shareholder if EADS France that has an empire in magazine and newspapers.
About that news, since EADS proposed more euros, it’s certainly the “problem” that the french state “gave” his share of Dassault to Aerospatiale before the creation of EADS and Dassault was quite afraid of a potential attack from the german side.
Now, it looks like an agreement will be find.
glitterThese numbers are just a little bit strange.
Thrust is increasing by 20%
Frontal area is increasing by 27%
Airflow mass is increasing by 11%
As I wrote before, these datas were written when SNECMA had the M88-3 only on paper.
Sign In
