Scorpion82255 m/s might be close to the truth, especially with this delta sweep angle and without LEX!
its curious that the Typhoon official website give a
>90kN on the eurojet 200 http://www.eurofighter.com/et_ap_pd_de.asp
and that RR gives 89kN http://www.rolls-royce.com/Images/EJ200_tcm92-6698.pdftyphoon website a fanboyism site?
how could specialists can put so many “>>>>” and so low accute datas!:eek:
Could be easily a typo Fonky. Oh Dassaults website states 4300 kg fuel for the Rafale B, while the MoD and other sources state 200 l fewer than the C/M which is 4750 kg. Oh they are so inaccurate. :rolleyes:
Scorpion82Well, if you insist… I was under the impression that it had a more “limited” datalink ,just like the F16B52+ which has a limited aircraft link. Only the newer B52+Adv come with Link16. (i think the previous have link-11?). I remember the number of 8 per formation…
Anyway… you can install it later if you like.
You probabley mean the Improved Data Modem?
Scorpion82So the fact that in one flight regime, a clean F-16’s performance is close(just exactly how close is unknown), one can extrapolate that the F-22 is only a marginally better performer? I’m pretty sure that’s not the point Beesley was trying to make.
You asked, I answered as easy as that.
Scorpion82SOAR and SOLO is perhaps too radical , but will the addition of SOAR and SOLO will eliminate the need for Mig-29UPG to go for Lightening 3 and MAWS ?
SOAR is a MAWS and SOLO a LWR, not to confuse with an LDP such as the Litening.;)
Scorpion82Before the design of the F-22 was finished, its RCS against ALL known radars were established. The USAF knows at what range and what angles the F-22A can be detected by any and all radar, IR and or, electro-optics systems.
Sure the US knows every radar system in the world and has all details and performance parameters at hand.
Scorpion82When did Beesley ever describe the F-22’s performance as only marginally better than anything?
IIRC in the interview where he stated the F-35 performs as good as a clean F-16 blk 50. With regards to the acceleration in the high subsonic regime he claimed that the performance is just short of the F-22.
Scorpion82Yeah, you’re right. It’s impossible to engage in anti-shipping duties if you don’t use a standoff missile, isn’t it?
http://www.defence.gov.au/media/download/2006/mar/20060323c/Pong_Su_sinking.mpg
Btw, you might want to consider exactly what the effective ranges for a 1000lbs JDAM launched from supersonic speeds at 40,000 plus feet are compared to a “real” anti-ship missile such as Penguin or Sea Skua are…
You might be surprised…
With the difference that the JDAMs used by the F-22 right now can’t be updated in flight and lack another sensor to hit moving targets. And ehy not comparing the JDAM to adequate ASMs like the Harpoon, RBS-15 or Exocet, not to speak about russian made ASMs which have a considerably longer range.
Scorpion82Only is some people’s wet dreams. The ‘performance’ of a clean Eurofighter Typhoon is better than a clean F-16 Block 50 but not nearly as much as some want everyone to believe.
Ah yes and you pretend to know.:rolleyes:
Scorpion82How will a F15C target the AIM-9X?
Has it to fly within visual range and target via the HUD; or will it receive some coordinates over the network and the missile seeker takes over once close to target coords?
regards,
gtg
Possibly slewed by the radar. The APG-63 provides some AG modes, even the versions used by the F-15C and the Golden Eagles will get the APG-63V3 anyway.
Scorpion82It were the MiG-29 Fulcrum A (9.12) which weren’t able to use the gun. This issue was solved with the Fulcrum C (9.13) and subsequently later models, possibly including the 9.12S(D) which was a further developed variant of the original Fulcrum A. Afaik the tank could be dropped.
Scorpion82thats way of, in a minute a gripen A reach more than 15240m(50 000 ft), thats >254m/s.
Lol don’t confuse initial climb rate with time to altitude. Saab has officially declared the Gripen needs 2 min to 10000 m and 3 min to 14000 m.
Scorpion82Seems that the IN is looking for a new western carrier borne fighter.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/12/02/335713/india-seeks-new-naval-fighters.html
India has issued a request for information for new naval fighters, which will be capable of operating on two indigenous aircraft carriers projected to be in service by the end of the next decade.
Boeing, Dassault and Lockheed Martin received the RFI, according to industry sources. This did not indicate the number of aircraft required, and asked only for information on available technologies and capabilities with their respective F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter designs. But a request for proposals is still some time away, the sources add.
“We are currently reviewing the Indian navy’s request,” says Boeing, which received the RFI via the US Navy.
The request comes as the navy’s first RSK MiG-29K carrier-borne fighters are being delivered, and as delays plague the development of a naval variant of the indigenous Tejas light combat aircraft, six of which were ordered earlier this year.
But one sceptical source says it makes little sense for India to buy a third naval fighter. “Why would the navy want to operate three different fighters? That adds to the operating costs and logistics. I think it is more likely to buy additional MiG-29Ks and wait for the naval Tejas to be ready,” they add.
Scorpion82I think you mean the 84 pages long “c2sd_polyvalence_rafale_2006.pdf”. No idea where to find it on the net now, I have it on HD. There was also an interesting simulation called Rafale F2, it gave some impressions on the MMI, but was more like a WIP demo, yet interesting. The page where this simulation could be downloaded has disappeared, but I have the latest demo available at sometime then on my external HD as well.
Scorpion82Isn’t this about the aircraft flying behavior more than its MMI ?
On a broader picture, the big questions are :
1 – how to assess such a MMI ?
2 – Then, if we would have resolved 1, are we able to do such an assessment ?some my quick picks here are :
1 – no clue at all, it looks like a whole topic of research in itself.This MMI is done for pilots who are trained for years just to be able to start performing the job, then the same pilots train for quite some time on the actual plane they use, notably through simulators.
Then the job itself is really complex and ranging from long boring and yet demanding missions (when loitering over Afgha to drop a bomb every 4 hours) to life threatening ones. This MMI is also supposed to be used under high physical stress, which may lead to the brain having not enough blood to operate normally.
So, assessing such a MMI, well, my god, looks incredibly hard.
2 – let’s consider we might have a proper matrix with all the funky parameters to consider to do such an assessment. What would be the next step ?
Well, to be able to put two hands on the aircraft, at least through a simulator but one would also have to be able to check for it under high g…
EDIT : we would also need to be qualified enough to do this evaluation. Having an access to the required hardware (a plane) wouldn’t be enough : the amount of knowledge/know how to have to conduct such an assessment is probably quite huge !
In the end, making our own assessment looks like impossible. Even making guesses look quite hard, considering the number of parameters and use cases.
So, if we can’t make our own assessment, what to do ? Easy, rely on others ! Then you have to look at what you’ve. And basically we have two choices here :
– trusting a journalist with unnamed sources saying this specific MMI is poor, or, to be more precised, I think he claims this MMI is worse than the one on the EF.
– trusting some former/current (test) pilots comments about this MMI’s quality.BTW, please notice these former guys weren’t into comparing the MMI.
Indeed, comparing 2 MMIs raises a whole new topic of assessment, ie being able not only to assess the Rafale and EF’s MMIs, but then as well to have a proper way of comparing them in order to have such a thing as “this one is better than this one”. This again raises a whole set of questions, because these planes are used in very different contexts, from their pilots’ training and history to their current use.
My personal pick here would be the following : regarding the “named” feedback we have, it looks like the Rafale’s MMI isn’t utter crap and should do the job.
Is this MMI better than the Typhoon’s one ? Well, I guess/think/hope they both provide a quantum leap from the good old days’ MMI (of a Mirage F1 or Harrier/Jaguar). I don’t know whether some current/former (test) pilots did comment on the EF’s one, but I would assume some did in a positive way as well. So these 2 MMIs should both play in the same ballpark, with nothing more being possible/sensible to say. These 2 MMIs are most likely strong points of their respective fighters against older planes.
As stated in the opening post this thread is not meant to compare the Rafale’s MMI to that of other aircraft, but to get a better idea of how things are working on this aircraft, from visualisation to the actions it takes to achieve things.
It certainly won’t be a fully fledged qualified judgement, but it could help to get a better understanding.
So how can we assess it?
We can try to assess the working procedures and display modes for various states of flight, from start up, over takeoff, navigation, AA and AG combat to landing and work out how individual systems are controlled. For example how an autopilot mode is selected or programmed, how much steps does it take to switch a radio channel or select a certain one to programme it. Or the radar which modes are available, what kind of options do they ofter and how are functions controlled, what is automated and how is it presented to a pilot.
We certainly don’t know all the details required, but we can collect what we have a take a stepped approach to cover different phases and situations.
Scorpion82That’s a very good description, but what you’re describing is Rafale’s cockpit layout and equipment (the hardware), and not the Man Machine Interface itself.
MMI is achieved via hardware, of course, but the hardware isn’t the MMI.
MMI is like your computer’s OS, and you’re describing its keyboard, the configuration of the mouse and the spec of its LCD/CRT display screen.
They come into it, but they don’t represent the core of what MMI means.
I doubt that anyone who doesn’t use a Fast Jet Man Machine Interface for a living is qualified to make any judgement as to the pros and cons of a given MMI, and even then, we the readers would have to disentangle what makes a good MMI from what makes a good MMI for a particular pilot.
Thus the Rafale’s MMI might be viewed as being the best in the world by a Mirage 2000 pilot, while a Heritage Hornet pilot will prefer that of the Super Hornet, a JA37 pilot will appreciate the Gripen and no-one will like Typhoon as much as they like their present mount! There will even be pilots who think that the Su-35 has a great MMI, if they come to it from an upgraded Su-27.
You might get a better idea from the brand new ‘rookie’ fast jet pilot, though he’s likely to favour the MMI which best resembles that of the aircraft that he has trained on, unless he has trained on an entirely analogue, non-glass, non HUD equipped advanced trainer, and there aren’t that many of those still around.
That doesn’t mean that the subject is entirely subjective, as the test community have a range of objective scales that can be used to measure the efficacy of a particular MMI.
I rather suspect that you’d need to be a Test Pilot to know what they’re called, let alone to be able to use and then interpret them.
I agree that this is much a description of the hardware, albeit I have added quite some information about how things do or might work software wise. Of course there is much more about it and that’s what this thread is for, to work out the details. The opening post has to be understand as a start or base to built on. I want to make clear that this thread is not meant to compare Rafale’s MMI to that of other aircraft in the first place, but to get a better understanding on how it works.
Sign In
