Oh it is! Do you see jets fly at Mach 1.4 at sea level?

Does it matter? No! Low speed is actually the lower corner of the speed envelope and this envelope changes with a given altitude. 500 kts at sea level is not low speed and many modern fighters are capable to sustain 9 g at this speed with a relative modest AoA and still accelerate. Try to Repeat this at the same speed and 30k ft and you can be happy if you reach 9 g at all. The point is fights at higher altitude end up slow more quickly and slow at high altitudes are speeds which could be consider as medium or even high at sea level. Minimum airspeed is rising as well for the reasons explained to you already.

You obviously have not studied low alt fighting – or you would not be talking nonsense. The Russians did focus heavily on this (Vietnam taught them this).

And that’s why the Soviets designed fighters which can operate at altitudes exceeding that of many of their western counter parts. This isn’t India and no one neither in Europe, the US or Russia is designing fighters with an emphasis on low level performance. And I reinforce FIGHTERS.

If you want to charge hard and low, that is not low speed, but dogfighting often tends to get slow very low…

It tends to get slow at all altitudes and you are much more quickly going to loose speed high up for the reasons explained to you already.

You are getting pathetic. Where did I rehash anything you told me? If you did in your various ditties I certainly don’t recall it, and what is ridiculous is your uncouthness and lack of dealing with the point.

Often enough you want examples?

Example one from here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1893992&postcount=238
Quoting myself

The engagement was hardly “custom made” for the Typhoon. It’s was conducted at a moderate altitude where every fighter should still perform well.

You actually argued against this for quite some time which dragged this discussion into the “low altitude dogfighting” corner, just to come up with this now from here:
http://forum.keypublishing.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1894559&postcount=308
You Shiv

This is an altitude when both jets could do well and generate power…

Another one?

Here

Quoting myself

The problem lies in the high AoA induced drag produced by deltas and that’s completely independent of altitude!

Your reply to this (from the post I’m actually quoting)

What bull! You know jack about this topic…. Research before you post on this!

Funny reaction as in the post above this you claim this:

The reason for their inefficient low speed performance has a lot to do with the amount of energy they bleed and the amount of energy needed for vortexes, as well as induced drag being higher.

So I have no clue what I’m talking about and you just state the same? Indirect acknowledgement that you have no clue? Or are you demented forgetting about what you just stated a post before?

These are just two examples of a number of examples!

Sheesh! You are not the only one who can say those things. Nor are your ideas so unique. They were my words also, not a copyright infringement. Stop this third grade “I said it first”…not even sure if you did. I think you misunderstood my point and then tried to say the same thing.

If you first argue against what I say just to adopt it for yourself and post it a few posts later! You are either demented or delibriately dishonest pick your choice!

Maybe you can keep your stinking attitude out of here and drop your ad hominem type attacks. You’ve made enough gaffes here to expose your half-baked knowledge on some key points. Knowing a little here and a little there does not make you in any position to use your tone. Next time put it respectfully or shut it is some strong advice to you.

As long as you keep argueing against me just to copycat me a few posts later I will use whatever tone I regard as appropriate given your dishonesty. My so called half baked knowledge is certainly sufficient enough to expose you as what you are a fake.

Did I say that they would “normally go” at this speed? What the Soviet analyst pointed out was that they had a remarkable advantage – generally more than 50 Km/h at that level. You obviously can’t read straight.

That’s not what you stated! You stated “designed to be efficient at 150 kph” which is utter nonsense and it’s neither my fault, nor my problem if you can’t get yourself sorted.

But keep playing your game. I have better things to do.

Shiv :

Just out of curiosity I would like to know more but it doesn ‘t come as a surprise to me . The Fulcrum has always been an outstanding dogfighter . The Germans Mig-29s made some NATO pilots sweat a lot .

Cheers .

It was to a large extend owed to the HMS+R-73 combo as well vs NATO fighters without HMS and with less capable AIM-9L/M. That doesn’t distract from the fact that the MiG-29 is a good dogfighter and enjoys advantages in some areas over other types, but the other way round other types like Vipers or Hornets enjoy particular advantages as well.

Take the time you need, I know how painful it is to dig info from several hundreds or even thousands of files plus thousands of pages of paper material. 😉

Rgr that wrt sustained level flight but false wrt manoeuvring as the Rafale can still manoeuver at 15kt .

If you call “not falling out of the sky by departure” as manoeuvring then yes. But in reality the control surfaces are simply insufficient to manoeuvre. In a dynamic manoeuvre you may influence the way your aircraft may ultimately tend to go, but you won’t be rolling or pulling which is what one would regard as manoeuvring the aircraft. Except Dassault has found a way to cheat the laws of physics. 😉

False , it ‘s where sheer thrust comes into play . It ‘s actually how the F-22 managed to beat the Rafale while the latter is no sloutch in such exercise (acceleration from very low speed) , thanks to the positive thrust ratio (>1:1) .

You talk about it as if you have seen the HuD video or something else. Accelerating quickly from low speeds is one thing to do this while at close to 0 kt and nose up is hardly going to work as you need lift not only thrust and at close to 0kt you hardly have any useful lift at your disposal. On top of this the TWR of >1:1 is for SL conditions and not for higher altitudes where the thrust is fairly lower while the weight won’t go down (fuel consumption not withstanding).

But it ‘s the case . Let me find the doc , I have it somewhere . Somewhere …

Cheers .

If there is some doc about this I’m eager to read it myself.

I beg to differ Scorp . With an unstable fighter , it ‘s usually the a$$ who drops first , not the nose . In the Rafale ‘s case , the aircraft fall “flat” and quickly regain authority as the falling speed increase (> 25kt) . With most jets (and airliners) , stall recoveries need to go nose down to regain speed and control , not with the Rafale . The bloody thing can even regain control and authority when going backwards (negative speed) which shows the excellence of the airframe/FCS .

Until inertia overcomes the rest. A Su-27 is unstable as well, a Su27M is considerably more unstable in any case their nose is being pushed down from a tail slide (negative airspeed) and when performing the cobra (again negative air speed and excessive AoA) they are using the inertia as well. Rafale has reportedly performed such manoeuvres during testing, albeit the sole indication is an ONERA simulation video and the claims of a test pilot (that’s not meant to put doubt on it!). Even 25 kt is rather slow and insufficient for stustained level flight or manoeuvring. Unless you regain energy by pushing the nose down and reduce the excessive drag by killing the high AoA the aircraft won’t accelerate at all. That doesn’t mean that you need a full fledged Stuka dive (though it would help to gain speed more quickly), but I seriously doubt and challenge the “it’s falling flat and recovers at 25 kt”. That’s against the natural physics given the size and weight of such an aircraft.

But at low altitude you actually have more agile performance from the Rafale. There are other factors as well like aerodynamics and FCS tuning.

All aircraft offer better manoeuvre performance and agility at low altitude, Typhoon included. Why? Well the higher air density produces more drag, but it allows the engines to squeeze out much more thrust as well while increasing lift. The lift/drag ratio will be better at low altitude for that reason and thus aircraft achieve the best turning performance close to the ground and that’s true for all of them.

The point is, that this was an altitude where the Typhoon would shine because it is neither too high (rare air density) nor too low (inefficient for delta wing designs).

Point is unless it’s an indirect admiration that the M88s struggle even at medium altitudes (and I doubt this) there is no particular advantage for the Typhoon from that altitude itself. The discrepancy in thrust exists at lower altitudes as well as does the SEP advantage. It might be, however, that given the higher speeds required for manoeuvring at such altitudes may favour the relative thrust output of the EJ200. Altitude does affect the performance as well and the EJ200 may well offer advantages, I just don’t think that it’s really playing out at 20k ft. Lt. Col. Grüne who has flown 2 WVR DACTs against Rafale commented “the higher the fighter the more the Eurofighter liked it” and his encounters were launched at 21k ft and 30k ft respectively, above the 18k ft of Solenzara and in the latter case the altitude was about 50% higher. Btw why are delta wing designs “inefficient” at low altitude per se and how does it matter when we are talking about two delta winged aircraft? The delta wing design isn’t necessarily bad for low altitudes, on contrary, what’s bad for low level flying is a low wing loading as it translates into a higher response from the aircraft to disturbances (turbolences…) given the crew a wilder ride. This can be compensated for to a certain extend by advanced flight control systems and canards as found on both types.

It was not that I suggested that the Rafale would struggle here either. It’s just that given the difference in specific excess thrust, the Typhoon had a lot going for it but could not covert it into a win.

SEP isn’t everything and if you don’t use such strengths to your advantage you are going to loose. Grüne was obviously capable to use the SEP edge to his advantage. It actually boils down to what I have stated before, exploit the strengths of your aircraft and the weaknesses of the enemy’s, use it to your advantage and drag him into the fight that favours your aircraft and you are going to win, unless you make some stupid errors. Grüne managed to do this in France back in 2008, as the French managed to do it against the British at Solenzara a year later. And there were more encounters of that sort than these only.

At low altitude near the ground speed drops hugely and dogfighing is sometimes a rather slow speed affair. When you go into low speed dogfighting (not the same thing as running at low altititude to deliver a weapon), then the jets often tend to crawl to a slower speed.

The risk of ending up slow is MUCH greater at higher altitudes as the relative lift/drag ratio is decreasing with altitude. Remember lower air density = less drag, less lift and less thrust. To compensate for lift you need to fly faster, but drag quadruples by doubling the speed. Another method to increase your lift is to increase AoA which in turn increases drag and the induced drag of a higher sweep angle is larger as opposed to a lower sweep angle. The low air density is also reducing the response of your control surfaces so you need larger surface deflections to compensate which in turn means more drag as well and the ever shrinking thrust is ultimately not able to overcome the growing drag penalty you have to pay for manoeuvring! The result an aircraft sustains a turn with lower AoA and higher g at lower speeds when flying low (true for all of them), but will not be able to to so high up at even greater true air speeds.

That’s where the ALSR can kick in – it will sound chimes and if the pilot does not increase speed, it will do it for him. It will in effect distract the pilot with audio and visual cues and then has something like three modes to control the jet. I would call that restrictive particularly when we have a delta wing that isn’t really great for low speed approaches.

ALSR will not only spool up the engines, but initiate a recovery manoeuvre to lower th AoA and pitch angle. And yes it’s a restriction.

@mrmalaya

Heh, I’m no expert (but then which of us is?) but I think “low speed” in this context is very low rather than a few hundred knots is it not?

Automatic recovery to save the aircraft is something which applies to speeds no pilot should be approaching during A2A combat in these aircraft.

So to speak yes. However at high altitudes the true airspeed will be higher, while the indicated remains the same to “compensate” for the loose of lift related to lower air density. Ideally pilots should keep their speed high enough (corner speed), but if one aircraft is manoeuvring better than another at lower speeds trying to force your opponent into that regime will give you the edge. Rafale has the edge in that envelope and that’s why a Typhoon jock better tries to avoid it if possible.

@nicoloas

The Rafale has a slightly higher fuel fraction IIRC.

As per one of my favourite interweb rafale experts: http://www.indiandefence.com/forums/…tml#post111835

Nic

Yes it does, but fuel fraction is just one part of the range equation. Ultimately I could imagine that the Rafale enjoys a marginal edge on internal fuel, but there are factors which may in fact swing the results. Thus far I haven’t seen any figures or information which would suggest that the Rafale enjoys an edge here, but nothing specific to suggest the opposite either. The only hint we may have is the Swiss evaluation, but I’m not sure whether the “figures” presented there are reflecting the single seat variants or the twins. The single seat Typhoon holds around 250 kg more fuel than the Rafale C, but the Rafale B holds around 150-200 kg more fuel than the Typhoon twin seater.

You can of course use BVR missiles to cover the intermediate range provided you have them. If you don’t, then the MICA IR is rather more versatile by being both a BVR and WVR product. In that case, the Typhoon loses out big time when moving into dogfighting ranges.

Agreed and as I said it much depends on the circumstances. I think we can all imagine a number of different scenarios which may favour the one or other type.

ID rules are subjective and the FSO has a better TV camera for that end. In the end, depending on how much of a “risk taker” your air force is, that will determine the limitations. Additionally there are ways of getting around the ID issue by establishing no-fly zones, and using a central database to coordinate flight path movements, so that you can be fairly sure of targets not being friendly ones.

Agreed with the later part in particular. NCTR, IFF, offboard ID data via datalink, emitter ID from the RWR/ESM, visual ID by eyes or electro optical means or even potential exclusion that a contact is friendly by its position are all ways to identify a target.

The Corsica engagement altitudes were suggested by the RAF – and the air density at that altitude would have favored lots of power production. The EJ200 has far more power and so the Typhoon’s SEP ought to have been a plus factor. The Typhoon could not convert its specific excess thrust advantage into any gain here.

The SEP advantage exists at lower altitudes as well and as said 20k ft is hardly “high altitude”. If the Rafale would really struggle at that altitude Snecma would have done something wrong. In fact most WVR DACTs are conducted at altitudes between 15k ft to 25k ft, exceptions possible. Minimum altitude is typically restricted for safety reasons and engagements are called off if a participant is violating the minimum altitude limit.

At low altitude the game would have favored the Rafale easily for a number of reasons including the flight control restrictions on the Typhoons near the ground.

That’s nonsense Typhoon’s FCS isn’t “more restrictive at low altitudes”, it’s more restrictive at low speeds in order to prevent the aircraft from decending below the minimum airspeed limit and this limit is in fact rising with altitude as the lower air density requires a higher minimum speed to produce the lift necessary to keep the aircraft flying.

I did say that the results were an anomaly but certainly the Rafale has held its own in multiple engagements as well.

Agreed.

As far as fuel tanks, the Rafale could always jettison away excess tanks when closing in on opponents and still therefore manage to be agile and have endurance. The tanks are huge and so the jet will be able to use fuel from these to go a long range and then toss the unneeded tanks and retain a small one for the final stages.

That’s just another narrowly defined scenario, which may work out or not depending on the circumstances. To provide the flexibility of using smaller or larger drop tanks is definitely an advantage, but it won’t necessarily translate into a range/endurance advantage in all conditions and in most cases Rafales are using the smaller drop tanks for AA missions.