The one going into the two weapons bays.

Link.
http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/frtypen/FRTaran.htm

Just because it will simulate this at the beginning doesn’t mean it can’t carry weapons, Taranis is Europes second UCAV, right after the BAE Mantis, being rolled out in a few weeks/months.

NOT according to MoD AND Taranis program goals documentation beside this source is the only one mentioning Weapon baies on this TDV and is by NO MEAN an official source…

What MoD says is cristal CLEAR; it is NOT intended to drop weapons and it is an UNARMED Technology Demonstrator Vehicle NOT and UCAV.

Thanks. 😎

With an engine similar to a Hawk, the weapon load probably won’t be dissimilar. Weight saving due to all pilot related gear being removed will no doubt be counteracted by less lift from a stealthier more compact planform

WHAT weapon load? :confused:

LmRaptor Im not disputing that lol – I don’t need a techie fan to illustrate this to me – I study the subject as part of a masters degree at one of the better institutions for the subject.

Good for you at least you can comprehend what i am talking about and i’m not exactly a “techie fan”, i had some proper training…

All I am saying is the F-35 will be able to fly at 50 kft.

So does the Tornados but it turns into a flying iron at this altitude and you can expect F-35 to follow suite for the very same reasons, i do not need to remind you that one needs air density as well as thrust to sustain a turn rate do I?

It won’t have the performance level the EF or the Rafale will have up there as there is no doubting the EF/Rafale will have superior top end KE + PE performance.

So at their Operational ceilling of 55.000 ft they will be markedly superior in performances to F-35…

And despite what the general public think – there is still a lot of dynamic performance gain over what we saw in the 80s – mabye not so much in terms of absolute performance gains.

Not absolute gain but generaly the flight envlops have growns outward and away from the top right corner of their previous scales, since requierement for speed above M 2.0 tends to desapear.

Here a picture from one famous genius from your favorite forum who was trying to prove to me that F-35 design Mach was M 2.0. You know who i mean, the one guy able to get F-35 sweep angle all wrong (It’s actualy closer to 33*)…

The guy mystakes Mach line for Critical Mach but it is still an interesting comparison, with a 33* sweep angle i can’t see the F-35 design optimised even for mid-supersonic speeds…

From F-16.com with love…

If it is explained, everyone can follow it, at least if he is willed.

This is not a question of “will” this is a question of = talking proper aerospacial language and reporting accuratly, you keep bubling and talking horse vent…

You want to tell me an aircraft with 6 or 8 external AAMs mostly on pylons will have the same drag as the same aircraft clean?

Do you understand what engine pressure recovery limits ARE?

These ARE the M 2.0 LIMITS of the European fighters NOT the DRAG caused by their AAMs because a Mirage 2000 will do M 2.0+ with 6 AAMs due to its multi-shock inlets.

Sorry but that is ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is your insistance into refusing to comprehend what the real limits of these aircraft is and interpreting what i say in a permanent basis.

Sure 2 or 4 missiles won’t hurt much, especially if fitted to wing rails or semi-recessed fuselage stations, but if you have 6 or 8 missiles and 4-6 of them need pylons, you are going to have increased drag and that will have an impact on the performance, like it or not.

Blah-di-blah. (See below)…

Usually the result is, but the cinematic doesn’t mean lofting itself.

cinematic – of or pertaining to or characteristic of the cinema

As i said you seems to have NO CLUE what you’re talking about…

In aerospacial terms, cinematic is defined by the way the landing gear deployes in an order of mechanical sequencies.

The word you’re looking for is Kinetic energy and the F-35 have LESS of it by the bucket.

Being forced into combat earlier than planned, with external fuel not used to the degree as planned in the mission for example.

If this occurs then your mission plannig is wrong, in ANY case all of these are air-refuelable…

Neither AdA/MN nor Dassault are of interest here, we speak about a US design, so anything related to the AdA/MN or Dassault is completely irrelevant!

IT IS PERFECTLY relevant expecialy because YOU keep INVENTING standards and words which only exist in your fantasist imagination.

According a briefing from Maj. Davis from the HQ ACC the typical ceiling will be:

No higher than 40.000 ft according to L-M.

Anyway you don’t get my point. In the end LM or the customer will state a service ceiling of 50k ft or something like that,

In the end you’re still talking MANURE in the face of every official documents posted to you as ervidence, typical of you. :rolleyes:

that the aircraft wasn’t optimised for that altitude is true, but it will be able to operate there.

And be a sitting duck because its lower performances will have degraded further when their opponent will be at the RIGHT ceilling.

Whats are known advantages for F-22, higher cruising speed and ceiling are ALSO valid advantages for more performant aircrafts over F-35.

It just makes not much sense, as the aircraft will have insufficient performance at that ceiling.

It just makes not much sense that you keep igonring REALITY even when L-M own documentation proves you’re wasting forum space arguing wrongly.

That is true for many aircraft including the F-15, F-16, F/A-18, MiG-29 or Su-27 to mention some examples. Neither of these aircraft is operated at altitudes of 50k ft plus on a “regular” base as you claim, though all of them are capable to fly at that altitudes.

FIRST of all you got to loose the habit to bring things at a personal level, then LEARN from those who know meaning the manufacturers datas and operators themself.

Give it a REST, you are proven WRONG and your failure to admit it is only another evidence of bad faith from you…

Operational ceiling……………………………………. …55,000 ft http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/…stics.html?L=1

Quote:Caractéristiques du F1
Envergure : 10,90 mètres
Surface alaire : 46 m²
Longueur : 15,27 mètres
Hauteur : 5,34 mètres
Masses :
à vide : 10 196 kg
maximale : 24 000 kg
Vitesse maximale : Mach 2 (1 290 noeuds)
Vitesse d’approche : 120 noeuds
Temps de patrouille : supérieure à 3 heures
Plafond : 50 000 pieds
Distance franchissable : 1 000 nautiques
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/marine/de…onefs/rafale_m

Here BOY, go invent yourself some standards now or go tell Marine Nationale and Dassault that they do not comprehend the word Operational according to YOU…

Since i have made a promess to my friend signatory, a guy who always have displayed the highest level of “coutoisie” to myself and other of my nationals…

For a starter i would like to point out at the MAIN characteristic of the close-coupled DELTA Canard:

—————

—————

The type of LIFT generated by the DELTA wings:

Vortex LIFT.
—–

This kind of lit if very particular in that the airflow creating the vortexes actualy comes from the INTRADOS (Lower surface), contourns the leading edge and form into a single (or double) cornet.

This detail is of primary importance because when close coupled to a canard surface it is the interaction of the canard vortexes and that of the wings which created the famous Hysterisis effect.

LEX and Canard vortexes at work…

-The close coupled delta canard configuration’s primary feature, its stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, meaning high maximum lift coefficient, had lately been realized by the Americans, instead using large strakes as forward wing root extensions together with conventional tail arrangement, as found on the F-16 and F-17/18.-
U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html

—-

Adding close-coupled Canards to the Mirage III actualy had some very positive effects on low-speed handling:

Low speed and High AoA…

Quote:-The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices of the delta wing. This gives and extension of controlled airflow up to higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder.-

-The vortex lift starts ealier which results in reduced drag at a given lift.-

-At a given AoA. the canard configuration gives more lift and less drag than the canardless delta configuration.-

-The improved YAW stability permits higher AoA, and therefore lift and drag are approximatively doubled with the canards.-

-Overal maneuvrability at low speed is much improved. Minimum speed in 1g flight is down from 150kt to less than 107kt KAS.-

-The canards are about two-third the size of those on the IAI Kfir.-

-Up till now we had a forward and aft c.g limitation on the Mirage III. From test we know that the aft c.g limit was too optimistic and the wind-tunnel proved that the canard would move the neutral point forward by about 1-5 per cent.-

High AoA…

Quote:-Approaching AoA limits in a standard Mirage III, a minor buffeting is felt. Beyhond this limit, the buffeting increases slowly without being a real warning. With the canard fitted, no buffeting at all is felt, and the pilot has no natural warning.-

RESULT of the interation between canards and delta wing on the Swiss Mirage IIIS…

NOTE:

IAI Kfir…

For those wondering what the dogtooth are for on the leading edge of the IAI KFIR, they results on turbulent airflow separation and creates this buffeting, giving the pilot the warning he needs when approaching AoA limits.

On a Rafale the leading edge slats have the same effect while energising the airflow above the wing at higher AoA.

Quote:-The canard configured Mirage III presents a great improvement in low-speed maneuvring and INSTANTANEOUS turn rate.-
DATE:14/12/85
SOURCE:Flight International
Canard Mirage on test (Archive)
By Test Pilot Walter Spychiger

Another serious source:

Quote:-The aerodynamic advantages derived from the close coupled canard configuration, foremost its good vortex flow stability up to high angles of attack (AOA), that can be translated into a very high instantaneous turn rate,-

Delta canard’s inherent good aerodynamics are:

· Stable detached leading edge vortex flow, high maximum lift coefficient.
· Positive trim lift on all lifting surfaces.
· Floating canard offers stable aircraft if EFCS fails.
· Good field performance (take off and landing), enhanced by special aerodynamic breaking mode.

· Battle damage tolerance good, “overlapping” control surfaces.
· Potential for future adaptations, like steep approach, fuselage aiming.
· Low buffeting levels made even better with leading edge flaps.

Spin recovery known to be acceptable for close coupled delta canard (not necessarily so for a long coupled canard configuration):

· Proven spin recovery capability for complete cg and AOR range.
· Nor risk of being trapped in a superstall, control authority exists.
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html

So here you go:

· Positive trim lift on all lifting surfaces.

Think: The hysterisis effect doesn’t vanish at supersonic speed, so positive trim lift remains.

DAMPING defines the ability of an aircraft to naturaly counter parasite moments such as unwanted pitch-up at transonic speed.

Similarly, low speed characteristics are way better, which make them naturaly more suited to carrier operation.

There is NO risk of SUPERSTALL, 3-axis control remains throughout the whole flight envelop…

Quote:-Rebourg said that to date, they have not been able to depart the aircraft into a spin».
DAVID M. NORTH/ISTRES, FRANCE quoting Philippe Rebourg, «deputy chief test pilot for military aircraft at Dassault.-

Quote:SAAB designers agrees on that point, so does NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:
Eugene L TU Aug 1996.

Quote:-For long-coupled canard configurations, the effects on aerodynamic performance is usualy limited to the lift of the canard itself and the total pitching moment. However, the close-coupled canard has significant influence on wing performance as well.-
NASA Technical Memorandum 11394:
Eugene L TU Aug 1996.

-Increasing mid-canard deflection increases overall pitching moment for all computed angles of attack. Significant nonlinearities due to the canard-wing interaction are also noted in the pitching moment curves.-

In landing configuration, the Rafale canards are automaticaly pitched-up at 30*…

1. Combat radius 1,000 NM+ –> 3,700 km+ in range.

2. Average speed: 450 ~ 550 kts –> 833 ~ 1019 km /hr.

3. Flight time: 3700 / 833 ~ 1019 = 3.6 to 4.5 hrs.

At a typical cruise speed of M0.82/347kt, Chris Yeo/ISTRES FLIGHT TEST CENTRE DATE:23/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Combat ready
Flight International puts the Rafale BO1 two-seat prototype to the test in its heavy configuration
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/06/23/53125/combat-ready.html

Let’s be precise…

Could this be that very rare occurance when a UK project is actually ahead of schedule

LOL!

Considering they do use mostly exiting technologies from previous UAVs and does not have to develop a weapon bay nor the associated systems (Emulation of the attack) it would be a shame to be behind schedule…