Nicolas, babas cools; pas de familiarites s’il vous plait, je suis non fumeur…
Jackotwisto; keep your family and durt matters for yoursel please as well as insultsing people you keep taking others for your usual ineducated fanboys, i bet i could be your dad as for a matter of education we all know what you are worth and it aint much when it come to the subject of aeorspace..:D
Night and supersonic flights were also carried out. http://www.ar.admin.ch/internet/armasuisse/en/home/aktuell/media/mediasingle.22451.nsb.html
I guess Typhoon missed out of these no?
The flights undertaken during the evaluation are part of the existing flight quotas and did not lead to more flights on the airbases in question. http://www.ar.admin.ch/internet/armasuisse/en/home/aktuell/media/mediasingle.22451.nsb.html
So they are talking as much manure as our dear Jack then???
the Eurofighter, is planned for this coming Thursday. This candidate will be subjected to the same test program as the „Gripen“ and the „Rafale“. http://www.ar.admin.ch/internet/armasuisse/en/home/aktuell/media/mediasingle.22451.nsb.html
Looks like the uninformed always sees the world to their own image.;)
On the engine matter:
Sens -Some new parts of the M88-3 were introduced into the M88-2, which did become the M88-2,5 or the M88-ECO. ECO as economical does sound much better than the M88-2,5
compromise.
When you’re finished INVENTING yourself some knowledge and FACTS…
Q: Since WHEN exactly does the technologic evolutions of M88 come by HALF increments???
M88-3 thrust was coming from oversized 73kg/s compressor added to the SAME M88 core.
NOT fitable to ECO not to mention the 6 years of development between the first runs at 95 and 90 kN.
Sens -To avoid misunderstandings, there is nothing wrong to get the best from development work done already-
There a lot wrong at writing manure by the bucket…
c-seven LordAssap or global press actually gave a link about it in the flow of his datas but I can’t bother to dig.
N’en deplaise a certain, Lordassap et global press sont DEUX persones bien distinctes, quand a tes links, etant donne la valeur de ces archives tu devrais peut etre les conserver…
M88-3: 1999
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles…necma-m88.html
-A further development, the M88-3, rated at 9.5t thrust, still awaits funding, but has been benchtested on a privately funded demonstrator. “We are proposing the M88-3 to the French government for the future standard of the Rafale in the early 2000s and to prospective export customers”, says Massot.-
DATE:09/06/99
SOURCE:Flight International
Snecma M88http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201250.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201251.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201252.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201253.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201254.html
ECO: 2005
http://www.snecma.com/spip.php?artic…_recherche=M88Successful tests by Snecma Moteurs of a higher-performance M88 demonstrator
Courcouronnes, January 17, 2005Snecma Moteurs successfully carried out the first tests of a technology demonstrator designed to enhance M88 engine performance and pave the way for future upgraded versions.
These tests are part of a technology demonstration program co-funded by the French Ministry of Defense. The program aims to demonstrate lower operating costs and higher dispatch reliability for the Rafale’s M88-2 engine, by incorporating innovative new technologies, as well as studying the feasibility of developing a variant combining higher thrust with lower fuel burn and weight. It will ensure the competitiveness of future versions of the Rafale, in terms of both flight performance and payload capacity.
“Snecma Moteurs is very pleased with the success of these initial tests,” said Jean-Luc Engerand, head of Snecma Moteurs’ military engine division. “It marks a new phase in the development of our military engines and paves the way for future upgraded M88 versions.”
The initial series of tests was used to characterize the engine’s steady-state performance, with settings for versions offering both 75kN of thrust and 90kN, at full throttle with afterburner. Performance and endurance tests of the demonstrator will continue in early 2005.
Designed for the Rafale multirole fighter, the M88 is the first member of a family of new-generation engines for 21st century combat and advanced training aircraft. The first production engine was delivered in 1996, and the M88-2 version now powers both the air force and naval versions of the Rafale. It is particularly well suited to low-altitude penetration and high-altitude interception missions.
ECO have been benchtested for two years and reached 90 kN in Jan 2005
About the latest Jackonicko ouburst:
Typical reverse psychology, read; Typhoon got reliability problems, have to be the same for Rafale, and we saw this about just EVERY single Tyhooon issues over the years this character have been entertaining us…
Expect MORE of it because Typhoon isn’t sorted just yet, far from it and its developement is NOWHERE near as advanced nor going the same rate as Rafale.
PHT progam. Still going ON in 2008…
2007
seahawk;1328414](increasingly senseless btw.)
Stop smoking senselessly whatever you’re smoking because the first to put this idea to practice was the USAF actualy with a F-15.:rolleyes:
As for a Swiss QRA configuration that would actualy fit the equiped weight given by the PDF:
Central 1.250 l 1 central pylon, underfuselage ejectors…
Looks like two D to me…
Rafale, satellite launcher study – 2008/11/03
Dassault Aviation is currently studying the possibility of installing an airborne micro-launcher (MLA) under a Rafale to place small satellites into low earth orbit.:cool:
Combining an aircraft and a launcher is an attractive idea in terms of flexibility and responsiveness. The United States were the first to examine this means of launching satellites into orbit (the Notsnic system). Later on, some Cold War anti-satellite projects were based on missiles being launched by F-15 (American ASAT) or MiG-31 (Soviet Kontact) aircraft. However, today, the only operational airborne launch system is the Pegasus created by OSC (United States) in the early 1990s; this launcher, able to place 250 kg in low earth orbit, has been successfully used on close to 40 occasions.
The operational and financial benefits (absence of heavy infrastructure) of airborne launches led Dassault Aviation to conduct the Eclat and Milan studies on a micro-launcher, borne by a Mirage IV, which weighed approximately four tons and was able to place 50 to 70 kilos at an altitude of 300 kilometers.
Since the end of 2004, this design has been revisited with the Rafale in the context of a CNES contract on the Airborne Micro-Launcher (MLA) project. This has involved pursuing prior studies, using a high performance, available aircraft, and drawing benefit from new technologies, in particular, electronic miniaturization.
The MLA would use an operational Rafale
The study therefore started with an operational Rafale. The installation of the launcher under the airplane must comply with restrictions associated with the store station (vertical clearance, landing gear and doors displacement, allowable weight). An initial single body launcher (a storable solid propellant stage and a storable liquid propellant stage) was considered for linear installation under the central station of the fuselage. This version allowed for 50 kilos to be placed in low earth orbit for an initial analysis, which is a remarkable feat for an airplane of a size significantly smaller than that of the Mirage IV.
Additionally, the CNES was looking for an airborne launcher able to place in heliosynchronous orbit, at approximately 800 km in altitude (that of Spot satellites), Myriade-class satellites (150 kg). The Technical Department’s teams therefore designed a tri-body configuration that could fully use the Rafale’s external stores capacity: the central linear body is completed by two lateral bodies (solid propellant type) to form a first stage installed under the store stations of the wings. The different parts of the launcher are linked by fixed arms that do not impede the deployment of the landing gear. This 10-ton class launcher can be used in a wide variety of missions. Its performance could be improved even further with new propulsion technologies.
It is believed that the operational use of the MLA can be simplified in comparison to traditional launchers. On the ground, close to a runway, the infrastructure would require a single integration building (launcher, satellite and aircraft), as well as a propellant filling area.
The MLA would certainly constitute a responsive and efficient launch system for “Defense and Security” needs, as well as all other missions where short notice launch is required. For this reason, work is underway to consolidate this highly innovative launcher project.
Acronyms:
ASAT : Anti-Satellite
CNES : Centre National d’Études Spatiales
OSC : Orbital Sciences Corporation
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/aviation/press/in-the-air/in-the-air-2008/rafale-satellite-launcher-study.html?L=1
Link to PDF:
Q: A reason for a M 88 90 kN setting?
They think the maximal thrust of EJ-200 now (90 KNs) is powerful enough for Eurofighter, so they prefer keeping this thrust for the maximum (thrust rated) service life.
NO
They think that to achieve the same operational cost, TBO and achieve a a reasonable lifespan, they have to use EJ200 at 89kN NOT 90.
So when judging rafale airframe design don’t forget rafale exeptional carrying capabilities…
1.5 times its OWN weight for the C… New goalposts and standards to beat.
-arthuro On the other hand, for this mission the rafale can boast to have a better radar and EW (AESA) as well as a better combat endurance, but I doubt it will make up for the the better kinetics of the typhoon.-
FIRST of all: Kinetic energy results from SPEED NOT TWR and it can be compouted in terms of AXIAL g.
Tell US how Typhoon is superior to Rafale with a DASH speed of M 2.0 for the BOTH of them…
I doubt you can demonstrate any time soon that Typhoon have better kinetics at all, particularly in an airspace the size of that of Switerland.
To give you a clue, they have the same cornering speed at about 360kt.
Kinetic energy is related to the same physic laws than centrifugal forces meaning they realy only start to show at higer speed/energy.
Typhoon design is optimised for evolution within a near-unlimited airspace (North sea vs Russian bombers) a speed between M 1.8 to M 2.0, not an airspace the size of a British phonebox, which is more Rafale forte…
Typhoon advantage (if any) is not only marginal it is also on the top corner of its flight envelop above M 1.6.
Below that Rafale is simply better thanks to a much more advanced aerodynamic design and better transcient performances (Roll rate, pitch control, Cl, instantaneous turn rate, transonic and supersonic drag, engine spooling etc).
Unless Switzerland buys the lighter, under-equiped Austrians T1 version, this Turin agreement-related kinetic energy advantage has gone down the gutter for a while.
By having to compete with Rafale and M88 in their fields (Lower ownership costs, TBO, maintainance, A2G capabilties etc) Eurofighter and Eurojet had to reduce Typhoon TWR, we just have to wait for the official figures to creep out one of these days and laugh.
T2 airframe is now heavier and the EJ200 rated at 89 kN anyway to keep cost to a level where it can look good compared to M88, the problem is; its developement is WAY slower and underfunded.
More to the point i realy dont see WHY GIE wouldn’t make the 90 kN M88 available to the Swiss, gone the Typhoon “superior” TWR and more apearent the reason for all this trolling on Rafale empty weight.
On MICA; it is FAR from being a problem, quiet the opposite, coupled with METEOR it is an ASSET, being the only REAL western BVR IR AAM with a 80 km range and 50g capability, thus capable of close range performances equal to superior to an AIM9X (HIGHER LIFT RATIO and TVC).
Without any source to validate i only can speculate but Rafale F2 was already capable of using SPECTRA to cue an AASM, I strongly suspect that for the F3 version, this capability have been ported to the MICA.
After all, SPECTRA in its developement version was already capable of a precision of less than 1* at more than 100 km, plus we know now that Rafale radar coverage is 360*.
In short, quietly, GIE have moved the goalposts so far it will take a gigantic effort from Eurofighter to come even a close second…
Think about this:
5th generation core systems architecture.
360* AESA radar coverage.
Interferometric EW.
90 kN engines with reduced IR signature and costs.
About the 90 kN M88, many of those who keep revving about it doesn’t understand what it realy is meant for.
For your information, Rafale actual typical cruising speed in heavy configuration is M 0.82/347kt and is not engine related but payload limits related (aerodynamics loads).
Definition of CRUISING involving a power setting below 90%, if M88 ECO achieves this at 79% instead of 89% it does then allow for BOTH reduced maintainance, longer TBO, lower operational costs and higher performances at high power settings.
Since higher TET and airflow rates are the reasons for ECO higher thrust, at lower power settings than M88E4 it will even provide with less engine wear for the SAME performances and due to higher temperatures even LOWER SFC for the same Mach.
Perhaps you guy haven’t noticed yet but it was SNECMA main technical goal from as early as 1995 with M88-3:
-“The aim is to widen the range of operability,” says Masson, “so that the engine is more efficient in intermediate and low-power regimes.”-
DATE:03/05/95
SOURCE:Flight International
Future thrust-
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201250.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201251.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201252.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201253.html
http://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive/view/1995/1995%20-%201254.html
SECOND goal but no less important with ECO:
-“developing a variant combining higher thrust with lower fuel burn and weight”.
Intermediates power settings means CRUISE, where engines SFC performances weren’t always the best, improving on this aspect FIRST, then on Max thrusts at military and A-B settings means the new engine is more economical to run at the SAME power setting than the previous generation.
While flying a typical strike mission, there is NO advantages keeping the 75 kN settings at all, only at higher power settings would the 75 kN version be perhaps cheaper to operate and then again there is NO guarantees it would.
Technologic progresses made thanks to years of researches means that it could run at 2050k instead of 1850k and still have the same turbine life-span.
TET is a matter of software setting and therefore left to the client as an option.
On the subject of energy (related to thrust BTW):
Energy Equates With Survival
DATE:13/11/96
SOURCE:Flight International
Terminal velocity
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1996/11/13/9972/terminal-velocity.html
-Grp Capt Graeme Smith, British Aerospace’s military air advisor, says that”-current medium-range weapons suffer from a lack of overall total energy in that they do not have the manoeuvrability required to achieve a kill against a highly agile opponent: that is, they have a relatively small no-escape zone”.-
-It is believed to have been just such a conclusion that prompted the RAF to look beyond a conventional solid-rocket design (for the EF2000, the AIM-120B) to a more capable missile with a greater energy for the “end-game engagement”. There is no point in a missile reaching the final stage of the engagement if it cannot deal successfully with a target manoeuvring at 9G-plus. As a rule of thumb for a successful BVR engagement, a missile needs to have a minimum of three times the manoeuvre energy of its target. If a target pulls up to10G in an evasive manoeuvre, then the missile will need to sustain 30G-plus turns at the end of an engagement to record a kill.-
-Some sources indicate that RAF simulations of the Sukhoi Su-27 Flanker and Flanker Plus derivatives and associated missiles versus the EF2000 with the AIM-120B revealed an unacceptably poor exchange ratio. The focus fell on providing the EF2000 with a missile, which has a far greater no-escape volume at BVR ranges.-
Of course, according to some ineducated posters, people who wrote Rafale requierements, designed and built it are such a bunch of ignorants, they do not know what a 90 kN M88 would do for the aircraft survivability…
So please READ AGAIN:
1)-As a rule of thumb for a successful BVR engagement, a missile needs to have a minimum of three times the manoeuvre energy of its target.-
2)– If a target pulls up to10G in an evasive manoeuvre, then the missile will need to sustain 30G-plus turns at the end of an engagement to record a kill.-
Rafale is capable of 11g in case of emergency, F-35 are structuraly LIMITED to 7. 7.5, and 9.0g.
Good luck with that in a BVR engagement vs an IR MICA capable of 50 g+ even OUT of its NEZ.
AIM 120 AMRAAM was designed for 40g (NEZ) and the version which equips F-35 have reduced control surfaces.
Now some geniuses are going to explain to us that LIFT and gravity doesn’t apply there either but i believe that the “clipped” wings aren’t providing MORE turning (g) capabilties but LESS expecialy at longer ranges where energy is depleted.
Since the aerodynamics laws are the same overal for missiles, reducing the wing span and fin span by respectively 3 and 6 In for the same (348.1 lb) weight is affecting the missile Max sustained turn rate.
Better sustained thrust by the motor only partly compensates for it, out of the highest thrust part of its flight envelop AIM-120B is WAY inferior to MICA.
In short those who expect F-35 to beat Rafale in A2A in BVR or else are better off asking Santa-Claus for a full year of free-sex tokens, it might happen sooner, we never know…
You claimed an increased weight for Tranche 1 to allow for austere A-G integration.
You claimed that Tranche 1 jets (still the only Typhoons in frontline squadron service) were heavier than the ‘demonstrator’ DA aircraft.
WRONG on both counts.
“Boy”.
YET ANOTHER LIE…
MYSELF: We all know Typhoon airframe have to be strengthened to be capable of (limited) A2G capabilties; in short we can see why they insist into trying to make up Rafale have to put on weight as well, await bad news from the Typhoon community soon…
Keep your familiarities for those who like yourself keep posting without knowing what they are talking about as proven by your CONSTANT denial of reality.
WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS “LIMITED A2G CAPABILITIES” WHICH IS BASICALY THAT OF THE T2 COMPARED TO A RAFALE F3; WOULD YOU LIKE TO COMPARE FOR A LAUGH??? 
We also can compare the A2A capabilities like rearward firing or totaly passive targeting or ECM capabilties for MORE fun…
You called ME a LIAR on this issue trying to turn tables proves you simply can’t cut the mustard and that your so called “well informed sources and TPs” are just another invention of yours…:cool:
Now i dont know what you’re smoking but according to the famous physics you keep mentioning strengthening and airframe cost structural weight.
Unless of course as your fantasists writing proves time and time again Typhoon is immune to the laws of gravity and physics.
What you meant was certainly NOT advertised (YET) and BTW show ME mentioning an increased weight, since i do not KNOW it as it haven’t been published and as opposed to yourself i leave mythomania to others among which you Mr Jack…:D
BTW making comments about someone getting the close-coupled to long moment harm designs wrong (ONCE) when yourself are totaly incapable of debating on the subject other than slashing off notoriously MORE knowledgeable than yourself takes some arrogance but, he, we are not surprised by your attitude anymore, we had it for years and your lies are there for everyone to read today.
You’re DUE SOUTH Jack!!!
Just to please some guys here…
SAINT DIZIER, France — The first French Air Force squadron to operate the Dassault Rafale omnirole fighter attained full operational capability here on June 27, during a ceremony attended by French Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin, Defence Minister Michèle Alliot-Marie and other senior government officials.
This largely symbolic event took place the day after two of the squadron’s deployed aircraft effectively stood up for their first operational air defence mission at Mont de Marsan air base, in southern France.
The unit based here, n° 1/7 “Provence” squadron, previously operated Jaguar fighter-bombers in the ground attack role. It has now taken delivery of ten Rafales, and will receive another ten by the end of the year, when it will attain its full operational strength. A second Rafale squadron, this time tasked with the nuclear strike role, will stand up in 2008 with another 20 aircraft.
In all, the French Air Force will receive 234 Rafales, split between Rafale B two-seat and Rafale C single-seat versions, while the French Navy will operate 60 Rafale M single-seaters. To date, 120 Rafales have been ordered for both services, and 34 have been delivered.
The Air Force order covers a total of 82 aircraft (44 single-seaters and 38 two-seaters) with an additional 38 Rafale Ms – all single-seaters – for the Navy. Under current plans, production is to continue until 2023.
Five years after the French Navy received its first aircraft, Rafale ushers the French Air Force into the era of network-centric warfare, thanks to its unique capabilities in terms of data fusion, tactical connectivity, passive target detection and weapons load. “You can talk about fourth-generation or fifth-generation aircraft all you want, but what really matters is that Rafale is one full generation ahead of all other aircraft,” says Major General (armament corps) Patrick Dufour, Rafale program director at the French defence procurement agency, Delegation Générale pour l’Armement (DGA). “It can perform any mission, anywhere, and that’s what counts.”
In fact, the French Air Force considers that two Rafales will provide commanders with the same mission capabilities as a formation of four Mirage 2000D attack aircraft escorted by two Mirage 2000-5F air superiority fighters. In this sense, says Dufour, it is a true force multiplier.
The “Provence” squadron’s pilots, who spent about two years working up on the Rafale at the operational conversion unit in Mont de Marsan, have logged an average of 120 to 130 flight hours on the aircraft.
“The most noticeable difference compared to other aircraft is that Rafale is a flying computer. It manages its own flight parameters, leaving its pilot free to concentrate on the tactical mission,” says Capt. Nicolas Lyautey, one of the first pilots of n° 1/7 “Provence” squadron to convert to the Rafale. He previously flew Jaguar fighter-bombers, comparable to Rafale in terms of size and weight but clearly outclassed in terms of capabilities. He went solo on the Rafale after only four flights with an instructor, and says that the aircraft is so simple to operate that pilots can undertake their first operational missions after about 50 flight hours.
The Rafale’s central computer monitors all flight, engine and system parameters as background tasks, and they are only brought up on the cockpit’s three LCD screens or head-up display when a decision or an input is required from the pilot. This avoids information overload, reduces workload and creates an uncluttered environment in which aircrew can concentrate exclusively on flying the mission.
“Using the autopilot, auto-throttle and navigation aids, the aircraft can fly a complete high-speed mission at an altitude of 200 feet above sea level without any intervention by its pilot,” says Jean-Marc Gasparini, deputy Rafale program manager for Dassault Aviation.
One of the more challenging aspects of Rafale operations is how to fully exploit its capabilities, and especially its range of passive sensors. Pilots, for example, can use its TV/thermal imaging observation system (dubbed Optronique Secteur Frontal, and similar in principle to infrared scan and track) to visually identify other aircraft at ranges of more than 50 kilometres (approx. 30 nautical miles), and transmit this and other tactical data to other aircraft using their MIDS datalink.
Another unique capability, according to Col. François Moussez, the French Air force’s Rafale program officer is that it can fire missiles at targets detected and designated by its integrated Spectra countermeasures suite, again without any need for active transmissions that can give away its position.
Remarkably, Rafale will continue to offer capabilities in advance of its competitors thanks to an upgrade policy adopted by the French defence ministry. This ensures that in-service aircraft are upgraded as new capabilities are cleared, so that the entire fleet is always maintained at the latest available standard.
The first Rafales to enter Navy service were configured to the F1 standard, optimised for air-to-air operations. The F2 standard is networked-enabled and adds air-to-ground capabilities, allowing Rafale to fire Scalp cruise missiles, made by MBDA, as well as AASM precision-guided bombs made by Sagem Défense & Securité.
Dassault is now working to finalize the improved F3 standard, which will be available from June 2008 and will add additional weapons, including the ASMPA nuclear stand-off missile, the AM-39 Exocet anti-ship missile and the Thales Reco NG reconnaissance pod. All navy and air force aircraft already in service will be retrofitted to F3 standard by uploading a new software package, which will become standard fit for all subsequent production aircraft.
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 (compared to today’s 7.5 tonnes), a new radar with advanced electronically-scanned antenna replacing the current RBE-2 radar with shaped-beam antenna, a new missile warning receiver, an improved Front Sector Optronics system and, beginning in 2012, the Meteor beyond-visual range missile being developed by a European industry team led by MBDA. If approved, these improvements will become standard beginning with the 120th production aircraft, says DGA’s Dufour.
Despite this apparent complexity, Rafale was designed to operate with bare-bones support, and for instance has entirely done away with scheduled maintenance – a premiere for an advanced combat aircraft. Thanks to its permanent auto-testing processing and real-time monitoring airframe fatigue by the aircraft’s own computer, maintenance operations depend on the real condition of individual components. Furthermore, all operational and maintenance paperwork is stored in a single computer database, allowing detailed monitoring of aircraft condition by maintenance crews as well as outside contractors.
“Our design objective was to reduce maintenance man-hours per flight hours by 23% compared to the Mirage 2000,” says Col Moussez, “and on initial experience we in fact achieved better than 25%.”
French officials are also at pains to stress that Rafale, despite its quantum leap in capabilities, remains much more affordable than competing aircraft. DGA’s Dufour says that the total cost of the 294-aircraft program, including development, pre-production, production and integrated logistical support, amounts to 33,273 million euros (inclusive of value-added tax) at 2003 prices. This is an increase of just 4.18 percent, or 1,336 million euros, over the projected cost in 1988, when the original contract was signed. Competing combat aircraft cost at least one-third more, reinforcing Dassault’s belief that the Rafale will eventually score highly on the export market.
(Source: Rafale International; issued July 3, 2006) http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.17007304.1135860649.Q7PbqcOa9dUAAGLNewE&modele=jdc_34
Please, “boyz” DO your home work before trying to tackle a poster… Cheers.
Sign In
