TMorYes, then ?
Where is the discussion going to ? I’ve lost the track.
TMorWithout pretention, I don’t know about other engines after all. But it may be a hint (or not).
During its first trials, the M88-2 demonstrated better inflight restart performance than the F404. Remember Rafale A flew with both engines.
(Source : Rafale la véritable histoire, Germain Chambost)
TMorRafale was in India from the 18th of September but i don’t know when they left.
http://www.bharat-defence.com/2009/09/rafale-lands-in-bangalore.html
On the 29th, they arrived in Bangalore.
In Jaisalmer, they made air-to-ground demonstration, refuelled with IL-78 Midas, landed at their max weight, others tests with hot temperatures found in the region.
TMorA firm from Boudry embarks on board the Rafale fighter
Assembling Systems , the company from Boudry, boarded the Rafale fighter. After considering its capabilities, the company has been selected to become a supplier of Dassault Aviation and Labinal, a consortium of industrial companies of the Rafale.Assembling Systems, which designs electrical wiring of high technology, is ideally positioned as if the federal government retains the Rafale to replace the F-5 Tiger of the Swiss army
TMorThursday, two Indian officers have flown the Rafale
Saturday, 20th of March 2010.
On Thursday 18th of March, two indian officers could discover and test by themselves all the qualities of Rafale.
After a briefing in the morning, the Indian pilot -very experimented, but alone onboard a plane which was new to him- could take off, intercept and identify a fighter with the help of the optronics of Rafale, engage several air-to-air targets at beyond visual range, shoot an AASM salvo -the new GPS guided french bomb- on targets discovered and realigned during the mission, before landing… All in a single hour simulated flight…
The two officers could check the realism of the simulator Rafale, using in a real two seater flight what they had learned during less than a daytime.
They left the 1/7 fighter squadron bluffed by the ease of use of our last fighter, and with a smile on their face.
I hope my translation is better than the Google’s.
TMorOr Mirage 2000-9 đŸ˜€
TMorBy the way, this thread is over until AFM publishes something new.
TMorthats funny, bluewings and french strategy on StrategyPage fit that definition for me
I partially agree. But while FS can be provocative, I think he deserves much more respect than …….. and …….. to (not)name a few.
wasnt the rafale designed as omnirole, fighter defense and self escorted with ground hugging radar for low alt bomb runs
One mission among others.
This is why we “raise our eyebrows” when we read “when the rafale was designed as a low level bomber”.
TMorI suspect that he was being sarcastic!
I hope so, but on StrategyPage, they aren’t sarcastic when they write about Rafale history. There is something comparable to creationism with Rafale.:D
TMorIt clearly demonstrates that Rafale’s LO treatments were an afterthought or as evil :diablo: Americans say “a Band-Aid fix”.
No. In fact, it’s the contrary. The probe is an afterthought.
Again, when one don’t know about the Rafale developpement phase, he cannot be accurate.
The current Rafale C come from the Rafale D project, which is a widely modified Rafale A (which only validated some ideas). It had to be smaller, and received stealth specifications.
This project resulted in several Rafale. The cheaper was not very stealthy, and the most expensive was… more stealthy. The current Rafale C is neither the most expensive, nor the cheapest, but we don’t know which one it is.
Independently, the probe is an army choice which wanted a strong fixed probe, because of the “Boom” for refueling which can easily break a probe. If AdA had took new means into account, a different choice would have been made. This induced an increase in weight, a certain increase in RCS. This is not an optimal solution. But there’s a gap between claiming that the probe is the proof that all efforts are wasted and the fact that this probe might have only a small impact.
Dassault have had several “battle” against AdA. For example, AdA wanted wing tip fairing, believing that it reduced wingtip vortices. Dassault had to demonstrate that they were wrong in the windtunnel. Missiles at wingtip have shown to be a better solution both for aerodynamics and RCS. And there are several cases of this kind (canopy for example).
TMorHowever, according to the article, the number of DACT exercise between RAF and FAF during this continuous training slot (which last for more than 3 weeks) should be much more than just two times. Therefore, it seems that Lt Col Fabrice Grandclaudon didn’t tell the complete story and the whole truth……..
In fact, what he said actually happened in even worst conditions than initially claimed (and I don’t know what it means).
It happened
Or course, more details would be very interesting.
TMorto me it seems that there you can accept the weaknesses and strengths of rafale and have a sensible discussion
where as here rafale is faultless and you blindly defend that proposition
No, you miss the point.
I know nothing about airplane manufacturing. In addition, AD needs some contradiction (this is why I suggested that you register and participate)
Saying that panels are badly fitting is not accepting a weakness, it’s just ignoring a lot of true real facts that those who suggest it’s an actual weakness do their best to hide.
If you want me to talk about weaknesses, I may do so about problems with the IR channel of current OSF, maybe logistics with the M88-2, the lack of DDM on the F3, the REAL reasons of the choice of a fixed probe, the low res of Damocles and the lack of Rover datalink, delays in production/deliveries, induced risk in terms of manufacturing, Spectra settings, etc… In fact, a lot of things I don’t know much about (guess why)
The problem is that on fora, “sceptical” members always talk about the lack of thrust, the poor radar performance, strange cockpit design, ****** up RCS reduction measures, etc, etc, etc… A lot of comments which only comes from the imagination of… who knows ?
Example : in Afghanistan, Rafale operates even under hot and high weather with the current M88-2… Pilots prize the thrust margin, even though they take off in heavy configurations… Funny isn’t it ? Rafale which is supposed to be underpowered in those conditions (and even in Europe… :rolleyes: )
(meanwhile, France isn’t the country looking for a thrust increase for Afghanistan… :rolleyes:)
While some claims that the range of radar is insufficient, interestingly, they never talk a lot of others areas where PESA shine… How demagogic !!! đŸ˜® So let our pilots surprise other air forces (this has already happened even in a competition).
There are a lot of discussions about silly claims which are carefully chosen to discredit Rafale on some areas which look very important only at first glance. This is simply boring. I regret a lack of real and sincere interest in Rafale, this interest being hampered by both fantasies from some French, and prejudice (voluntarily or not) from others.
TMorcorrect me if i’m wrong, but didnt you say you wished rafale had better fitting panels, like the other planes that look like they come out of a plastic mold ?
Another example of selective memory ? :rolleyes: The problem is that I do not write the same kind of messages on Air-Defense than here. Two very different behaviors, and in the end, one opinion which you can find here. You have plenty of good reasons not to understand the subtleties, don’t worry (for example, the fact that french isn’t your native language).
but try to refrain from taking one line from my post and quoting it without context to give the appearance of a trolling.
Come on, assume what you wrote. The context is here for everyone who want the full picture. The quote includes the link to your message.
The fact is that because of some people (who aren’t on this board), you wrote an exaggeration.
My direct and unambiguous answer would be “the probe alone cannot compromise the RCS of the aircraft, or there would be something really dumb”.
There are posters on various forums who insist the RCS of the rafale is smaller than a mosqitos testicle – my slightly flippant remark was in context a minor exageration to demonstrate a point.
:rolleyes:
I’ve never read a single message lowering the lever so much. Even by French fanboys (and you know it).
The fact is that we commonly have to answer to over-sceptical comments, from people who discard systematically the effort Dassault/Snecma made to reduce RCS as much as they could.
The demonstration is here, for example with the saw tooth edges, which is ONE of the answers to the requirements.
And it is commonly seen as a compensation because of a supposed poor design… :rolleyes: or bad manufacture…
Is it painful to acknowledge that there is a visible effort to lower the RCS of Rafale which could be an edge compared to others ? (as the Rafale pilot “Benco” suggested, at Le Bourget last year)
Please forget about SP when you come here.
TMorThe probe alone probably gives a bigger return than some posters think the whole aircraft does.
The sawtooth application of RAM at the trailing edge of Rafale’s doors and control surfaces is a crude attempt to attenuate the creeping wave that is predominant with vertically polarized RF.
Superb !
I applaud those messages.
Well, at least, Rafale flies, doesn’t it ?
So, the Rafale design is so poor on RCS (especially with those badly fitting panels and RF reflecting fuel probe) that French did their best to add saw tooth at every panels.
The RBE-2 is such a shame that French are marketing a passive BVR fight capability.
What’s next ?
F-22 was such a failure in terms of RCS that they made they best to modify all the shape of the airframe, so as to compensate ?
APG-77 is so bad that they also developped a passive BVR fight capability ?
TMorFinal Report of the FAB proposal says that French fighter is ‘more consistent’
on the table of the Minister of Defense Nelson Jobim, the final report of the Brazilian Air Force on the technical quality of the fighters that compete for the purchase by Brazil. Unlike the previous analysis, this time the Air Force re-evaluate that, considering the National Defense Strategy, the French Rafale fighters represent “the proposal more consistent.” Brazil plans to buy 36 fighter jets in a deal that could reach $ 10 billion.
The seven-page report also states that in operational terms, the three jets – the French, the Swedish Gripen Ng and the American F-18 Super Hornet – technically meet.
Within a few days, the defense minister will present its own report to President Luiz InĂ¡cio Lula da Silva, who will formally choose the game to be purchased based on the arguments of Jobim.
The Rafale have two engines and the French claim that technology transfer without restriction and offer the market in South America for Brazil to export production.
Preference for French fighter
The preference of President Lula by French fighter is already known – was declared on 7 September last year during a visit by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, Brasilia.
At a hearing in the Senate in 2009, the Defense Minister said: “There is actually from the government an option for France. Just that France comply with the options for technology transfer.r.
At the time, Jobim also mentioned that the transfer of technology from the Americans has been a problem for Brazil: “I showed the Americans that the U.S. law they were not favorable, since we had a series of embargoes on technology transfer recent years, showed the Americans that their tradition not recommended, “then said the minister.
Sign In
