Q: TMor, Where did you get these figures from?
It was an interview of Colonel Moussez, on TV (TF1).:cool:
About FCS jittery :
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=rJqx9X85AAQ
Why is the FBW so jittery by the Rafale?
2:06-2:24
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=isg3Jmigux0
I have this often noticed by the Rafale.
The same 0:42 1:28
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=9VPEU6GlGUI
On runway and taxiway ?
So, with 68000 COTS they claim MMI, SA etc crap superiority:eek:.
:rolleyes:
The Truth is elsewhere.
feel guilty as if Watching p0rn
Calm down, noone will blame you for this. 😀
Thanks for the effort. Canards of Typhoon always looked to me as after thoughts.
But they admit that :
this creates a significant lever effect,
which may be compatible with the claimed higher level of instability.:rolleyes:
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=778486
http://www.planepictures.net/netshow.php?id=778487
Actually, it’s just a form/weight matter here. These are free fall bombs, but they act like GBU’s or AASM, as long as they’re not intended to be shot.
PS : Rafale F3 also uses PowerPC.
Videos of early prototypes :
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=juqBPeIgJgo
http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=9VPEU6GlGUI
Yes.
But it’s sometimes difficult to know what are the radar modes available on F2, since what we’ve been reading in newspapers/website isn’t exact at all.
According to A&C today :
LordAssap : avoid talking about other airplanes here, PLEASE.
Empty equipped does mean a fighter with crew ready for take-off without “payload”.
That’s simply not the standard definition i found. So, why bother ?
The max take-off weight for the Rafale is 24,5 tons. Not difficult to understand and published in several sources. So that value can taken as granted. The next important value is the internal fuel load, which is 4700 kg or 6000 litre (specific weight is 0,783 kg per litre)
24500 kg -4700 kg = 19800 kg
The max store-load is 9500 kg. 19800 kg – 9500 kg = 10300 kg empty equipped or as the official websites (Dassault/AdlA) do claim about that:
10 tons class.
Nice but simply wrong. Especially since your 10,300kg figure comes from nothing official.
The problem is that we simply don’t know what your 10,300kg is made of (since your definition isn’t the same as the one given by the DGAC -they aren’t clowns)
All the other data are from the 90s during development and repeated several times without updates.
Wrong.
90’s figure were prototypes :
C01 : 9,060kg
B01 : 9,400kg
M01 : 9,670kg
Note that they weren’t equipped with Spectra, RBE-2 or OSF depending on the aircraft… Mainly flight test instruments…
The 9,500kg for the C arrived in 2006 by the AdA.
A thumb-rule is that the Rafale is ~10% smaller and ~10% lighter than the EF and that ratio has not changed, because the engineers from both programs are limited to a similar technology level.
Mixing dimensions and volumes ?
Next indication is, you can not rise MTOW for free, because you do beef up the structure to fix weak points you may learn about during daily operations and do rise MTOW accordingly to keep the capability of your fighter.
Otherwise you will reduce the life-time of your fighter, when you do push up the limits only. 😉
The other explanation is that journalists (french or not) are far from the program history, and thus, WE are far from understanding what happened during Rafale development.
You should try to submit your hypothesis about weight increase to a Dassault engineer : i tried, but it only resulted in a friendly smile. 😀
That’s why a prefer sticking to a clear 9,500kg EMPTY MASS figure. 😉 This is what Toan was quoting, and it avoids unclear estimations…
Do you want some fun ? 😀
This picture is the Rafale M5 (a Rafale M F1).
Here is a pic from the Rafale M12 (Rafale M F2) :
http://img156.imageshack.us/my.php?image=99916870gy6.jpg
Yes, it seams that there is a30kg difference… 😀
The 9,500 kg weight for Rafale C comes from the AdA :
Poids à vide : inférieure à 10 tonnes

It has nothing to do with test configuration.
As the weight matter has been raised several time here, i did some research, and found those standard definitions in a French DGAC (Délégation Générale pour l’Aviation Civile) document :
“Masse à vide” can be translated as being “Basic Mass”, “Basic Weight”, “Empty Weight” or “Empty Mass”. And so, the “Empty Weight” is defined as being the weight of the aircraft with only fluids contained in different circuits, and also the small quantity of fuel (so small quantity that it can’t run the engine) remaining in the tanks.
“Masse à vide équipée” can be translated as “Basic Empty Weight”, “Basic Empty Mass”, or “Empty Weight Equipped”. This is defined as being the Empty Mass plus standing equipments.
AS WE CAN READ it, French document about Rafale usually gives “Masse à vide” (9,500kg for the Rafale C). To me, it means that we could find higher figures, and this could match with the Jane’s figure (as far as i remember “empty weight equipped : 9,850kg for the Rafale C).
But keep cautious with those figures, i’m not sure at all, i don’t know if AdA and Dassault use the same words as DGAC, for example… !
In addition, i looked after figures for Typhoon…
The eurofighter gives “Basic Mass (empty) : 11,000kg”.
So, if both use the DGAC definitions, “Masse à vide” and “Basic Mass” are the same, and we have to compare the 9,500kg figure with the 11,000kg.
http://img168.imageshack.us/my.php?image=massetypxt3.png
This link (in a 2002 document, correct me if i’m wrong) provide us with a “Basic Mass Empty” of 11,150kg.:confused:
I’m confused about this expression : Basic Mass Empty. The words aren’t in the same order as in my DGAC document, in addition, they are in the same order than on the eurofighter website, except that on the website, the last word (Empty) is written between brackets.
My english isn’t good enough to help me here. Is “Basic Mass Empty” is the same as “Basic Empty Weight” ? 😀 There’s only a 150kg difference, and i wonder if there’s only 150kg of “standing equipments” on Typhoon…
About Dassault website :
“masse à vide de la classe………… 10 tonnes” doesn’t mean “Masse à vide supérieur à 10 tonnes”. It just means that Rafale C, B, M are around 10 tons… Which is true since Rafale M is 10,2 tons approximately. Writing “9 tons class” would have been a lie since one of them is heavier than 10 tons. But we shouldn’t care, since we have more accurate data.
Toan wrote “empty weight”, so no problem with him.
I hope it can help…:o
A: The same question may be also asked to the AESA upgrading plans of Rafale and Gripen: Will they put new softwares / new functions / more power to their RBE-2 AA and PS-05A MK5 radars from the beginning ??
The last RBE-2 prototype is known as DRAAMA. Or Active Array Radar Demonstrator/ Advanced Modes.
Since the PESA is already an electronically steered array, most of the softwares (scanning agility, interleaved scanning, terrain following, signal processing, omnirole modes) of the PESA are kept nearly unchanged for the AESA. Some may need to be upgraded so as to exploit the benefits of AESA (range, detection volume, number of tracks, resolution, etc), but here, the cost are relatively low. New functions are still required to use the “advanced modes” (i think it’s about everything only AESA can do, maybe jamming, or gathering modules for different tasks…).
According to Air & Cosmos, the average power of RBE-2 AESA will be 10kW, which is a significant improvement over the PESA (this is what makes it have a 50% improved range).
Thank you for the reply Sintra.
About Science & Vie :
http://www.priceminister.com/offer/buy/55314079/Collectif-Science-Et-Vie-Hors-Serie-Hors-Serie-N-5416-Aviation-2007-Special-Salon-Du-Bourget-Revue.html
http://www.assemblee-nationale.fr/13/cr-cdef/07-08/c0708006.asp
This link is about the relatively low availability of Rafale :
En dépit d’une flotte vieillissante et des difficultés techniques et logistiques sur le moteur M88 du Rafale
That’s :
Despite the aging fleet and technical and logistical difficulties on the M88 engine of Rafale…
Then, it says that the overall situation improves (not the M88?) between 2004 and 2007.
This was published on October the 11th, 2007, we don’t know how the situation is now, but this gives a hint about why the availability has been so low…
I’ve got a question about something we saw in our French newspaper “Air & Cosmos”…
It was in June, A&C published an article about the negociations of the T3 order…
According to this article, due to the will to reduce cost, the T3 Typhoon will :
According to the article, Typhoon T3 will remain “swing role” : if attacked by enemy fighter during a A2G mission, the pilot will have to switch to the A2A mode…
I expect many of you will react with a lot of skepticism… 😀 But do someone have heard about this ?
The article also states that Eurofighter will offer a basic Tranch 2 Typhoon do India, with additional equipments if India can pay.
The main advantages for AASM comparing with GBU-12:
1. Weapon for all-weather.
2. Much Longer range (15~70 km+ vs around 15 km).
3. Better accuracy (96% vs 72% according to the declaration of French AF).
4. Being able to fire-and-forget attack six independent ground target at the same time.However,
The unit cost of AASM: 143,000 Euros, or roughly equal to 210,000 USD per unit.
The unit cost of GBU-12: 19,000 USD per unit, or roughly equal to the 9% unit costs of AASM.
Why not comparing the A2SM to the AGM-65, for example ?
A2SM is somewhere between the propelled bomb and the cruise missile. Is is so maneuverable that is can be shot 90° off axis, and finish its flight in a 70° dive. It can even hit a target higher than its launch altitude.
Comparing it to a mere GBU-12… Hum…
That’s why i would try to compare its cost to the AGM-65’s… or something else…
About Red Flag : it’s all about what we mean by “air defense”. AAA and SAM are air defense… And what about air defense fighter ?
Since we don’t know, calling Dassault liars, or a journalist incompetent is a bit fast.
Has anyone seen this simulation at all, or am I the only one?
Are you sure you saw it on the Internet ?
Because i really don’t know what you’re talking about, except that it looks like a CATIA demonstration…:confused: