garryAAn internet discussion ended in peace 😀 iam very very impress with the mature attitude of you guy , good job everyone , please keep this up , this is so much better than everyone yelling and throwing insult at each others
I think if everyone contain their ego a bit and keep an open mind when discussing we can keep this up. It really is better than contanst trash talk and insult from both sides we often saw
Thanks, again, this helped me understand few things more… Instead of dissing me you’ve really put some honest effort into this and I appreciate that much…
You’re indeed right with the bickering, it’s time to put aside childish things.. I’ll gladly have a drink on that with ya’…
True words ,i agree with you completely
garryAI still say we really need two lines of planes, pure fighters, and a line of attack aircraft.
Money dont grow on tree you know, a seperate line of attack and fighter is extremely expensive . And in modern combat environment there are alot of target of opportunity. What if your pure fighter meet a SAM site in CAP mission?, what if your pure striker meet adversaries interceptors in bombing mission?
garryARemember the F-35 is brought to you by the same B’crats that bought the F-22 rather than the F-23. The 23 was faster a was a better stealth aircraft.
It mostly rumor, there wasn’t any actual graph to show that YF-23 is a faster or stealthier aircraft than YF-22.
The only reason people think YF-23 is more stealthy is that it lacked the horizontal stabilator, which in theory will result in lower side aspect RCS, but that about it.
garryAThat isn’t how this works. For one thing your math suggests only a completely clean/empty Rafale can hit 9 Gs.
My bad , you are correct :p should have compare it with rafale + loaded fuel
but i was trying to explain available in term of lift that can be generated to counter weight+ acceleration G
garryAOK, let’s do it piece by piece..
1. what is the sustained g-limit for Rafale with the heavy config (2x SCALP, 3xbag, 4xMICA) at sea level?
if Rafale use the same JP-5 fuel as others NATO aircraft then 3*600 gallons bag would weight around 12240 lbs ( fuel weight) + 3000 lbs( empty shell of fuel tank ) = 15240 lbs
2 SCALP weight 5732 lbs
4 Mica weight 738 lbs
total weight is 21710 lbs
Rafale empy weight is 21,720 lb
So you can see that these amount of weapon almost double it’s weight , available G should be around 1/2 of 9G or 4.5G
sustain G at sea level is likely to be less because such load create significant drag
2. What is the g-limit for the clean F-35A in such conditions?
In same condition a clean F-35A can sustain 9G ( sustain high G at sea level is quite easy for most aircraft when they are not loaded heavily )
garryAIt was limited to 4g at M0.82.. You need to have the whole envelope map in order to justify such statement..
You are confusing between “available” G and structure G limit
Available G = how much lift can the wing and body of the aircraft generated , it depending on AoA, weight, and airspeed
Structure G limit refers to structural g limit , the FCS of Rafale need to put a limit of 5 G when weapon are carried on heavy A-G station because otherwise the wing will fall of when aircraft turning too hard .
Now you can argue that the pilot can override the FCS ( or for some reason the FCS shut down and let the pilot do what ever he want ) , and then he can fly the Rafale at maximum speed to generate enough lift for 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles , and we ignore the structure limit ,there are still several problems:
1) the Rafale wont be able to fly much faster than mach 0.8 with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles, the drag in that configuration would be enomours
2) Turn rate is affected by speed , so while 5G turn at mach 0.8 is still decent , a 5G turn at mach 1.8 is almost like not turnning ( as the turn rate reduced to 1-2 degrees/second)
3)instantaneous turn rate is different from sustained turn rate , while going faster can help improve instantaneous turn rate because more lift will be available through speed, it a different story with sustained turn rate , because in a sustain turn the engine have to overcome drag to maintain speed of aircraft , and as you go faster there will be more drag.
4)Last but not least , Picard exact statement was : ” In fact, Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles. F-35A can only sustain 4,6 g when in clean configuration.”
which mean he need to compare them in the same condition which is 15K feet , mach 0.8 . If he take the sustain turn performance of Rafale at sea level then compare it with the F-35 at 15K feet then he is even more of a moron because that would be similar to me compare the speed of the F-35 at 30K feet with speed of the Mig-25 at sea level then declare F-35 is a much faster aircraft .
garryAAgain, the same tired rhyme.. “Picard speaks nonsense.. Don’t ask me why, I just don’t like the guy”.. “Kopp has an agenda and speaks nonsense.. I, too, don’t like him”..
No single example of where exactly were they proven wrong or caught red handed, NOTHING.A classic example of disregarding a source because it obviously does not fit YOUR OWN agenda. Case closed for me..
ok , here are your example :
Let start with Picard shall we
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/why-red-flag-exercises-are-not-indicative-of-aircraft-performance/
”Taking into account cost and sortie rate, 12 F-22 would be expected to face 102 F-16Cs”
do i have to explain why this is ridiculous ?
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2015/09/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-35/comment-page-1/#comments
” Rafale achieves 1.090 km combat radius in low-level penetration w/ 12×250 kg bombs, 4 MICA, 3×380 US gal tanks”
there no source for that number , and not even F-15E or F-111 fly that far with that kind of load out , heck according to Dassault a Rafale with 3 2000L external fuel tank and no bomb, fly at hi-hi profile can barely reach 1700 km radius , with 6 AASM still in hi-hi profile , combat radius already reduced to 1389 km , but some how with 12 250 kg bombs, low altitude the Rafale can suddently reach combat radius of 1090 km ? how ? it can some how break physics now ?
” Rafale can achieve 5,5-6 g sustained turn with 3×2.000 l external fuel tanks, 4 air-to-air missiles and 2 SCALP cruise missiles”
another great invention from Picard , did you read that 2 SCALP , 3* 2000 L fuel tank , and the Rafale can somehow sustain 6 g clearly the aircraft have some anti gravity device , and ofcourse he provide no source ( obviously because the source doesnot exist )
”Dassault Rafale has corner speed of 330 kts for 11 g instantaneous turn, and 360 kts for 9 g sustained turn. This gives it instantaneous turn rate of 36,4 deg/s and sustained turn rate of 27,3 deg/s. Sustained turn rate is achieved at >25.000 ft.”
This is more complex to an untrained eyes so i will explain it with more detail :
basic aerodynamic 101 :
Lift = CL * ( v^2 ) * d * A * 0.5
air density at 25k feet is 0.548981519715 kg/m3
Velocity as he said is 360kts or 185 meter/second
wing area of Rafale is 45.7 m2
CL = lift coefficient
to pull a certain amount of g , then lift must be equal weight * g-load ( mass*9.81*9 )
so to pull ( not even sustain ) 9g at 185 meter/second , 25k feet , the aircraft must generate amount of lift equal :
(9,850 + 4,700 ) *9.81*9
to generate that much lift , CL = { (9850 + 4700 ) *9.81 *9 }/ { 0.5* 0.548* ( 185^2 )* 45.7 }
CL= 3
have you read that carefully ? CL= 3 , even transport aircraft with subsonic airfoil and full flap deploy at landing doesnot achieve that value , what the heck does Rafale wing made of ? magic dust ? ( and dont even bother to take body lift as an argument because it already included in CL value ) and you should remember that he said it a sustain turn too , so unless Rafale’s engine somehow magically lose no thrust at high altitude ( which is not possible because jet engine need air ), even if it’s wing can generate such lift , it wont be able to sustain such turn
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2015/11/11/dassault-rafale-vs-f-22/
”top speed limit is caused by air intake design, leaving excess thrust for maneuvering even at maximum speed”
clearly he dont understand a thing about engine or air intake
Need i say more ? these are the most obvious example , i wont even go further about these nonsense he talked about the F-35 or Radar warning receive or the fact that he just pull number out of no where for every single things he said ( like literally he made up every number just to fit his agenda ) , and that is just 3 articles alone, it not for no reason that people consider him a joke.
garryAwhich other modern fighter is as rotten as 4.6G for instance ?
I dont think F-35 is more agile than typhoon but if you are talking about the sustain G metric then remember that value was measured at 15K ft, mach 0.8, an F-16 with DI50 (6 aim-120) won’t do any better, and to be frankly honest, i dont think 4.5 sustain g at 15K feet gonna be much better than that either.
garryAPicard: again, so what? Is it forbidden to like Rafale when you do the reporting on the F-35? Does all F-35 reporting have to be done by F-35 fans?
.
I dont care about POGO but
people don’t disregard Picard because he is a Rafale fan, they disregard him because 99% of what he say is utterly nonsense especially when it come to technical aspects.
Similarly people don’t disregard Carlo kopp because he like the F-22, they disregard him because he started speaking BS to support his agenda
garryAhttps://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2012/11/03/on-f-35-export-success/
TBH , i dont think anyone in their right mind would take Picard serious , his knowledge in aerodynamic and avionics are joke
garryAMIG-31 engines are much more powerfull than F-15C engines..
no, F-15 engine is more powerful, but Mig-31 engine have low pressure ratio so more suitable for high speed, it’s intake help too
i presume the upgrades to MIG-31BM would have lighten the airframe for much higher speed and range.
upgrade tend to make airframe heavier because of extra equipment , and even if it make airframe lighter, you wont get any more speed from that, weight is hardly a factor that limit aircraft speed
garryA^ what he said
garryA[ATTACH=CONFIG]244793[/ATTACH]
I mean for the time limit, i have similar graph too
garryAF-15C: Maximum speed (4 missiles) M = 2.3. Flight time at this rate – 1 minute. Acceleration time from M = 1 to M = 2.3 – 175 seconds.
source?
garryAI guess thats why some planes regularly hit 10.5/11 g in air shows…
No
Sign In
