HotshotNo it won’t. You are forgetting about the drag penalty imposed by the external carriage of fuel and weapons for the Rafale. The rough rule of thumb for drop tanks is that only half of the fuel actually goes toward extending range and the other half is lost to the extra drag imposed by the tank itself. The heavy bomb, T-pod, and missile load would also impact the Rafale’s range much more significantly than on the F-35. (because it is all hanging out in the wind)
More nonsense geez it never ends. Nicolas10 is talking about CFTs which have a minimal effect on subsonic drag. Certainly not 50% of the fuel of the CFT will be lost to drag. Test on the F-16 CFT show that their effect is almost zero on drag in subsonic.
For air forces in need of an even larger capacity, Dassault Aviation has designed two 1,150 litre (303 US gallon) detachable Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) which can be mounted on the upper surface of wing/fuselage blend, causing less drag than traditional tanks, and freeing underwing stations for armament. CFTs bring the Rafale’s maximal external fuel load to an astonishing 10,800 litres (2,853 US gallons), and they
can be mounted or removed in less than two hours. All Rafales have a built-in CFT capability: CFTs can be adapted to any variant of the fighter, including naval and two-seat versions. The CFTs are being tested at the Dassault Test Centre in Istres, and the first flight of a Rafale fitted with CFTs took place on April 18, 2001, with pilot Eric Gérard at the controls. Supersonic speeds have been evaluated, and various configurations have already been successfully tested: long-range strike with three 2,000 litre drop tanks, four Mica and two Scalp stand-off missiles, and air-to-air configurations with Mica missiles. It has been determined that the CFTs had negligible impact on aircraft handling. With CFTs and drop tanks, the Rafale boasts an unrivalled range for such a compact aircraft, offering Commanders greater flexibility, and giving aircrews unprecedented deep strike capabilities.
As for the large external fuel tanks that the rafale carries, they have a shape optimized for subsonic speed, so here again there won’t be 50% lost to drag.
The F-35 requires far less external support than any 4th generation fighter. It can fly low level if needed, but in most cases that simply won’t be necessary.
After 60 billion of development that’s the least you would expect. :stupid: ( you like this one, don’t you? ).
HotshotIt was sometime last year during winter, we had one of the windiest winter in years, too, with winds reaching up to almost 200kph on some occasions! The weather has been average the past week or so in the minus 30s (-40plus with windchills).
As for Iqaluit, it is used as a cold weather tests for aircraft every winter. Seen so many types from Airbus, Boeing, Airbus, Aerospatiele, and others. One of my faves was the Airbus A380, the Antonov 124 Condor, and the Boeing 787 which came here to Iqaluit this winter. Oh, yeah, the Sweden’s Saab JAS 39 Gripens, back in 2007 or 2008, speedy little jets! First time saw the Boeing 747SP, I believe, with “Pratt & Whitney” logo on its sides and with a nice eagle emblem on its tail. It arrived last week and stayed in town for about a week…MAAKUSIMI.
200kph winds ouch! 🙂
It is nice that you get to see all sorts of planes up there. 😎
HotshotI am not a climate change denier.
I am just saying since CO2 lags sometimes 800-1000 years behind the warming..it cannot be the cause.
I have a hard following you to tell you the truth. Of course at the end of the ice ages the CO2 feedback started around 800 years after the reversal of temperature ( caused by the Milankovitch cycles ). Scientists have never said that CO2 was leading temperature in these cases. Those who say that CO2 lead temperature in this case are either misinformed or are distorting the facts.
Btw the 800 years delay is pretty much what would be expected in that case because the CO2 is emitted due to the changes in oceans. Scientists are not really surprised by this delay.
however, the warming from the bottom temperature to the top temperature takes about 5000 years at the end of an ice age, so the CO2 feedback has around 4000 years to have an effect. It is ONE of several feedback that happen in that particular case.
Again, you can’t extrapolate what is going on now from what happened at the end of ice ages, it is not the same type of climate forcing.
As for the models, they have become better, and they can be underestimating what will happen as well as overestimating it. So saying that they may not be accurate doesn’t mean that we should not be carefull and reduce our emissions.
HotshotWell, now you are adding a lot of complexity to the problem. A Rafale can’t carry nearly as many of the larger AASM missiles. If you want to compare capability against moving targets (which are more or less by definition not hardened) then the SDB-II or SPEAR cap III are the correct comparison.
Whaaat??
Of course it can’t carry as many of the larger bombs, why do you even talk about something so obvious? You really like to waste people’s time, don’t you?
The SDB II and SPEAR III are good for small targets. The AASM kit has the ability to be usable on large bombs, so can attack a larger variety of targets. Isn’t that obvious enough that I have to waste time to say it?
If you want to move this discussion to hitting much bigger/harder targets then the Rafale would be carrying much smaller numbers of the heavier AASM variants, while the F-35 would likely shift to JSOW or JSOW-ER (powered). An F-35 can carry 6 JSOW (2 internal).
Well, thanks for the info, I have known that for 10 years if not 15… ( Am I wasting my time here? )
The rafale can carry at least 5 2000lbs AASMs, which have a significant stand off range at low alt, again. The JSOW has a 500lbs warhead, so is comparable to a 1000lbs weapon. The BROACH variant is comparable to a larger warhead I agree against hard targets that need a high level of penetration. The JSOW-ER has a good range, but a small warhead and a relatively high cost…
In general the F-35 has a substantially greater heavy load capability than the Rafale. An F-35 can carry 6 x 2,000lb JDAM, 6 x JSOW, or 6 x JSM, along with 18,000lbs of fuel, a targeting pod, and 4 x AAM.
A Rafale could theoretically carry 5 x 2,000lb class weapons, but only at the cost of giving up all its external fuel. A more realistic configuration would include at least wing tanks, which would limit a Rafale to 3 x 2,000lb weapons.
It can carry 4 2000lbs AASMs + the large cengerline tank. In that configuration it would have a pretty good range, probably comparable to the F-35A.
The US doesn’t feel it needs a weapon in that class. With aircraft like the F-35, SDB or JSOW would offer more than sufficient range from medium/high altitude. (70+ miles for a JSOW released at high altitude.) If they really felt they needed a low altitude launch capability and/or greater range they would likely go with something like a JSOW-ER, which would extend the JSOW’s range to 300 NM.
I won’t repeat the same thing for the 17th time, will I?
HotshotA.I. Stands for Artificial Intelligence, is that right?
HotshotYou could substitute SPEAR capability III if you really wanted a powered weapon. It all depends what you are trying to do.
SPEAR III has a much smaller warhead, so no, it cannot substitute for the AASM requirement against a lot of targets.
Yes, and the US could certainly have developed something like AASM if they wanted it. Each solution makes sense for its operator. If you need to operate at low level to get close to a defended target then something like AASM makes sense. If you can operate at medium or high altitude then SDB-II (or JSOW for bigger stuff) gives you a ~45 mile standoff without the added size, cost, and complexity of AASM. (It also allows the fighter to use its organic sensors for targeting, which would not be possible in a low altitude scenario.)
Agreed. The Armee de l’air could have had easily a glide bomb, given that MBDA makes the diamondback kit.
The US air services have not shown interest in missiles such as the AASM, but they could well benefit from such a weapon. It is true that the french AASM costs a lot but the high costs takes into account the R&D. Build in large number the production cost would be quite affordable. I am not saying that the USAF/USN should get the AASM in particular, but a similar weapon is much cheaper than a cruise missile, and gives enough standoff range to increase the survivability of non stealth planes coming at very low altitude. Personally I like the concept.
HotshotSDB II guider by multiple ways at the same time : MMW, SAL, IIR, GPS, 2 way data link while AASM only have SAL + GPS or IIR +GPS
, secondly AASM range is only 55 km while SDB II can reach 70 km
and SDB I can reach 100 km, another disadvantage of AASM is that it quite a lot heavier and the triple rack of Rafale also caused more drag than the Bru-61
i do agree that SDB cant be released at low altitude and are slower however that will be solved when we have SPEAR III ( basically a SBD II with engine
SPEAR III has a tiny warhead, it can’t attack the same kind of target as the AASM, which can be adapted on various types of bombs, from 250lbs to 2000lbs.
http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armement_air-sol_modulaire#mediaviewer/File:Aasm5.jpg
SDB II has a better seaker, right.
A triple launcher has more drag but the AASM packs a lot more punch.
HotshotThe number of cars in the world has increased significantly in the last 15 years, which much more than offsets the improved mileage.
Second of all 1998 was a very strong el nino year, that’s why you can’t take it as a starting year to have a realistic idea of the evolution of temperature. There will surely be very strong el ninos again, and the record will go through the roof.
Third of all the pollution coming from the developping world from burning coal essentially emit huge amounts of particulates that have the opposing effect of GHGs.
And fourth of all, a significant part of the warming has gone to warming the oceans, particularly the pacific. Will all that energy stored in the oceans be released in the next years, that’s the question.
HotshotThey need something with the sniper pod to have the latest features for cas, i.e. IR pointer, high definition and ROVER. The scorpion from what I have seen has an electro optical system under the nose, but it’s probably not as good as the sniper. Too bad also that the scorpion has no gun.
The USAF might also be interested in merging that requirement with the T-X. Why not build the T-X with 2 sets of wing? one for the training mission with supersonic capability, one with larger wingspan for better low speed maneuvrability, with more pylons and more fuel for CAS.
HotshotThe rafale could potentially be armed with a large centerline tank, 12 AASMs and 4-6 AAMs. And it weights around 30% less than the F-35A. The F-35 apparently is scheduled to have external SDBs ( 1 rack per pylon ) which puts the total at 24. But the SDBs are not powered so are not as good when launched from low altitude, and are slower.
I am pretty sure that the Armee de l’Air could have had an SDB type weapon instead of the AASM if they had wanted, but I don’t think it is well adapted to the plane. The SDB is optimized for internal carriage by stealth planes and for altitude release.
HotshotThat is correct.
Let me explain a bit.
There are about one billion cars now….99% have internal combustion engines on them. Internal combustion engines produced energy divides into 70% heat and 30% power that runs the wheels.
It is like a murder scene….you see a smoking gun and a victim on the ground with a hole in his forehead.
Are you saying the gunsmoke killed the victim…or will you come up with a bulletproof explanations from the scene of what you saw ? Think that you are an CSI murder scene investigator just graduated and first day in a job. What will your boss say if you claim that the victim inhaled smoke eventhough you see the pool of blood on the floor ouzing from the victim’s forehead ?
Small amounts of CO2 cannot alone cause the GW I am pretty sure.
Ok, now it is clear.
You are pretty sure. The vast majority of climate scientists are rather sure of the contrary.
However, it is true that most of the warming of the first part of the 20th century was probably not due mainly to GHGs, because 1) the levels had not increase that much yet, and 2) it takes in the order of 100 years to see the effect of a CO2 increase.
Also there are feedbacks in the warming when the climate is forced by a particular stimulus. For instance for the end of the ice ages, the stimulus was the Milankovitch cycle which increased solar radiation, and the feedbacks were the increased CO2, methane, water vapor coming from more evaporation, and reducing ice which changed the albedo of the planet. There is of course a lot of research done to evaluate the various feedbacks in each warming case. In the case of a CO2 forcing several of these feedbacks will occur. So you cannot say oh 30% more CO2 and 200% more CH4 is not much, it will be amplified by the various feedbacks. Initially the feedbacks will be relatively weak or even negative and will increase in intensity. For instance the forests will absorb a lot of carbon initially due to carbon fertilization, but after some point, the effect stops, and can even reverse. Another example is the melting of the permafrost which is not significant initially but becomes more and more important as temperature increases, causing an increase of CH4 release into the atmosphere. Other major feedbacks include water vapor and sea ice decrease which change the albedo.
HotshotI think obligatory explained it. For instance if you have a major asteroid collision or volcanic eruption there will be CO2. CO2 traces confirms that this eruption was a major one if these traces were in the frozen ice samples collected deep in Antarctic icy surface showing their level was extraordinarily high ( density in the sample compared to earlier/older dating sample ).
Certainly if there is no oxygen left and only CO2 then the climate must change dramatically from the CO2 alone ( as in Mars planet ).
You avoid the question, I am not talking about the paleo climates here, I am asking about now.
So you don’t think that the current GW is due to anthropogenic GHG emissions, is that right?
HotshotCO2 changes is not a cause of the cycles, but an effect of it,
as the temperature rises, -CO2 follow albeit with a lag, as the ocean then gives up part of its CO2 deposit
as it slowly increase temperature.
If you are talking obout past climate yes, the CO2 followed the temperature curves. The cycles are caused by the Milankovitch cycles which cause important variations of solar inputs. That doesn’t mean that the CO2 didn’t warm the planet when it increased. It is a feedback in these cycles, but the cycle is mostly guided by the Milankovitch cycles.
The situation we are in now is different, we are causing the planet to warm with GHG forcing.
Also, concerning the documentary, the issue of the troposphere not warming has been debunked by climatologists:
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/myths/troposphere-not-warming
HotshotNo because it is wrong….CO2 emissions are just a sign of the climate change that no one seems to be denying.
I don’t understand what you mean. Do you think that GHGs are causing GW or not?
HotshotThanks for this Obligatory…certainly an eye opener for those that have believed Al Gore message with CO2 causing the Global Warming. The document doesn’t deny that the climate is changing.
Oh because you think it is ‘Al Gore’ who dictates what the majority of climate scientists think?
I watched the video that Obligatory posted.
Several points about the temperature trends in the 20th century:
– CO2 has a half life of 100 years in the atmosphere, so you obviously don’t see the effect immediately, it takes a long time to reach an equilibrium ( there are short term, medium term and long term feedbacks also ).
– The amount of GHGs that we had put in the atmosphere after WW2 was still not that high, compared to now.
– The Sun is of course a factor involved in temperature, but it is not sufficient to explain the lastest trend in temperature in the last 30 years or so.
– After WW2, the developped world was emitting an enormous amount of pollutants in the atmosphere that had the opposing effect of GHG, i.e. reflecting light. As developped countries took measures to stop this pollution and these measures took effect, the temperature started to go up again.
– in the last 15 years or so, the developping world, essentially China and also India, have started again to put huge amount of pollution in the atmosphere again that caused the same effect of decreasing the amount of warming from GHGs.
Everyone would agree that GHGs in general have a warming effect on planets. The question is how much does it take to have a significant effect. We have increased now CO2 by 30% and methane by over 200%, those are not small numbers so it is not improbable at all that it would really have an effect on global temperature.
Also the majority of climate scientists think that humans are mostly or at least partially responsible for global warming:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00091.1
See the left column in the table. 88% (78+10) of climatologists think GW is at least partially human caused. 5% also are not sure that it is human caused, but probably. It is a bit less for meteorologist but still the vast majority.
Sign In
