mig-31bmWe dont know what range exactly. I am guessing it is super cruise range, and with variable cycle engine is very possible
supercruise range is not bigger than subsonic cruise range
and even PAK-FA doesn’t have variable cycle engine yet, i dont think that kind of engine would be available on Mig-1.44
G limit is for pilot not for jet, MiG MFI would have special seat which had 60deg max angle, very complicated solution
It isn’t, F-16 have slanted seat too
mig-31bmUltimate G load limit has very little to do with agility
Many people don’t know that =>d* measuring contest. But yes, ml got it.
mig-31bmI was also under the impression the airframe for all variants is basically the same.
Why would they need to spend extra money? The whole point of the exercise is to save money, otherwise they would not have done it but rather made the Rafale C/B lighter. What they have now is a common airframe, where they just stick naval landing gear and hook on M models at the end of the line. Cheaper and simpler than the F-35 approach obviously.
It not that they made Rafale B/C lighter. The B and C version is the base weight.But for repeated landing on carrier you need to strengthen the airframe and add naval gear , arresting hook ..etc. As it clearly said in the article, Rafale did have fuselage structure strengthening apart from naval landing gear and arrestor hook
The air force’s B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy’s Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter’s navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples.
A strengthen airframe mean more material and generally heavier. .If they started all version the same then you will have to spend extra money on the material/ structure that will be useless on land version. The land version will also have to suffer the weight penaty for absolutely no reason
TBH arguing without source is a bit pointless. At the end of the day, neither one of you will be able to change the opposition’s view if you argue based on opinion.
I actually posted the links in previous page.
mig-31bmthey reason is very simple: commonality of parts, allowing to have one production chain producing the same part in higher numbers that goes on any of the aircraft
So you are saying that they willing to spend extra money and willing to put extra weight on land version of Rafale just so that they can have the exact same production chain for all versions ? I doubt that.Also, it is still nothing more than your own opinion.The problem is your opinion here contradict with public available information. Unless you got very strong evidence that there is no airframe structure strengthen on Rafale M , i dont see why your speculation should be any credible than what written by Flightglobal ( which is fairly decent pulication )
mig-31bmbecause reality is you don’t know anything about Rafale than what Google is teaching you.
Oh as if you are any different.Give me a ******* break, you are not a pilot. You are not an engineer. All the things you learn about Rafale is also from Google and some self-proclaimed “expert” on forum. Not thing more. Stop pretend like you are someone with first hand experience
So I think it is time to close the topic, at the end of the day, when US president jeopardize the F 35.
Does he really though ?
When the F35 tests discover issue faster that what it solved
Not really, most if not all issue have been fixed. Also the whole purpose of a test program is to find issue
when the Program spent 100% more budget than initially planed
What is the innital budget and what is the current budget ? back up with actual number
When the navy is more focused on purchasing new growler that the F35. I think discussing the weight of the Rafale tail hook is just feeding uneducated people.
. I simply point out your hypocite when you say F-35 is not neccessary because F-18E can do 80% its mission. Now that i point out that Mirage 2000 can also do 90% of what Rafale do, suddently you ignore it ? how convinent ?
When the navy is more focused on purchasing new growler than the F35
No they don’t. Total order of F-35C still much bigger
mig-31bmI don’t know how to make it simple…. All the Rafale have re inforce structure not only the M.
That not what the source say. And all fighters airframe are re-enforced but not to the same extend. It depend on the stress level that they will be subjected to
Hard to explain to people who think it is normal that F 35 failed to share more that 30% of the components
Well hard to compare when one version of F-35 is STOVL while that simply not the case for Rafale.
I can’t even try to explain the weight of the re Enforce gear or the tail hook and prove you that it represent the full weight difference
Of course you cant explain something that is wrong. Simple as that
mig-31bmFront “energy management” landing gear is heavier.
Arrestor hook +reinforcements (fixation of the hook)
optical landing help systems added.
So there is a reinforcement, yes, but only at arrestor hook level
rest is identical. Basically Rafale was designed so as to be a carrier plane.
Why this long digress on Rafale?
well the quote say otherwise, there clearly structure strengthen for the fuselage , not just the new landing gear or the tail hook
The air force’s B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy’s Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter’s navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples.
It not about who is better here, engineer doesnot just over design something if it has no use.Extra structure strength will be needed for carrier landing, more structure strength mean more weight,there is no point for them on a land version of Rafale. Simple as that.I dont even understand your obsession with claimming Rafale C and M is the same.
mig-31bmTable made radar specialist. Her accuracy on the conscience of the author
For me the table look a lot like summarize of public available information, the problem is that many info on there are pretty old by now, and there has been more accurate information
mig-31bmNope the M doesn’t have 80% of commonality.
Nope the weight difference is not 300 kg.
Nope the fuselage structure is not different than the other version.Nice combo, 3 parameters = 3 mistakes.
Then people,repeat it on every forum thinking it is true.
Deny all you like but without any source to back up your point no one care
mig-31bmYes the front section with landing gear is different + the tail hook, but the structure of the plane is the same for all versions. The structure is not reinforced, but the specific parts for the carrier version obviously increase weight.
Nic
It clearly said
The air force’s B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy’s Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter’s navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples.
As explained , design doesn’t gain weight just because engineer feel like it. It gain weight because those are neccessary.
mig-31bmThis is not an insult, Source: “Overscan’s guide to Russian Military Avionics”
None of those information in your quote shows that it can detect F-22 from 100 km. And it been discussed many time but just because you use using decimeter wavelength does not mean stealth aircraft instantaneously lose all VLO characteristic
The actual and calculated characteristics of different radars: http://www.paralay.com/allocer_tab.xls
The table is made by yourself, so it is not “actual” characteristic. Another problem is that published information is not neccessary the real value. So at best you can call it estimated characteristic. And i already found several mistakes in there, for example : T/R modules number of APG-81 is 1626 not 1200, T/R modules counts for APG-77 is more than 2000 not 1500.Another thing is that your table accounted RCS value of 1.2 m2 for 4++ generation fighter and 0.3 m2 for 5 generation fighter. That clearly does not fit the claim of USA or various RCS simulation software.It does not fit common sense either, a merely RCS reduction of 4 times will reduce detection range by only few percents hardly justify why everyone making stealth fighters
.I really doubt the accuracy of the rest of information in there
mig-31bmIt is known that
– It has the largest distance flight
– It has the largest flight speed (except for the MiG-31)
– Perfect aerodynamics, “unstable aircraft” can fly without a computer
– Maximum overload “huge fighter” more than 9 G
– 4 long-range missiles (400 km)I do not like “1.44”, but I like the “1.42”
[ATTACH=CONFIG]250660[/ATTACH]
Sound more like proparganda than technical information
_Obviously, Mig-1.44 wont out range a dedicate bomber like B-1 but I doubt that Mig-1.42 out range F-15E or Mig-31 either. Especially without exact flight condition , profile the claim is dubious at best
_If it slower than Mig-31 then it is slower than Mig-25 and SR-71 too
_ If you can fly an aircraft without FBW , it not really unstable
_ Ultimate G limit of most fighter are more than 9G
mig-31bm@ mig
no, it’s the other way around.. all Rafales are naval versions at heart.. the land based versions use some lighter parts to gain weight, like landing gear and so on, but internal structure is the same
No, if all version is the same they wouldn’t even have different name, and the landbase version does not use lighter part to gain weight. It the other way round, carrier based version cannot use light parts because they won’t be able to sustain the stress of landing on a carrier repeatedly
Wrong the rafale M isn’t “reinforced”.
Nic
Yes it is. Designer doesnot just use heavier part on Rafale M for **** and giggles, they did it because it was neccessary
85% commonality. 250 Kgs for dront gear. arrestor hook. Landing help systems…
I remember reading it was 300 kg different though
The air force’s B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy’s Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter’s navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples.
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/flight-test-dassault-rafale-rampant-rafale-334383/
mig-31bmRafale M is not a Navy specific aircraft but is 90 % the same aircraft that the standard French airforce one.
Contrast to what Picard may try to tell you , Rafale M is not the same as the land version. Its body is re-enforced to land on carrier.
Also using your logic, how about Mirage 2000 that can do 90% mission of Rafale C , so what the point of having Rafale C ?
mig-31bmIn the case of the F-35 we have so almost four different typologies of customers:
The above said one-liners by necessity. Or by functional destination (MMI, RN, USMC).
The ones that would operate just a partial substitution of their actual line, keeping the most modern ones together with F-35. Turkey and Israel but also USN are actually there.
The ones that has the A2A line covered and so would take it exclusively for the A2G role.
And in the last the one whose A2A acquisition fumbled out but still prefer to keep in line their former generation ones for almost other twenty years instead to trying to utilize the Lightings in their wake…
You are suggesting that any air force that got F-35 and another fighter, the F-35 must be used in AG role while the other fighter will be used in AA role. That simply not the case, they could be operating a high/low mix of multi role fighter. For example Korean operate F-16C/D and F-15E both can operate in both AA and A2G
Sign In
