Nic one problem with your idea, two aircraft carriers, that would be turned into helicopter carriers with your idea.
I too wonder if the F35 will ever be a) affordable to purchase and to operate and b) available with so much bad press in the US at the moment.
It would seem to me that the FAA might soon decide that Rafale M or N were the way to go.

Ah well I never think of that. What is true for the RAF isn’t necessarily so for the RN.

And yes Mrmalaya, I’m thinking along the lines of an operational Taranis/Neuron type UCAV. Stealth and capable of strikes in the most dangerous environments, where you wouldn’t want to send a Typhoon.

Nic

Practically speaking how much of a difference will that make? 8500kg of fuel on the EF vs 9500kg on the Rafale. Plus when you factor in the difference in drag, the range difference will reduce substantially. 2 x CFTs + 1000L centre tank (supersonic capable) will be far more aerodynamic than 2 x 2000L + 1250/2000L tanks. In addition it leaves the EF with two extra Meteors (presumably).

Also, all this is applies specifically in one profile – carrying 2 Storm Shadows at long ranges. In most other profiles, they’re at par as far as range/loiter time is concerned.

Exactly, 1000kg of fuel more on the Rafale WITHOUT CFT, when compared to the EF WITH CFT. If you want to add two meteors to the Rafale you just need to delete the external tanks and add the CFTs, or remove the central fuel tank to put two meteors there (on front one back, as proposed very early on the rafale drawings). Or you have 6000L of external tanks AND CFTs, top up in flight and you can strike targets quite FAR!

Or you could imagine a Rafale with 2 CFTs, one central 2000L tank, one Damoclès pod, AND 6 AASM AND 2 GBU24 AND 2 Laser rocket pods (or Brimstones or Mica missiles) AND 2 Meteors AND 2 Mica IR.

Quite impressive indeed, and with the CFTs + 2000L in the central tank you get a substantial range despite the huge loadout.

That said, with such a loadout the 90KN engines wouldn’t be superfluous, but even the Rafale can’t take off with such a load, and if there is a lack of tanker support, another Rafale can take off with 6400L of external fuel and top up the bomb ladden Rafale on the way to target.

Nic

It’s a french plane, so it’s pretty cool that it fits the french view 😉

EELightning seemed to think that the Eurofighter had an advantage in manoeuvrability thanks to that instability design, so I think during the course of the discussion it was only fair to point out that every instable aircraft works that way.

Nic

Hit a nerve there?…

So what you’re saying is is they’re spinning the idea of all this maneuvering over supersonic speeds and all? Okay…What ever makes you feel better.

I think he is just saying that pretty much every instable plane works that way.

Nic

The new engine that will be delivered from 2O12 onward supposed to reduce fuel consumption by 3 to 4% IIRC, but I don’t think they bring an increase of power.

I think the more powerful M88 will be ordered only if an export customer orders them. Then I suppose the french will follow to rationalise costs.

Nic

Very interesting document, thanks. I like this part:

nous pensons parfois aujourd’hui avec
nostalgie à l’époque où un fer & souder et quelques
resistances permettaient, dans la soirée, de
modifier une loi de freinage sans craindre que cela
n’influe sur la séquence de sortie du train.

It also states that the Rafale program implemented stealth technologies from the very beginning of at least the flight testing campaign (mise en oeuvre de technologies de furtivité), and that it impacted the flight trials and the number of prototypes.

Nic

Well the strengths they both have in A/A are more or less what it says on the tin, so really they’re performing what they’re designed to do in the A/A environment at least. The Rafale is able to hold its own low down while the Typhoon is able to hold its own higher up.

We agree.

As for A/G, put two Storm Shadows on the Typhoon and its limited to just one drop tank, thus handing the Rafale the advantage in range, I think we all know that. Although, the RAF, at least, are going to be operting Storm Shadows on their Typhoons soon and if they want to have long range then they’re going to have to integrate CFTs sooner or later and IMO, are more than likely to do so. Once they add the CFTs, not only are they freeing up the wet stations for Storm Shadow, they also have at least four other hard points for the likes of Paveway IV etc. So six A/G weapons two of which being cruise missiles and 4000 litres of external fuel. Thats not a bad capability, certainly not bad enough to say ‘no contest there’. It has more potential than some give it credit for.

Well if you add paveways you most probably need a LDP in the centerline instead of the central fuel tank, leaving only the CFTs to prevent extra range. But with 2 Storm Shadows at 1300kg each + the weight of the CFTs + the weight of the four paveways & ldp you would probably go over your MTOW, unless of course you can take off with empty CFTs and fill them in flight. It’s really a moot point though, because I can’t imagine a weapon profile where you would want to carry two storm shadows AND four paveways and a LDP. A deep strike mission will be 2 CFTs + 1 central tank + 2 storm shadows, 4 AMRAAMs and 2 to 4 ASRAAM.

Then again every Rafale is plumbed for CFTs, so MTOW permitting (or with in flight refueling to fill the external tanks on the way to target), it will always hold the advantage in range.

Nic