strange, I either see the future, or all what’s been printed in that article si what’s been said and published for months now…

– 9-ton engines – UAE wanted it last year already
– AESA radar, it was part of the deal from the beginning
– last gen ECM. well, spectra is in continuous development, and the financing continues

all that should also be linked to the fact that the UAE already with the mirages had the best version of the fighter (even the french air force did not have the capabilities they had), so, all these “improvements are/were part of the deal from the beginning

– rebuying the mirages 2000-9 was also on the table since a long time (but the french wouldn’t use them for their air force, and would rather find a customer that may be interested. A coupls of months ago, it was even said that they offered them to brasil with the rafale deal, and brasil was interested, from the articles that were posted around here

in short, not much “news” here.. they keep negotiating about the same things.. seems to me 🙂

talking about UAE exercises, the USAF did not want to use their radar against the french and there was a mutual agreement not to use either their radar nor spectra -> guns only fight.

if you have another version (from some serious source) you can always go to the thread talking about it and post it…

as for the supersonic weapons launch, it’s just as any comercial.. you use words that more or less let potential customers think about things which aren’t there, but if anyone asks “why it’s not there” you just say “we never said that it would be there…” it’s a classic..

one question one can ask, how many weapons are cleared for supersonic release from any fighter?

you make assertions, but the reality is: we’ll see what it does once it comes into service and faces other aircraft…

Mod Edit: Personal insult removed.

anyway, as far as AASM is concerned, it’s an iron bomb (actually a 500lbs one, but the system is adaptable to anything from 250lbs to 2000lbs bombs) that’s been equipped with a rocket propulsion and a guidance system, allowing it to be shot from a good distance with good precision.

nice of you to resume your posting in that single phrase:

“Don’t bother answering.”

instead of reading things from people who maybe know better, you just try to shove your ideas down other people’s throats…

as for your reference:

you use google, others go (went) to school to study.. there’s a difference

pfcem,

people state that rafale can’t go to war on first day: where’s the proof? not speculation, but proof? there’s none either.. so?

there’s a difference, some bet on fully passive stealth, which cost billions to develop and will become useless in near future, and others have chosen to make somewhat LO aircraft which rely more heavily on ECM (upgradable and, therefore, adaptable to future threats) to stay safe… while still being cheaper to develop

who was right? you have your opinion, I have mine, and the engineers who developed various aircraft have theirs. We’ll only see which design was a better choice in the next 15-20 years, but I doubt we’ll still be on this thread by then.

Please tell me 1 thing that the French Rafael does better than a F-35 besides turn slighty tighter, or go slightly faster?

maybe that it’s already operational and efficient for all missions an airforce or navy can ask from an aircraft and that at a fraction of the cost of the F-35? reminds me of the old joke about nasa speding 10 million dollars to develop a pressurised pen capable of writing head down, at 0G etc.. and the russians solving the problem simply by using a pencil. rafale and F-35 is more or less the same story: rafale does everything for a reasonable cost, the f-35 hopes to do more or less everything, and costs multiple times the rafale price

And just look at the Concorde’s takeoff speed vs. the 747’s.

which illustrates the point cola and me are making: straighter wings provide more lift for a given AoA (and speed, since it’s closely related)…

Says who?

You’re not too keen on what AoA LIMIT means, are you. The Shornet will be producing more lift at 40° than any of the eurocanards. Higher AoA limit = higher stall angle.

and you don’t seem to be very keen with the word “software”. the limits you point out are those that the software was programmed not to exceed.

What’s more, you obviously don’t understand what stall means. it’s not some magical feat, but simply the fact that the air doesn’t follow the wing curvature anymore and becomes turbulent over the wing. from there on, the center of lift moves backward and, basically, the wing “falls forward”. In the case of the hornet, the LERX generate the vortex which help maintain lift even if the wing is stalled (the airflow over the wing is turbulent).

you can see the result on this NASA pic:

while at only 30° AoA, you can see that over the wing, the tufts placed there to show the direction of the airflow are all over the place, showing turbulent airflow (and showing that the wing as such is in post stall situation)

finally, if you want to compare deltas and straight wings? there’s on small story you should be interested in: at the time where there was no flight computer to keep aircraft airborne, Convair had made a delta prototype that led to the F-102. It was the XF-92.

In the book “Yeager”, the author explains that on his second flight on the type, he landed it at 67mph and 44° AoA. And that was a pure delta with no artefact to keep airflow close to the wing