I think someone asked about sustained turn rates about Rafale… See at 4’30

What? Carrying the fuel in CFTs means less drag than carrying drop tanks. You can’t drop CFTs but in peace time and in many combat situations drop tanks are not actually dropped anyway, therein lies the benefit of CFTs.

Ever heard of interactions between CFTs and extrados lift?

Agree FBW. AND the lesson is 20 years old…, on a very flat country etc etc.

There is no issue except the imaginary one created by Rafale folk. CFTs are mainly for improved aerodynamics on certain mission/flight types. Nothing to do with SS carriage.

Thank you you just enlightened my day! It has everything to do with it. Improved aerodynamics? You are sure? Think before answering. Here is a hint : extrados.

Those that know the differences. The AESA radar that is due for it’s maiden flight isn’t known as CAESAR (demonstrator), but Captor-E (operational product). Why is that so difficult for you to grasp… CAESAR ‘Dem-on-strat-or’ is based on the Captor ECR-90 and the AMSAR, which is based on the Blue Vixen, which is based on the Ferranti Blue Fox. So lets be pedantic and just call it the Blue Fox regardless of it’s type, mechanical or active electric, and regardless of them being very different radars.

This so-called “Rafale-numbtie” Halloweene (a Rafale fan, yes. A numbty, no) came into the thread bringing up the valid point and questioning the carriage of cruise missiles on the inboard wing pylons of Typhoon by saying: I quote; “Point is that configuration is finally impraticable… due to pitch moment when loading is released that cannot be countered without TVC, sry i stand my point on that.”

No mention of three drop tanks there.

Madrat made no mention of three drop tanks, neither did Sintra and neither did I. However…

…There was one person to mention the now infamous three drop tank babble first… You. I quote: “Going into defended airspace with three tanks and two 2800lb missiles isn’t something you’d get away with, anymore than refuelling in such airspace, so the issue is moot.”

Since then, I’ve not seen one Rafale-Enthusiast (or as you put it, “Rafale-Numbties”) claim that three drop tanks (or any number of drop tanks in general) is the “be all and end all” requirement. Or maybe I’ve missed it, in which case you could be jolly kind enough to quote anyone saying so.

Thanks EE Lightning, i absolutely admit to be a Rafale “fan” or enthusiast” or even “numbty”, idc.
The explanation i was given by aerodynamicists is the one i gave, but i may have precised that due to landing gear geometry the missiles had to be put too much forward on shoulder point. CFTs should solve the issue.
I hope some remember i was the first here to announce some good news about Typhoon 😉
Best nite to all!

I haven’t studied the airframe in great detail in this particular regard and I don’t have access to official data, and neither does Halloweene for that matter

well you could ask BAE? Friendly.

Did they enter (as Lukos put it) ‘defended airspace’ though? Aside from mobile SHORADS and the Baghdad defences, the coalition forces in both Gulf Wars didn’t face much of air defence threat.

Broadly agree though, CFT integration will enable (UK to Libya type) exceptionally long range strikes.

Lybian inventory wasn’t top notch, but still quite defended :

Air defense : (5 regions)
– 3 brigades (each 20-24 SA6 or SA8)
– 2-3 brigades (12 SA3 each)
– 5-6 brigades with 18 SA2 each
– 4 brigades using SA5A (1 radar and 6 lauchers each)
– 4+ batallions anti aerial artillery

TVC is unnecessary. Its already adjusting control surfaces at 180 correction per second.

My point, control surfaces aren’t enough to crorrect pitch up moment when releasing a 1300 kgs charge on this point.

They do no such thing. They contacted an unnamed ‘source’ and that source said that the report is not finalized. The same way the first organization (reuters) contacted another source that said that the review will recommend the f-35 purchase be retained instead of holding a competition. Both the stories are equally credible. Just because the second sounds better to your ear does not make it more ‘balanced’ than the other. Reuters ran what their source told them while CDC ran what their source had to say. The common theme emerging from both the stories is that the F-35 is fairly likely to be selected, so much so that both the stories run this in the headline.

Lets just wait a few days to hear what the Canadians have decided.

Absolutely, selected… Without any competition…LM usual way to do (or i’d better say pentagon way to do because they desperately need orders more than LM. A single opening of fair competition would be a huge blow…).
You should take a look at Christine Moore youtube (canadian parliamentary), very interesting…

I have nothing against selection of F-35, AFTER a fair competition. Remember F-35 lost competition in Korea before hugely heavy US lobbying reversed the decision…