FBWFact is, to win a turn fight, you need to be able to pull more G’s at same speed, same amount of G’s at lower speed or retain sufficient energy while pulling G’s so that the other becomes too slow to keep turning at maximum rate. (to put it simply)
Again the obsession with “G”. Turn rate expressed in degrees per second is more important than pulling maximal “G”. An aircraft at 350kts will have a smaller radius than the aircraft at 600kts pulling more gees. An aircraft at it’s corner speed will outturn an aircraft pulling the same amount of G if it’s well above it’s corner speed.
The NASA studies on the X-31 vs. the F-18 were interesting. The X-31 had worse turn performance and less power, yet won the majority of the engagements due to it’s ability to “cut the corner” on turns using TVC at slow speeds.
Winning a turning engagement more nuanced than who can pull the most g, or more accurately sustain the most g. An energy fighter is going to want to stay fast and only trade energy for position (use the vertical), a fighter like the Super is going use the turning fight to bleed energy from the opponent to where the Super has the advantage in lower corner speed and nose pointing.
There was an interesting article in “Combat Aircraft” I believe. It talked about exercises between the Typhoon and the Hornet. Basically, the Typhoon pilot was talking about avoiding the first turns of the Hornet and using the superior power of the Typhoon, not to get into multiple circle turning fight.
FBWOn twitter there’s a Gripen pilot who is one of the most well known defense bloggers in Sweden. He’s known for laying down the truth, however hard it might be. He claims that he has yet to loose a curve battle against the F-16, the F/A-18 and the F-15 in the Gripen. But hey, who knows? There’s so many factors, and most are based on what kind of support elements and the battle situation anyways. I know there’s a photo from the HUD of a Gripen who scores a kill on the EF, but those prove little if nothing, as there’s no way to know about the situation, same goes with all the Rafale cockpit kills showing e.g. the EF or even the F-22.
Hard to put any stock in comments like that, we are talking about exercises where the scenarios are scripted, and aircraft given different mission sets, some opfor training. A lot goes into the perspective of the pilot. You will often hear F-16 pilots claim they could outturn anyone too ( at least till the F-22 entered service), despite the reality that the F-16 does not have the best turn rates at med to high altitude.
Every time you hear leaks about how X fighter did VS. Y, I can’t help thinking that it is a gross discredit to the service that pilot is from (the exercises are meant to be learning experiences, it’s not all about who wins).
Rarely do you hear anything like that from RAF pilots (to their credit), the USAF is usually tight lipped about Red Flag, etc (with one notable exception of a loud mouthed colonel who commented on the MKI). There is one Western air force that seems to delight in unofficially releasing how they performed in exercises, to the annoyance of the other participants who gently rebuff the comments.
FBWif anything, EF canards cause less drag,
initial climb rate also tend to be similar for all fighters
Sure, except the opposite is true. The Typhoon’s canard placement was to reduce trim drag, esp. at supersonic speeds. The Close coupled canards of the Rafale and Gripen generate more vortex lift. This was especially important for the Rafale with low speed, high AoA characteristics.
The Typhoon does not offer the same close in low speed maneuverability of the Rafale. One reason they were looking to fit chines to improve vortex generation on the Typhoon.
Edit- Sorry, misread the post Obligatory (thought you were arguing the typhoon’s layout was more draggy, my apologies…. ) Yes the placement of the canards on the Typhoon was considered for minimizing drag in level flight, high speeds.
FBWwellerocks-For its size, its price tag and its country of origin, it’s truly an amazing machine which offers a whole lot of bang for the buck while maintaining most of the qualities of other fighters.
Don’t think you would find much disagreement in that, and the Gripen E/F should correct many of the deficiencies of the “C” listed in the Swiss eval. The one cause for concern is the rise in weight, hopefully the weight growth is in check, otherwise climb performance and acceleration will differ little from the Gripen C.
FBW“All delta canards” THAT is pure opinion and a rather genaralising one.
Really ? Aerodynamics is a bit more complicated then that.
Ok then believe there is something magical about the gripen’s aerodynamics that Rafale does not share, or that somehow the Typhoon’s spaced canards are inferior. They are not, but one can dream.
If I can find it, I’ll link to the NATO study about the Gripen’s design.
FBWRight I’ve read all the docs (again in many cases), watched the marketing videos and read the text.
Nowhere does any of it make the claims you guys are making.
The text is largely the same things repeated on different pages.
You chaps are projecting massively from a few titillating hints to come to your desired conclusion.
Best you tell Northrup Grumman that they need to start printing the truth as you see it.
Then you are in denial, or simply unable to comprehend the article because it is crystal clear. Either way I’ve wasted enough time on you. Go back to yelling “fanboy”‘ and “straw man” at everyone, as is your m.o.
It is incredible that even faced with a mountain of evidence to refute your opinion that you stick to it. Speaks volumes…..
FBWNo chest thumping from me, only facts.
First its a close-cloupled canard with delta wing also it has a “big” canard. There is actually alot of stuff to it (vortex interaction), but the simple stuff has to be enough for anyone to understand.
Read facts why gripen has extremer instant turnrates than the f-16, which is supposed to be the light weight fighter of all times. Base of this fact is in this text 34% more lift at stallpoint(tight turns). A design such as this has more lift and better turn.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a245152.pdfLets do some numbers here. Everyone likes numbers.
f-16s engine : dry thrust 17,155 lbf (76.3 kN) Wet thrust: 28,600 lbf (127 kN)
Gripen C engine : dry thrust 12,100 lbf (54 kN) Wet thrust: 18,100 lbf (80,5)
Gripen c’s engine is in dry thrust 30% worse and in wet 37% worse. That is bad isn it !?BUT YET it has the same speeds as f-16 dry thrust or wet, and it has better turnrates both instant and sustained, that is enhanced Aerodynamics.
The best turnrate page i found is this, but i even have swaf pilot the other day twittering about that they never ever have been out turned not by f-15 f-16 f-18. Looking at the fact book of construction it follows the “line”
https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/2015/03/01/missile-and-aircraft-turn-performance/There you have the aerodynamics for the Gripen c. Very good. NOW what do tomorrows fighters need ? Well if you look at the f-35 it sure has nothing to do with aerodynamics. It has to do with sensorfusion, datasharing, and countermeasures and even countermeasure measures. It is Beyond visual range acting and electronic warfare/jamming that is the future. Dog fighting will probably happend if you have enough of ships to send to an attacker but is really not the main battle f-35 and the american military thinks of.
Data transfer (knowing where the enemy is and hitting the right spots), sensor fusion (firing off weapons from other sources) and group thinking (datalinks to be able to see even though you are jammed) in the military is the future and the gripen NG will be ready for it.
Urban, if you want a post to be taken seriously, don’t link to picard’s blog, really.
Some of what you wrote is true of all delta canards, some is pure opinion.
FBWIt seems that LM copied 360 degree DAS from elisra. I wonder why french didnt implement it together with 3rd DDM-NG it could be good checkbox feature since fanboys like it it must be good
Seriously? No…
The idea has been around, and DAS was a further development born of the F-22’s MAWS experience.
Sapir is not really comparable as of yet. Not really different in concept, but it is a plug and play, users would have to develop software to integrate it into CPU ( that old sensor fusion thing again). It is more similar to DDM-NG which is tied into Spectra defensive avionics suite.
FBWOriginally Posted by snafu352 I also note you state the DAS coupled with every other sensor, yes not quite what you said but near enough, so not quite the claim made that the DAS does it all on its own.
I know I’m not dead and I’m fairly comfortable that I’m not wrong to any significant level either given the paucity of data that supports the F-35 lovers claims.
That first statement alone is representative of the relative ignorance common in your posts. First off, no the DAS sensor does not “do it all on it’s own” That is the point of sensor fusion in the new generation of fighters. The pilot is not monitoring each individual sensor. They are provided with a actionable information blended from all of the sensors. The target is identified through the threat database, assigned a target track (labeled, color coded), and targeted. All of the information is processed at the ICP level and passed to the pilot through the HMD.
Here start reading up:
The ICP generates DAS target symbology on the F-35 panoramic cockpit display and guidance cues for weapons.
http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/military/Keep-One-Eye-Out_75101.html#.VUjtXjgtG1s
FBWQuote Originally Posted by snafu352 View Post
Oh dear, you are quite right no fighter has a 360 optical target tracking system. The F-35 staring eye system won’t do that either, it is a close range self defence system.
While I disagree with this whole conversation happening in the Rafale thread, and usually ignore Snafu, I have to respond to this.
SNAFU, you are dead wrong. The AN/AAQ-37 coupled with all the other sensors provide target tracks to the pilot’s HMD even when the target passes out of LOS of the radar, ETOS, etc. This has been demonstrated, it is commonly known, it is a fact. As usual, you’ve blown up the forum with obnoxious rude comments but no substance.
FBWActually, they are. NEZ calculation takes into account multiple defensive maneuvers scenarios, based on target parameters gathered by radar or other sensors.
There are many factors that figure into the NEZ of a missile: range, altitude, aspect, speed, and perhaps most importantly if the target reacts with a defensive maneuver (turn away) in the first seconds of launch.
The ability of an aircraft to generate a high g turn at medium/high altitude is going to very much depend on energy state. And the aircraft will be bleeding energy throughout the maneuver. They are not looking to out turn the missile as much as ruin the lead pursuit intercept, and that does not require a hard turn.
Last ditch, the “g” rating is important for the violent change in velocity need to avoid the missile. Most +9g/-3g aircraft still have control laws limiting extreme pitch up/down, loaded roll, etc. The pitch/roll maneuvers put a huge strain on airframe, more so than even a 9g turn (and are more likely to lead to over-g) So, again… the g rating of an aircraft is not really a factor in out- turning an aam at any significant altitude
FBWyou have a quote in obligatory’s signature: “the missile will require about five times the G capability of the target to complete a successful intercept.
-Robert L Shaw”now, according to that rule, and considering that the missile can pull 50G during it’s propulsion phase and that ability decreases rapidly once it’s in the ballistic phase, the 9G Rafale stands a correct (and increasing) chance of evading it as soon as the available G for the missile drop below 45G.. and the further it drops (as the missile slows down) the bigger the chance to evade it. for the SH the same limit will be around 38G only which will be quite a longer distance away from the shooter – the NEZ for the SH as a target is bigger than a 9G fighter (Rafale, Typhoon, F-16; F-15, F-35, and so on…
That is a terrific misunderstanding of what Shaw was saying. The NEZ of a Super, or whatever aircraft you are talking about is not going to be based on “g’s” that aircraft can pull. First off, an aircraft pulling 3-5g at a lower speed has a tighter turn radius than a fighter at high speeds “pulling 9g” Second, dodging a missile, assuming you don’t detect it and turn away (the most effective way to avoid getting hit) requires abrupt change in velocity (pitch up/down, hard bank, etc). The aircraft’s overall agility is going to count more than it’s pulling “g”.
FBWRafale’s deal today:
1. Domestic order: 180 (and perhaps 45 more after 2020).
2. Exporting order: 84 (plus 12 optional) from the three foreign customers.
3. Total order of Rafale F3-O4T with AESA radar: 144, which has already exceeded Rafale F3 with PESA radar (120).
4. Rafale’s order from 2015 to 2019: 99 (84 foreign order + 15 domestic order).
5. Total order of Rafale now: 264.
6. The possibile order(s) in the near future: another 45 fighters for France, another 24 to 126 fighters for India, another 12 fighters for Qatar, 60 fighters for UAE, 28 fighters for Kuwait, and 12 to 14 fighters for Bahrain.
7. My personal prediction for the range of the final production number of Rafale: 309 ~ 550 (Which is not bad for the final French manned fighter).
What has been a banner two months for Dassault may not be such good news for the AdlA/ Aéronavale. There are two customers who want their planes yesterday, and a third that is known to be a demanding customer.
Assuming that Dassault doubles the production over the next 1-2 years (it’s going to take time for long lead items, subcontractors to add production), the existing orders will probably take 5 years to fill. Meanwhile, where does that leave the AdlA? There are still roughly 40 aircraft on contract, it is possible that the French armed forces will see no new Rafales inducted until the 2020’s.
Halloweene, has Dassault made any announcements (timetables) about increasing production to fill the new contracts? Also, is the Gov. obligated to continue the purchase of Rafales for the AdlA and Aéronavale at the current rate or will they be suspended until export contracts are filled?
FBWDoes this argument really need to be spread over three threads? It’s already resulted in the locking of the F-35 thread. Be nice to read some other discussions than this…..
The above coupled with constant spreading of the F-35 arguments throughout forum are just annoying.
FBW@ mig31
the exercise was 4vs4, Rafales simulating a flight of Su-27s and Typhoons were to kill them as they (Typhoons) were expected to do.
as for the second part, I simply invited lucos, who takes any Eurofighter commercial talk as an absolute, to consider that statement the same way
TooCool, this is a silly argument. Exercises are just that, exercises. They don’t confirm or enlighten us to which aircraft is “better” or best. It’s not like the RoE is written into the exercise as “OK guys, all constraints are removed, use all your sensors to the best of their ability and we will see which fighter is better”.
Without knowing, and you won’t really know, there is no way to prove that Typhoons weren’t handicapped in some way, or the Rafales were given AWAC support and the Tiffies weren’t. Or the Typhoons were limited in radar modes, and on and on.
(Reminds me of the story about the Rafale pilots bragging about defeating Super Hornets when deployed on US carriers. Bluster about how they won majority of dogfights, then in the last part admitted that the Supers were prevented from using the JHMCS.)
Exercises are proof of, well nothing about the platforms, and everything about the benefits of the training for the pilots.
In the words of Allen Iverson, former NBA great: “Practice?,We talkin’ bout practice”
Sign In
