Title: Rafale vs Eurofighter
Lord - July 23, 2007 01:56 PM (GMT)
under construction...
| QUOTE |
| Rafale was conceived as a multi-role fighter because France had 8 different kind of aircrafts to replace. Typhoon was conceived as an air superiority fighter. The difference is, Rafale is more adapt in fighter-bomber role, whereas Typhoon is a good interceptor-fighter. We did propose to the British once, British Air Force and The French Air Force were to arm themselves with Typhoons, while British and French Navy would use Rafale as a shipboard fighter-bomber. It was a good idea to complement each other's industry. Problem was... British still wanted that F-35 fighters from the US. And we heard the US is still playing ball with the British over sensitive issues on the plane. It would have been a good combo Rafale/Typhoon. Both aircrafts are good and definitely cheaper than F-35. I know these 2 aircrafts are very capable of shooting down F-15s. Well we actually managed to shoot down 3 F-15s once with our old Mirage 2000-5 fighters in a Red Flag game few years back, so we can assume these two new fighters should do even better. (in fact, the Americans did try to tamper our participating fighters on the tarmac on the same night after we 'shot' down their F-15s from a distance of 4km behind and above. Ever since then we would always guard our planes with our own 'commandos' in any joint exercise with the US. It's a pity because we could trust the assured security given by other NATO countries, even Russia. We never expected US would do such 'dirty-trick' as we never tamper their aircrafts to snoop around when they use our air bases). I am not even sure if Americans would ever share secrets in weaponary with any of its allies. Right now we are watching the row between the British and the American over the F-35. I think the Australians too are getting fed up to teeth with the Americans over the same issue. If the British and the Australians get what they want off the F-35 deal, well good for them. If they don't, it only confirms our suspicion on American partnerships. |
by compassmaker
Lord - July 23, 2007 02:02 PM (GMT)
French Rafale Heading to Afghanistan
Mar 11, 2007
By Robert Wall
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...o%20Afghanistan
French Rafale strike fighters will be operational in Afghanistan within days, after undergoing a crash course to integrate precision-guided bombs and other wartime enhancements.
Both the French air force and navy are participating in the surge of combat capability, aimed at bolstering NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The French air force was to deploy three F2 standard Rafales late last week to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where they will be primarily based, although excursions to Kabul are possible. The aircraft should be operational within days of arrival and remain there about four months, says a senior air force officer planning the deployment. It is the first operational mission since the air force declared Rafale operational last year.
The navy will also have Rafales in the F2 standard in the region of operations. The deployment represents the first of the type for the navy, which is only starting to field this version.
Last week, three F2s were sent to join the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which was already deployed near the Horn of Africa. The ship is now heading close to Afghanistan, with Rafale operations likely to commence mid-month, says a senior navy aviator. The de Gaulle will operate a mix of Rafales, with the three F2s supplemented by nine early-model F1s, which have only an air-to-air capability and a different processor.
Although much of the focus of the French military activity since December has been to give the fighter the ability to drop laser-guided bombs, other enhancements have also been undertaken more quietly. For instance, the threat libraries have been upgraded to properly reflect what the Spectra self-protection system is likely to encounter, says French air force Brig. Gen. Eric Rouzaud, head of the CEAM aviation development and test center. The threat libraries are similar for the two services, but the naval version carries additional information to distinguish different types of maritime radars.
But without the weapons upgrade, which was formally launched in mid-December when aircraft prime contract Dassault Aviation began its work on the effort, the deployment would not have taken place. French government officials raised the prospect of the air force mission in November.
Flight trials to pave the way for the deployment involved seven weapon releases from air force Rafales and another five from naval versions. The integration went smoothly, although some buffet issues were encountered, says a development officer.
The focus of the development activity was integrating the 611-lb. GBU-12 (Paveway II) and 720-lb. GBU-22 (Paveway III) laser-guided bombs on the aircraft. The latter has larger control surface and offers more range and maneuverability, but French military officials expect to use both.
A standard load-out when operating from Dushanbe or the carrier will be three drop tanks (with 2,000 or 1,200 liters [528 or 317 gal.] of fuel) and three bombs under each wing, in addition to four Mica air-to-air missiles (both the radar and infrared seeker models). At this point, the military has not cleared the use of mixed loads.
Development work also is ongoing to clear the operational use of the 30-mm. GIAT 791B cannon. Those efforts have encountered some problems, including vibration, says a senior officer monitoring the progress. Nevertheless, he holds out hope the issues can be resolved, so that the weapon can be employed later in the deployment. Fighter aircraft have frequently had to resort to strafing runs to assist ground forces, particularly special operations units, because those are often in such close contact with Taliban forces that the use of bombs is deemed too dangerous.
The rapid-response program for the Rafales, however, leaves the strike fighter largely dependent on other aircraft. The Rafale itself is not yet fitted with its Damocles laser-designator pod, so someone else has to provide the targeting information. Operational plans for the air force foresee the use of Rafales in conjunction with Mirage 2000Ds, three of which are also in Dushanbe. They will perform the lasing, with the Rafales delivering ordnance. For the navy, the so-called buddy-lasing duties will be performed by Super Entendards. Ground forces can also be used for target designation.
Next in the development plan for Rafale is the addition of further weapons. For instance, although the Scalp cruise missile has been cleared for air force use, mission-planning equipment isn't up to standard yet for its operational employment. Additionally, later this year the service hopes to fully field the inertial navigation system/global positioning system (INS/GPS)-guided AASM (armament air-sol modulaire) air-to-ground weapon. Next year or in 2009, the air force also expects to field the EP2 Enhanced Paveway, which marries INS/GPS and laser guidance. Those features will phase in as the F3 standard Rafale becomes operational next year.
Another round of upgrades looms soon after, as elements of the post-F3 upgrade package materialize. It includes, most notably, an active electronically scanned array antenna for the Rafale radar, which should enter development testing in 2010 for fielding in 2012. Enhancements to the optical sight system and integration of a data modem are also in the cards.
Notionally, military officials are starting to discuss an F4 standard, while stressing that nothing concrete is planned right now. That configuration would be targeted for fielding around 2015-18. At the moment, it serves largely as a brainstorming function, says one project official.
It would likely be a large overhaul, on the scale of the shift from F1 to F2, which changed out the processing backbone of the fighter. The navy program official notes that around that time, the current processing capability will likely be headed toward its maximum and will need to be replaced. The F4 is being likened to the Mid-Life Upgrade program that the F-16 fleet has undergone.
Also on the agenda are subsystem enhancements and new weapons, including whether to add a suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) capability, electronic attack functions or a towed-decoy for self-protection. Right now, the latter is low on the priority list and the penalty in terms of loss of maneuverability is not seen as compensating for the added protection. Interest in a decided SEAD capability is relatively mild, as operational planners realize the combination of Spectra's geolocation capability and the coming AASM bomb will give them an ability not just to suppress, but to destroy radar sites.
Mar 11, 2007
By Robert Wall
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/sto...o%20Afghanistan
French Rafale strike fighters will be operational in Afghanistan within days, after undergoing a crash course to integrate precision-guided bombs and other wartime enhancements.
Both the French air force and navy are participating in the surge of combat capability, aimed at bolstering NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.
The French air force was to deploy three F2 standard Rafales late last week to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where they will be primarily based, although excursions to Kabul are possible. The aircraft should be operational within days of arrival and remain there about four months, says a senior air force officer planning the deployment. It is the first operational mission since the air force declared Rafale operational last year.
The navy will also have Rafales in the F2 standard in the region of operations. The deployment represents the first of the type for the navy, which is only starting to field this version.
Last week, three F2s were sent to join the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which was already deployed near the Horn of Africa. The ship is now heading close to Afghanistan, with Rafale operations likely to commence mid-month, says a senior navy aviator. The de Gaulle will operate a mix of Rafales, with the three F2s supplemented by nine early-model F1s, which have only an air-to-air capability and a different processor.
Although much of the focus of the French military activity since December has been to give the fighter the ability to drop laser-guided bombs, other enhancements have also been undertaken more quietly. For instance, the threat libraries have been upgraded to properly reflect what the Spectra self-protection system is likely to encounter, says French air force Brig. Gen. Eric Rouzaud, head of the CEAM aviation development and test center. The threat libraries are similar for the two services, but the naval version carries additional information to distinguish different types of maritime radars.
But without the weapons upgrade, which was formally launched in mid-December when aircraft prime contract Dassault Aviation began its work on the effort, the deployment would not have taken place. French government officials raised the prospect of the air force mission in November.
Flight trials to pave the way for the deployment involved seven weapon releases from air force Rafales and another five from naval versions. The integration went smoothly, although some buffet issues were encountered, says a development officer.
The focus of the development activity was integrating the 611-lb. GBU-12 (Paveway II) and 720-lb. GBU-22 (Paveway III) laser-guided bombs on the aircraft. The latter has larger control surface and offers more range and maneuverability, but French military officials expect to use both.
A standard load-out when operating from Dushanbe or the carrier will be three drop tanks (with 2,000 or 1,200 liters [528 or 317 gal.] of fuel) and three bombs under each wing, in addition to four Mica air-to-air missiles (both the radar and infrared seeker models). At this point, the military has not cleared the use of mixed loads.
Development work also is ongoing to clear the operational use of the 30-mm. GIAT 791B cannon. Those efforts have encountered some problems, including vibration, says a senior officer monitoring the progress. Nevertheless, he holds out hope the issues can be resolved, so that the weapon can be employed later in the deployment. Fighter aircraft have frequently had to resort to strafing runs to assist ground forces, particularly special operations units, because those are often in such close contact with Taliban forces that the use of bombs is deemed too dangerous.
The rapid-response program for the Rafales, however, leaves the strike fighter largely dependent on other aircraft. The Rafale itself is not yet fitted with its Damocles laser-designator pod, so someone else has to provide the targeting information. Operational plans for the air force foresee the use of Rafales in conjunction with Mirage 2000Ds, three of which are also in Dushanbe. They will perform the lasing, with the Rafales delivering ordnance. For the navy, the so-called buddy-lasing duties will be performed by Super Entendards. Ground forces can also be used for target designation.
Next in the development plan for Rafale is the addition of further weapons. For instance, although the Scalp cruise missile has been cleared for air force use, mission-planning equipment isn't up to standard yet for its operational employment. Additionally, later this year the service hopes to fully field the inertial navigation system/global positioning system (INS/GPS)-guided AASM (armament air-sol modulaire) air-to-ground weapon. Next year or in 2009, the air force also expects to field the EP2 Enhanced Paveway, which marries INS/GPS and laser guidance. Those features will phase in as the F3 standard Rafale becomes operational next year.
Another round of upgrades looms soon after, as elements of the post-F3 upgrade package materialize. It includes, most notably, an active electronically scanned array antenna for the Rafale radar, which should enter development testing in 2010 for fielding in 2012. Enhancements to the optical sight system and integration of a data modem are also in the cards.
Notionally, military officials are starting to discuss an F4 standard, while stressing that nothing concrete is planned right now. That configuration would be targeted for fielding around 2015-18. At the moment, it serves largely as a brainstorming function, says one project official.
It would likely be a large overhaul, on the scale of the shift from F1 to F2, which changed out the processing backbone of the fighter. The navy program official notes that around that time, the current processing capability will likely be headed toward its maximum and will need to be replaced. The F4 is being likened to the Mid-Life Upgrade program that the F-16 fleet has undergone.
Also on the agenda are subsystem enhancements and new weapons, including whether to add a suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) capability, electronic attack functions or a towed-decoy for self-protection. Right now, the latter is low on the priority list and the penalty in terms of loss of maneuverability is not seen as compensating for the added protection. Interest in a decided SEAD capability is relatively mild, as operational planners realize the combination of Spectra's geolocation capability and the coming AASM bomb will give them an ability not just to suppress, but to destroy radar sites.
Lord - July 23, 2007 02:02 PM (GMT)
France in talks to sell Rafale jets to Morocco
Reuters | Apr 26, 2007
PARIS: France is negotiating to sell Rafale combat aircraft to Morocco, constructor Dassault Aviation said on Wednesday.
The planemaker, which has until now declined to confirm the talks, is seeking the first export customer for the multi-role aircraft, which made its combat debut in Afghanistan this month.
"I can't answer your question because the matter is being discussed the governments of (France and Morocco)," Edelstenne told LCI television, asked whether a sale could happen after the next round of French presidential elections on May 6.
France was reported last June to be negotiating the sale of 12 to 18 Rafales to Morocco but a Dassault family member said the reports were premature.
Source: www.defencetalk.com
Reuters | Apr 26, 2007
PARIS: France is negotiating to sell Rafale combat aircraft to Morocco, constructor Dassault Aviation said on Wednesday.
The planemaker, which has until now declined to confirm the talks, is seeking the first export customer for the multi-role aircraft, which made its combat debut in Afghanistan this month.
"I can't answer your question because the matter is being discussed the governments of (France and Morocco)," Edelstenne told LCI television, asked whether a sale could happen after the next round of French presidential elections on May 6.
France was reported last June to be negotiating the sale of 12 to 18 Rafales to Morocco but a Dassault family member said the reports were premature.
Source: www.defencetalk.com
Lord - July 23, 2007 02:03 PM (GMT)
In the last "AIR FAN" dedictated to the "Salon du BOURGET", there is an article related to the Rafale demonstration. Let see page 22:
Citation:
"il s'agit du virage "High G", un 360 degrés à 350 noeuds et 9G"
"This is the "High G Turn" at 350Kts and 9G"
Assuming the altitude is around 500ft, 350CAS=M0.53, and this lead to a sustained turn rate of 27.92 deg/s..... (around 10 more than a Mirage 2000 and 6 more than a F-16A F100-PW200 at GW=20,000lbs)
Before reading that, claiming a sustain turn rate of 24 deg/s for the Rafale was seen as "optimistic"... Should we beleive what is written ?
Citation:
"il s'agit du virage "High G", un 360 degrés à 350 noeuds et 9G"
"This is the "High G Turn" at 350Kts and 9G"
Assuming the altitude is around 500ft, 350CAS=M0.53, and this lead to a sustained turn rate of 27.92 deg/s..... (around 10 more than a Mirage 2000 and 6 more than a F-16A F100-PW200 at GW=20,000lbs)
Before reading that, claiming a sustain turn rate of 24 deg/s for the Rafale was seen as "optimistic"... Should we beleive what is written ?
stardust - July 23, 2007 02:25 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE (Lord @ Jul 23 2007, 04:03 PM) |
| In the last "AIR FAN" dedictated to the "Salon du BOURGET", there is an article related to the Rafale demonstration. Let see page 22: Citation: "il s'agit du virage "High G", un 360 degrés à 350 noeuds et 9G" "This is the "High G Turn" at 350Kts and 9G" Assuming the altitude is around 500ft, 350CAS=M0.53, and this lead to a sustained turn rate of 27.92 deg/s..... (around 10 more than a Mirage 2000 and 6 more than a F-16A F100-PW200 at GW=20,000lbs) Before reading that, claiming a sustain turn rate of 24 deg/s for the Rafale was seen as "optimistic"... Should we beleive what is written ? |
Lord:
You CAN. As a matter of FACT we managed to determine that Typhoon and Rafale have similar corner speeds.
i.e. Pprune forum's Tranished, a Typhoon pilot.
The reason is Rafale's close coupled canards and lower wingload, which makes-up for a slighly lower TWR empty.
It helps reducing trim drag and augments lift which are part of the instantaneous and sustained turn rates equations.
Another information we recently got (confirmed with these figures by a Dassault official) at the Paris A-S.
Rafale supercruises with 6 MICAs at M 1.3 and 1.2 with 4 MICAs and a 1.250 L supersonic tank.
I do not have my datas with me with the associated sources but i will provide later.
mavrogenides - July 24, 2007 01:31 PM (GMT)
Hi Stardust..very nice to have you here.
Some years ago I have been a stiff Rafale supporter.
But the stronger engine of the EF2000 made me turn to the latter.
I would honestly like to see the source for the 1.3-1.2Mach supercruise claim in the configurations you told us.
Another question...I´ve read recently that the Rafales will have only a day time TV channel for their OSF NG but no new IRST.
Can you confirm that this info is wrong?
And the last question...do you know when the HMD will be ready for the Rafale(and the M2k-5).
Again..nice to have you here!
:welcome:
Some years ago I have been a stiff Rafale supporter.
But the stronger engine of the EF2000 made me turn to the latter.
I would honestly like to see the source for the 1.3-1.2Mach supercruise claim in the configurations you told us.
Another question...I´ve read recently that the Rafales will have only a day time TV channel for their OSF NG but no new IRST.
Can you confirm that this info is wrong?
And the last question...do you know when the HMD will be ready for the Rafale(and the M2k-5).
Again..nice to have you here!
:welcome:
stardust - July 24, 2007 04:56 PM (GMT)
| QUOTE |
| mavrogenides Some years ago I have been a stiff Rafale supporter. But the stronger engine of the EF2000 made me turn to the latter. |
What really matters is the engine own TWR and frontal thrust and at the end of the day the aircraft TWR.
When you will know that M-88 features TWO sets of condi-nozzles as an IR signature reduction measure (instead of ONE, the second one cooling the airflow of the hot one) you'll undertsand that all this noises about EJ-22 beeing more powerfull are baseless.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sa...re_DSC_0004.jpg
These con-di weights and add this weight to EJ-200 you'll have a totally similar (engine) TWR.
M-88 have a visibly (even to the naked eye) lower IR signature than anything else bar the F-119 of the F-22 in DRY power and lower in full A-B.
| QUOTE |
| mavrogenides I would honestly like to see the source for the 1.3-1.2Mach supercruise claim in the configurations you told us. |
Hi! source is Jean-Paul Latrige «Dassault international support manager » answering a French forum poster questions at the last Paris AirShow and quier frankly i dont SEE why this is not a possibility since Rafale TWR is well comparible to that of Typhoon.
http://www.air-defense.net/Forum_AD/index....topic=2759.2820
Here the guy called art explain his interview with the guy...
Mirage III Avon supercruised at M 1.3 in 1962...
Something else, he confirmed the claim of some AdA 1/7 pilots who gave a ride to NATO Jokeys during the last TLP on Rafale, and said that theythought Rafale MMI and ergonomy was better than that of Typhoon. I have read the article and can post a link to it later.
| QUOTE |
| mavrogenides Another question...I´ve read recently that the Rafales will have only a day time TV channel for their OSF NG but no new IRST. Can you confirm that this info is wrong? |
To start with, OSF camera is NEAR-IR so day/night all the same, about the IRST the problem is different, the previous IRST manufacturer, SAGEM (Now SAFRAN) didnt provide DGA with a suitable offer, more to it, at Thales they have been working at some new technologies which are guarantying a far better all-weahter performance than the curent OSF technology allows for.
BOTH the IRST and the camera works on the 3-5mn band, the IRST have an additional 8-12mn channel for A2G work and OSF was the FIRST Western system to use 3-5mn.
Infortunatly, this technology dates from the early 90s, OSF contract was awarded in 1991 and multi-band technologies are now offering far better capabilties in bad weather, humid or dry.
So now that OSF NG is in the pipeline, Thales beter offer and technologies are making them a winner with DGA, this mean they still have to come to an agreement on the futur IRST.
http://img353.imageshack.us/img353/737/rbe2aesaosfipbw2.jpg
At the look of this integrated mock-up, Thales are already working at it.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/...s-on-track.html
Here is an article from F-I which will tell you a little more about OSF history but the figures on performances of the system have changed since....
| QUOTE |
| mavrogenides And the last question...do you know when the HMD will be ready for the Rafale(and the M2k-5). |
The HMD is NOT an order of priority with AdA at the moment, since in some modes, MICAs can be launched over the shoulder (more likely with Rafale F3 standard) and even backward.
The HMD is not going to do much more than Link-16, SPECTRA and OSF fusioned together.
The actual devices are also old tech (compared to what is possible to develop today) so it will be even better to wait for the next generation and make Rafale more of acompetition to F-35...
Thanks to all for your warm welcomes.
mavrogenides - July 25, 2007 05:59 PM (GMT)
Thanx for the info Stardust.
stardust - July 26, 2007 09:05 AM (GMT)
I have compiled some research work to make some points on the subject of supercruise and other performances...
Some figure which have been duely validated by diverse professional writers. i.e ex-fighter pilots among which former BAe AirOps director Chris Yeo, Jean Camus, test pilot and ex-manager of the EPNER french test pilot school, Philippe Rebourg, deputy chief test pilot for military aircraft at Dassault.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/...mbat-ready.html
.Rafale corner speed is 360 kt.
.Clean (= wingtip AAMs), it can enter a 9 G turn at 500 kt, 10,000 ft and will still accelerate.
.During flight-testing flight envelop have been opened up to over 100* AoA and 40 kt negative speed.
.Hypermaneuvrability have been explored after simulation by ONERA and Herbst Maneuver was performed among others.
.Maximum (FCS-limited) angle of attack in the heavy configuration is 25°, 30° otherwise.
.Minimum airspeed is 100 kt in all configurations.
.Maximum roll rate is 280°/s, 160°/s in heavy configuration.
.Maximum G load is 9.0g, 5.5G in heavy configuration.
.In emergency case max load factor can reach 11G.
.In heavy (DEEP STRIKE) configuration:
= 2 X SCALPs, 3 X 2.000 l external tanks, 4 X MICAs typical cruising speed is <> M0.82/347kt, external load red line is M 0.90.
.In this configuration and in reheat, level acceleration from M 0.6 to M 0.9 takes 35s (Rafale BO1).
.ALL external tanks are cleared for M 1.6, the 2000l being cleared to 9G when empty only.
>>>>>
Now let's have a good look at some aerodynamics...
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/F-16Cd.jpg
In clean configuration (2 X wingtip AIM-9s) a F-16 airframe have a Cd (Drag coefficient) of just below 0.02 at M 0.5 picking just below 0.045 at M 1.05.
This Drag coefficient nearly DOUBLES at M 0.5 with the addition of: 2 X 6 Mk82 500 lb (227 kg) general purpose bombs, 1 ALQ-119-12 pod and a 300 Gal central tank.
F-16 C (IPE engine = F-100-PW-229 or F-110-GE-129) will fly at <> M 1 M 1.08/ M1.1 in DRY power, clean.
In clean configuration ( 2 X wingtiped AIM9s):
F-16 TWR empty will be HIGHER than Rafale.
F-16 Cd will be HIGER at ANY speed.
There are several reasons fot this; a delta wing drag less in transonic and supersonic by virtue of a better Critical Mach value.
This principle is also valid for highly swept wings but the delta planform combines a better Aspect and t/c ratios.
Rafale Aspect ratio is 2.2 vs 2.0 for Mirage 2000 and 3.0 for F-16 so even with an equivalent t/c ratio, F-16 wingplan will have a higher Dc.
Block 50/52 TWR = ----- 0.940/1.589. Wingswep = 40°.
Rafale C TWR = -------- 1.052/1.578. Wingswep = 48°.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sa...k-Mach-Line.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/962/tra...odelusafzc4.jpg
Considering the difference between the two and a few FACTS:
1) For an equivalent Aspect and t/c ratio, 8° wingswep would give a difference of up to <>M 0.03 critical Mach Number.
2) F-16 transonic zone stops at <> M 1.15. (corrected August 8 2007 14.55).
3) The transonic region is where the Cd of ANY aircraft is at its highest, past this, Cd get progressively lower.
4) Mach 4.0 AAMs and their pylons are LOW DRAG designs.
5) M88 frontal thrust is higher than US engines:
M88-2E4------- DRY: 131.4. MIL: 206.3.
F-100-PW-229-- DRY: 129.1. MIL: 211.4.
F-110-GE-129-- DRY: 116.2. MIL: 194.7.
This goes some way to upset the increased frontal area due to the twin engines configuration.
6) M88 TWR is higher than BOTH US engines.
M88-2E4------- DRY: 5.7. MIL: 8.5.
F-100-PW-229-- DRY: 4.8. MIL: 7.8.
F-110-GE-129-- DRY: 4.3. MIL: 7.2.
With all these factors combined, the recent datas provided at the Paris A-S by a Dassault offical on Rafale's supercruise Machs, 1.3 with 4 X MICAs and 1.2 with 4 MICAs + 1 X 1.250 l supersonic tank doesnt seems exagerated.
Some figure which have been duely validated by diverse professional writers. i.e ex-fighter pilots among which former BAe AirOps director Chris Yeo, Jean Camus, test pilot and ex-manager of the EPNER french test pilot school, Philippe Rebourg, deputy chief test pilot for military aircraft at Dassault.
http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/1999/...mbat-ready.html
.Rafale corner speed is 360 kt.
.Clean (= wingtip AAMs), it can enter a 9 G turn at 500 kt, 10,000 ft and will still accelerate.
.During flight-testing flight envelop have been opened up to over 100* AoA and 40 kt negative speed.
.Hypermaneuvrability have been explored after simulation by ONERA and Herbst Maneuver was performed among others.
.Maximum (FCS-limited) angle of attack in the heavy configuration is 25°, 30° otherwise.
.Minimum airspeed is 100 kt in all configurations.
.Maximum roll rate is 280°/s, 160°/s in heavy configuration.
.Maximum G load is 9.0g, 5.5G in heavy configuration.
.In emergency case max load factor can reach 11G.
.In heavy (DEEP STRIKE) configuration:
= 2 X SCALPs, 3 X 2.000 l external tanks, 4 X MICAs typical cruising speed is <> M0.82/347kt, external load red line is M 0.90.
.In this configuration and in reheat, level acceleration from M 0.6 to M 0.9 takes 35s (Rafale BO1).
.ALL external tanks are cleared for M 1.6, the 2000l being cleared to 9G when empty only.
>>>>>
Now let's have a good look at some aerodynamics...
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sampaix/F-16Cd.jpg
In clean configuration (2 X wingtip AIM-9s) a F-16 airframe have a Cd (Drag coefficient) of just below 0.02 at M 0.5 picking just below 0.045 at M 1.05.
This Drag coefficient nearly DOUBLES at M 0.5 with the addition of: 2 X 6 Mk82 500 lb (227 kg) general purpose bombs, 1 ALQ-119-12 pod and a 300 Gal central tank.
F-16 C (IPE engine = F-100-PW-229 or F-110-GE-129) will fly at <> M 1 M 1.08/ M1.1 in DRY power, clean.
In clean configuration ( 2 X wingtiped AIM9s):
F-16 TWR empty will be HIGHER than Rafale.
F-16 Cd will be HIGER at ANY speed.
There are several reasons fot this; a delta wing drag less in transonic and supersonic by virtue of a better Critical Mach value.
This principle is also valid for highly swept wings but the delta planform combines a better Aspect and t/c ratios.
Rafale Aspect ratio is 2.2 vs 2.0 for Mirage 2000 and 3.0 for F-16 so even with an equivalent t/c ratio, F-16 wingplan will have a higher Dc.
Block 50/52 TWR = ----- 0.940/1.589. Wingswep = 40°.
Rafale C TWR = -------- 1.052/1.578. Wingswep = 48°.
http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279/sa...k-Mach-Line.jpg
http://img167.imageshack.us/img167/962/tra...odelusafzc4.jpg
Considering the difference between the two and a few FACTS:
1) For an equivalent Aspect and t/c ratio, 8° wingswep would give a difference of up to <>M 0.03 critical Mach Number.
2) F-16 transonic zone stops at <> M 1.15. (corrected August 8 2007 14.55).
3) The transonic region is where the Cd of ANY aircraft is at its highest, past this, Cd get progressively lower.
4) Mach 4.0 AAMs and their pylons are LOW DRAG designs.
5) M88 frontal thrust is higher than US engines:
M88-2E4------- DRY: 131.4. MIL: 206.3.
F-100-PW-229-- DRY: 129.1. MIL: 211.4.
F-110-GE-129-- DRY: 116.2. MIL: 194.7.
This goes some way to upset the increased frontal area due to the twin engines configuration.
6) M88 TWR is higher than BOTH US engines.
M88-2E4------- DRY: 5.7. MIL: 8.5.
F-100-PW-229-- DRY: 4.8. MIL: 7.8.
F-110-GE-129-- DRY: 4.3. MIL: 7.2.
With all these factors combined, the recent datas provided at the Paris A-S by a Dassault offical on Rafale's supercruise Machs, 1.3 with 4 X MICAs and 1.2 with 4 MICAs + 1 X 1.250 l supersonic tank doesnt seems exagerated.
mavrogenides - July 27, 2007 01:22 PM (GMT)
I have a question Stardust...
In the Fox(official Rafale site..you sure know this site) editions I have read that the Rafale can achieve 1.1 mach supercruise with four micas and one 1250 centre line fuel tank.
Now we hear the 1.2/1.3 mach supercruise claims...
How does it come?
Is it cause the eco has a higher dry power?
In the Fox(official Rafale site..you sure know this site) editions I have read that the Rafale can achieve 1.1 mach supercruise with four micas and one 1250 centre line fuel tank.
Now we hear the 1.2/1.3 mach supercruise claims...
How does it come?
Is it cause the eco has a higher dry power?
Lord - July 27, 2007 08:15 PM (GMT)
EF-2000 v.s F/A-22, F-35A, F-16E, Rafale, and Su-35
------------------------------------------------------------
A. Empty weight:
EF-2K: 11,000 kg
F/A-22: 18,144 kg (http://www2.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/fa-22.html)
F-35A: 12,250 kg (http://www.defence.gov.au/jsf/factsheet_jsf.asp)
F-16E: 9,980 kg
Su-35: 18,400 kg
Rafale: 9,500 kg (Rafale C)
B. Internal Fuel:
EF-2K: 4,600~4,996 kg
F/A-22: 8,300 kg (Revise)
F-35A: 8,165 kg+
F-16E: 3,160 kg
Su-35: 10,250 kg
Rafale: 4,500~4,600 kg
C. External Payload:
EF-2K: 7,500~8,000 kg+
F/A-22: 2,270 kg (Internal weapons); 12,000 kg (Internal + External)
F-35A: 5,900 kg+
F-16E: 8,000 kg+
Su-35: 8,000 kg+
Rafale: 9,500 kg+
D. Wing Surface Area:
EF-2K: 50.00 m2
F/A-22: 78.03 m2
F-35A: 42.70 m2
F-16E: 27.87 m2
Su-35: 62.00 m2
Rafale: 45.70 m2
E. Comparison of air-combat weight, T/W ratio, and wing-load among these fighters at the "fair" condition (with the same kind and the amount of AAM weapons + roughly equal combat radius):
EF2000: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + ASRAAM*2
F/A-22: 6,000 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2 (Revise)
F-35A: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
F-16E: 3,160 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
Su-35: 6,700 kg internal fuel + R-77*4 + R-73M2*2
RAFALE: 4,500 kg internal fuel + MICA EM*4 + MICA IR*2
Air-combat weight:
EF-2K: 16,500 kg
F/A-22: 25,150 kg
F-35A: 17,750 kg
F-16E: 14,150 kg
Su-35: 26,250 kg
Rafale: 14,900 kg
Wing-load:
EF-2K: 330 kg/m2: Score: 97.5
F/A-22: 322 kg/m2: Score: 100
F-35A: 416 kg/m2: Score: 77.4
F-16E: 508 kg/m2: Score: 63.4
Su-35: 423 kg/m2: Score: 76.2
Rafale: 326 kg/m2: Score: 98.8
T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):
EF-2000: 1.11/0.74(EJ200, peace time, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 100/100(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
EF-2000: 1.17/0.85 (EJ200, war time, 21,265 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 105/115
EF-2000: 1.26/0.85 (EJ200, small revision, 22,945 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 113/115
EF-2000: 1.27/0.89 (EJ230, post-2010~2015?, 23,100 Ib/16,200 Ib *2): Score: 114/115
EF-2000: 1.48/0.96 (EJ270, post-2015~2020?, 27,000 Ib/17,500 Ib *2): Score: 133/130
F/A-22: 1.26/0.92 (F-119, official declaration, 35,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 113/124 (Revise)
F/A-22: 1.37/0.92 (F-119, expert estimation~1, 38,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 123/124 (Revise)
F/A-22: 1.41/0.92 (F-119, expert estimation~2, 39,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 127/124 (Revise)
F-16E: 1.04/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, peace time, 32,500 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 94/82
F-16E: 1.09/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, war time, 34,000 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 98/82
F-16E: 1.17/???? (F-110-GE-XXX, post-2010~2015?, 37,000 Ib/????Ib*1): Score: 105/???
Su-35: 1.10/0.65 (AL-37FU, nowadays, 31,970 Ib/18,740 Ib *2): Score: 99/88
Su-35: 1.24/0.83 (AL-41F1, post-2010~2015?, 36,000 Ib/24,000 Ib *2): Score: 112/112
RAFALE C: 1.03/0.69 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib/11,245 Ib *2): Score: 93/93
RAFALE C: 1.21/0.81 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 109/109
F. Comparison of the strike radius of the NG fighters
F/A-22
Internal fuel and the weapon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2. The weapon load is about 3,200 Ib/1,450kg in weight.
Combat radius:
With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 100 NM during the mission: 405 NM / 750 km.
With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 50 NM during the mission: 455 NM / 840 km.
Sub-sonic cruise during the whole mission: 595 NM/1,100 km
Source: http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp
F-35 A/B/C
F-35 A and C: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 2,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 4,700 Ib/2,130kg in weight.
F-35 B: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 1,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 2,700 Ib/1,225kg in weight.
Combat radius:
F-35A(Internal fuel: 8,300 kg):703 NM/1,300 km
F-35B(Internal fuel: 6,080 kg):496 NM/920 km
F-35C(Internal fuel: 8,633 kg):799 NM/1,480 km
Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm
F/A-18E/F
Combat radius:
720 km(hi-lo-lo-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*2 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2. The weapon load is about 4,400 Ib/1,995 kg in weight.)
1,230 km(hi-hi-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2 + pod *2)
855 km(Air-interdiction with 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3)
800 km(Mission of escort, AIM-120*2 + AIM-9*2 and internal fuel only)
-> Comparing with F/A-22 of 1,100 km-class striking radius(Sub-sonic during the whole mission, internal fuel only, and the wepon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2), I estimate that with the internal fuel only and the same class of payload for air-combat, the F/A-22's combat radius should be 40~50% longer than the combat radius of the fighters such as F/A-18E/F, EF-2000, and Rafale.
CAP: 2 hrs and 15 mins(six AAMs and external tanks, 280 km from the carrier)
Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-18E.htm
EF-2000
Combat radius:
650 km(BVRAAM*4 + WVRAAM*2 + 7,000 Ib payload, lo-lo-lo)
1,390 km(Basic payload for air-combat + LGB*3 + ARM*2 +pod, hi-lo-hi)
1,390 km (Air-combat of long range with 10 mins residual fuel)
CAP: 3hrs(six AAMs and external tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the base)
Rafale
Combat radius:
1,100 km(Tank*3 with 4,300 L external fuel + MICA AAM*4 + 1,000 Ib bomb*12. The weapon load is about 13,000 Ib/5,900 kg in weight)
1,830 km(CFT*2 with 2,300 L external fuel + Tank*3 with 5,700 L external fuel + SCALP-EG*2 + MICA AAM*2. The weapon load is about 8,820 Ib/4,000 kg in weight)
1,852 km(Air-combat of long range, tank*4 with 6,600L external fuel + MICA AAM*
CAP: more than 2hrs(Rafale M with six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the carrier)
------------------------------------------------------------
A. Empty weight:
EF-2K: 11,000 kg
F/A-22: 18,144 kg (http://www2.acc.af.mil/library/factsheets/fa-22.html)
F-35A: 12,250 kg (http://www.defence.gov.au/jsf/factsheet_jsf.asp)
F-16E: 9,980 kg
Su-35: 18,400 kg
Rafale: 9,500 kg (Rafale C)
B. Internal Fuel:
EF-2K: 4,600~4,996 kg
F/A-22: 8,300 kg (Revise)
F-35A: 8,165 kg+
F-16E: 3,160 kg
Su-35: 10,250 kg
Rafale: 4,500~4,600 kg
C. External Payload:
EF-2K: 7,500~8,000 kg+
F/A-22: 2,270 kg (Internal weapons); 12,000 kg (Internal + External)
F-35A: 5,900 kg+
F-16E: 8,000 kg+
Su-35: 8,000 kg+
Rafale: 9,500 kg+
D. Wing Surface Area:
EF-2K: 50.00 m2
F/A-22: 78.03 m2
F-35A: 42.70 m2
F-16E: 27.87 m2
Su-35: 62.00 m2
Rafale: 45.70 m2
E. Comparison of air-combat weight, T/W ratio, and wing-load among these fighters at the "fair" condition (with the same kind and the amount of AAM weapons + roughly equal combat radius):
EF2000: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + ASRAAM*2
F/A-22: 6,000 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2 (Revise)
F-35A: 4,500 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
F-16E: 3,160 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + AIM-9X*2
Su-35: 6,700 kg internal fuel + R-77*4 + R-73M2*2
RAFALE: 4,500 kg internal fuel + MICA EM*4 + MICA IR*2
Air-combat weight:
EF-2K: 16,500 kg
F/A-22: 25,150 kg
F-35A: 17,750 kg
F-16E: 14,150 kg
Su-35: 26,250 kg
Rafale: 14,900 kg
Wing-load:
EF-2K: 330 kg/m2: Score: 97.5
F/A-22: 322 kg/m2: Score: 100
F-35A: 416 kg/m2: Score: 77.4
F-16E: 508 kg/m2: Score: 63.4
Su-35: 423 kg/m2: Score: 76.2
Rafale: 326 kg/m2: Score: 98.8
T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):
EF-2000: 1.11/0.74(EJ200, peace time, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 100/100(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
EF-2000: 1.17/0.85 (EJ200, war time, 21,265 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 105/115
EF-2000: 1.26/0.85 (EJ200, small revision, 22,945 Ib/15,525 Ib *2): Score: 113/115
EF-2000: 1.27/0.89 (EJ230, post-2010~2015?, 23,100 Ib/16,200 Ib *2): Score: 114/115
EF-2000: 1.48/0.96 (EJ270, post-2015~2020?, 27,000 Ib/17,500 Ib *2): Score: 133/130
F/A-22: 1.26/0.92 (F-119, official declaration, 35,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 113/124 (Revise)
F/A-22: 1.37/0.92 (F-119, expert estimation~1, 38,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 123/124 (Revise)
F/A-22: 1.41/0.92 (F-119, expert estimation~2, 39,000 Ib/25,500 Ib *2): Score: 127/124 (Revise)
F-16E: 1.04/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, peace time, 32,500 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 94/82
F-16E: 1.09/0.61 (F-110-GE-132, war time, 34,000 Ib/19,000 Ib *1): Score: 98/82
F-16E: 1.17/???? (F-110-GE-XXX, post-2010~2015?, 37,000 Ib/????Ib*1): Score: 105/???
Su-35: 1.10/0.65 (AL-37FU, nowadays, 31,970 Ib/18,740 Ib *2): Score: 99/88
Su-35: 1.24/0.83 (AL-41F1, post-2010~2015?, 36,000 Ib/24,000 Ib *2): Score: 112/112
RAFALE C: 1.03/0.69 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib/11,245 Ib *2): Score: 93/93
RAFALE C: 1.21/0.81 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib/13,500 Ib *2): Score: 109/109
F. Comparison of the strike radius of the NG fighters
F/A-22
Internal fuel and the weapon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2. The weapon load is about 3,200 Ib/1,450kg in weight.
Combat radius:
With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 100 NM during the mission: 405 NM / 750 km.
With a supercruise of 1.5-mach class for 50 NM during the mission: 455 NM / 840 km.
Sub-sonic cruise during the whole mission: 595 NM/1,100 km
Source: http://www.afa.org/magazine/Jan2005/0105raptor.asp
F-35 A/B/C
F-35 A and C: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 2,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 4,700 Ib/2,130kg in weight.
F-35 B: Internal fuel and the wepon load of 1,000 Ib bomb*2 + AIM-120C*2. The weapon load is about 2,700 Ib/1,225kg in weight.
Combat radius:
F-35A(Internal fuel: 8,300 kg):703 NM/1,300 km
F-35B(Internal fuel: 6,080 kg):496 NM/920 km
F-35C(Internal fuel: 8,633 kg):799 NM/1,480 km
Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-35.htm
F/A-18E/F
Combat radius:
720 km(hi-lo-lo-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*2 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2. The weapon load is about 4,400 Ib/1,995 kg in weight.)
1,230 km(hi-hi-hi, 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3 + 1000 lb bomb*4 + AIM-9 *2 + pod *2)
855 km(Air-interdiction with 480 gallon/1,800 L tank*3)
800 km(Mission of escort, AIM-120*2 + AIM-9*2 and internal fuel only)
-> Comparing with F/A-22 of 1,100 km-class striking radius(Sub-sonic during the whole mission, internal fuel only, and the wepon load of SDB*8 + AIM-120C/D*2 + AIM-9X*2), I estimate that with the internal fuel only and the same class of payload for air-combat, the F/A-22's combat radius should be 40~50% longer than the combat radius of the fighters such as F/A-18E/F, EF-2000, and Rafale.
CAP: 2 hrs and 15 mins(six AAMs and external tanks, 280 km from the carrier)
Source: http://www.flug-revue.rotor.com/FRTypen/FRF-18E.htm
EF-2000
Combat radius:
650 km(BVRAAM*4 + WVRAAM*2 + 7,000 Ib payload, lo-lo-lo)
1,390 km(Basic payload for air-combat + LGB*3 + ARM*2 +pod, hi-lo-hi)
1,390 km (Air-combat of long range with 10 mins residual fuel)
CAP: 3hrs(six AAMs and external tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the base)
Rafale
Combat radius:
1,100 km(Tank*3 with 4,300 L external fuel + MICA AAM*4 + 1,000 Ib bomb*12. The weapon load is about 13,000 Ib/5,900 kg in weight)
1,830 km(CFT*2 with 2,300 L external fuel + Tank*3 with 5,700 L external fuel + SCALP-EG*2 + MICA AAM*2. The weapon load is about 8,820 Ib/4,000 kg in weight)
1,852 km(Air-combat of long range, tank*4 with 6,600L external fuel + MICA AAM*
CAP: more than 2hrs(Rafale M with six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 100 nm(185 km) from the carrier)
Lord - July 27, 2007 08:22 PM (GMT)
credit goes to KinMid
who found this articels ...
Also compat training against Mirage...
Here
Another interesting articel about Rafale...(credit goes to Symigian)
who found this articels ...
Also compat training against Mirage...
Here
Another interesting articel about Rafale...(credit goes to Symigian)
| QUOTE |
| By Robert Wall French Rafale strike fighters will be operational in Afghanistan within days, after undergoing a crash course to integrate precision-guided bombs and other wartime enhancements. Both the French air force and navy are participating in the surge of combat capability, aimed at bolstering NATO's International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan. The French air force was to deploy three F2 standard Rafales late last week to Dushanbe, Tajikistan, where they will be primarily based, although excursions to Kabul are possible. The aircraft should be operational within days of arrival and remain there about four months, says a senior air force officer planning the deployment. It is the first operational mission since the air force declared Rafale operational last year. The navy will also have Rafales in the F2 standard in the region of operations. The deployment represents the first of the type for the navy, which is only starting to field this version. Last week, three F2s were sent to join the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which was already deployed near the Horn of Africa. The ship is now heading close to Afghanistan, with Rafale operations likely to commence mid-month, says a senior navy aviator. The de Gaulle will operate a mix of Rafales, with the three F2s supplemented by nine early-model F1s, which have only an air-to-air capability and a different processor. Although much of the focus of the French military activity since December has been to give the fighter the ability to drop laser-guided bombs, other enhancements have also been undertaken more quietly. For instance, the threat libraries have been upgraded to properly reflect what the Spectra self-protection system is likely to encounter, says French air force Brig. Gen. Eric Rouzaud, head of the CEAM aviation development and test center. The threat libraries are similar for the two services, but the naval version carries additional information to distinguish different types of maritime radars. But without the weapons upgrade, which was formally launched in mid-December when aircraft prime contract Dassault Aviation began its work on the effort, the deployment would not have taken place. French government officials raised the prospect of the air force mission in November. Flight trials to pave the way for the deployment involved seven weapon releases from air force Rafales and another five from naval versions. The integration went smoothly, although some buffet issues were encountered, says a development officer. The focus of the development activity was integrating the 611-lb. GBU-12 (Paveway II) and 720-lb. GBU-22 (Paveway III) laser-guided bombs on the aircraft. The latter has larger control surface and offers more range and maneuverability, but French military officials expect to use both. A standard load-out when operating from Dushanbe or the carrier will be three drop tanks (with 2,000 or 1,200 liters [528 or 317 gal.] of fuel) and three bombs under each wing, in addition to four Mica air-to-air missiles (both the radar and infrared seeker models). At this point, the military has not cleared the use of mixed loads. Development work also is ongoing to clear the operational use of the 30-mm. GIAT 791B cannon. Those efforts have encountered some problems, including vibration, says a senior officer monitoring the progress. Nevertheless, he holds out hope the issues can be resolved, so that the weapon can be employed later in the deployment. Fighter aircraft have frequently had to resort to strafing runs to assist ground forces, particularly special operations units, because those are often in such close contact with Taliban forces that the use of bombs is deemed too dangerous. The rapid-response program for the Rafales, however, leaves the strike fighter largely dependent on other aircraft. The Rafale itself is not yet fitted with its Damocles laser-designator pod, so someone else has to provide the targeting information. Operational plans for the air force foresee the use of Rafales in conjunction with Mirage 2000Ds, three of which are also in Dushanbe. They will perform the lasing, with the Rafales delivering ordnance. For the navy, the so-called buddy-lasing duties will be performed by Super Entendards. Ground forces can also be used for target designation. Next in the development plan for Rafale is the addition of further weapons. For instance, although the Scalp cruise missile has been cleared for air force use, mission-planning equipment isn't up to standard yet for its operational employment. Additionally, later this year the service hopes to fully field the inertial navigation system/global positioning system (INS/GPS)-guided AASM (armament air-sol modulaire) air-to-ground weapon. Next year or in 2009, the air force also expects to field the EP2 Enhanced Paveway, which marries INS/GPS and laser guidance. Those features will phase in as the F3 standard Rafale becomes operational next year. Another round of upgrades looms soon after, as elements of the post-F3 upgrade package materialize. It includes, most notably, an active electronically scanned array antenna for the Rafale radar, which should enter development testing in 2010 for fielding in 2012. Enhancements to the optical sight system and integration of a data modem are also in the cards. Notionally, military officials are starting to discuss an F4 standard, while stressing that nothing concrete is planned right now. That configuration would be targeted for fielding around 2015-18. At the moment, it serves largely as a brainstorming function, says one project official. It would likely be a large overhaul, on the scale of the shift from F1 to F2, which changed out the processing backbone of the fighter. The navy program official notes that around that time, the current processing capability will likely be headed toward its maximum and will need to be replaced. The F4 is being likened to the Mid-Life Upgrade program that the F-16 fleet has undergone. Also on the agenda are subsystem enhancements and new weapons, including whether to add a suppression of enemy air defense (SEAD) capability, electronic attack functions or a towed-decoy for self-protection. Right now, the latter is low on the priority list and the penalty in terms of loss of maneuverability is not seen as compensating for the added protection. Interest in a decided SEAD capability is relatively mild, as operational planners realize the combination of Spectra's geolocation capability and the coming AASM bomb will give them an ability not just to suppress, but to destroy radar sites. |
stardust - July 29, 2007 03:57 PM (GMT)
@mavrogenides
I have no answer to your last question appart that the source seems credible but i9nfortunatly not easly valideable.
The Eco-4 engine have the same power srttings than the E-1.
I have no answer to your last question appart that the source seems credible but i9nfortunatly not easly valideable.
The Eco-4 engine have the same power srttings than the E-1.