The Rafale on the Fighter Pilot podcast

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 658
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post02 Mar 2019, 15:15

Dassault Rafale on FPP:



Le Magnifique!!
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 08:20

Thanks a lot for the Link. :D Very interesting interview.

I have to say, Jell-o and Sunshine are two very nice and funny guys. I also appreciated there point of view about war.

And i still hope, America will join to the metric system in the near future. :mrgreen: :wink:
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 742
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post07 Mar 2019, 16:01

Thanks for posting this link, great stuff!
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3179
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 15:37

Mach 1.4 supercruise is pretty zippy.

Usually, most 4th gen or 4++ gen are barely able to get there. Something on the order of mach 1.1, 1.2. What is it about the Rafale allows it to get that extra .2 to .3?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 16:18

mixelflick wrote:Mach 1.4 supercruise is pretty zippy.

Usually, most 4th gen or 4++ gen are barely able to get there. Something on the order of mach 1.1, 1.2. What is it about the Rafale allows it to get that extra .2 to .3?

Tiffy does it too. It's about engine design that gives high supersonic thrust in Mil power combined with low wave drag.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 16:27

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
mixelflick wrote:Mach 1.4 supercruise is pretty zippy.

Usually, most 4th gen or 4++ gen are barely able to get there. Something on the order of mach 1.1, 1.2. What is it about the Rafale allows it to get that extra .2 to .3?

Tiffy does it too. It's about engine design that gives high supersonic thrust in Mil power combined with low wave drag.


Do you think the claims of Dassault are realistic? Supercruise with mach 1.3 with 6 Mica and 1 EFT? Would really appreciate your opinion as an Aerospace Engineer.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 16:41

swiss wrote:Do you think the claims of Dassault are realistic? Supercruise with mach 1.3 with 6 Mica and 1 EFT? Would really appreciate your opinion as an Aerospace Engineer.

I will say I am currently "skeptical" about 1.3 with 6 Mica and an EFT. I can accept 1.4 with 4 Mica as that is wingtip and conformal positions. I will someday make a Rafale performance model where I can see what the dynamic thrust curves would have to look like in order for 1.3 with two pylons, two missiles, and a fuel tank to be possible. Then, if I think the thrust curve is unreasonable, I will go from "skeptical" to "doubtful".
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post08 Mar 2019, 17:02

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:Do you think the claims of Dassault are realistic? Supercruise with mach 1.3 with 6 Mica and 1 EFT? Would really appreciate your opinion as an Aerospace Engineer.

I will say I am currently "skeptical" about 1.3 with 6 Mica and an EFT. I can accept 1.4 with 4 Mica as that is wingtip and conformal positions. I will someday make a Rafale performance model where I can see what the dynamic thrust curves would have to look like in order for 1.3 with two pylons, two missiles, and a fuel tank to be possible. Then, if I think the thrust curve is unreasonable, I will go from "skeptical" to "doubtful".


Thanks for you answer spurts. :thumb: Cant wait for your performance model about the Rafale. Sadly my understanding of aerodynamic is very low. :?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2741
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 14:10

swiss wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:Do you think the claims of Dassault are realistic? Supercruise with mach 1.3 with 6 Mica and 1 EFT? Would really appreciate your opinion as an Aerospace Engineer.

I will say I am currently "skeptical" about 1.3 with 6 Mica and an EFT. I can accept 1.4 with 4 Mica as that is wingtip and conformal positions. I will someday make a Rafale performance model where I can see what the dynamic thrust curves would have to look like in order for 1.3 with two pylons, two missiles, and a fuel tank to be possible. Then, if I think the thrust curve is unreasonable, I will go from "skeptical" to "doubtful".


Thanks for you answer spurts. :thumb: Cant wait for your performance model about the Rafale. Sadly my understanding of aerodynamic is very low. :?


I also have very poor understanding about aerodynamics, but I think the Swiss evaluation of fighters ten years ago gives some hints. The leaked evaluation paper states that Eurofighter Typhoon strong point was Mach 1.4 supercruise whereas nothing similar was said about Rafale. Eurofighter Typhoon also scored 9 in aircraft performances whereas Rafale scored 7. Of course there was no statement about loadout, but it seems clear that EF Typhoon has better supercruise (and other high altitude/speed) capabilities to Rafale. I'm sure Rafale can supercruise, but at lower weapons load than EF Typhoon or slower speed. Of course Rafale won that competition with other qualities. I think it has good enough flight performance even compared to EF Typhoon even if slightly lower in some parts of their flight envelopes.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 14:53

hornetfinn wrote: but I think the Swiss evaluation of fighters ten years ago gives some hints. The leaked evaluation paper states that Eurofighter Typhoon strong point was Mach 1.4 supercruise whereas nothing similar was said about Rafale. Eurofighter Typhoon also scored 9 in aircraft performances whereas Rafale scored 7. Of course there was no statement about loadout, but it seems clear that EF Typhoon has better supercruise (and other high altitude/speed) capabilities to Rafale. I'm sure Rafale can supercruise, but at lower weapons load than EF Typhoon or slower speed. Of course Rafale won that competition with other qualities. I think it has good enough flight performance even compared to EF Typhoon even if slightly lower in some parts of their flight envelopes.


Absolutely. The Rafale is no slouch in flight performance. Especially under 20'000 feet. But as you said in top speed, high altitude and super cruise performance the EF is a beast.
Last edited by swiss on 11 Mar 2019, 21:46, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 15:05

That is what I expect as well. In "straight line" metrics, acceleration, speed, altitude, I expect the Tiffy to walk away from just about anything that isn't a Raptor.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 15:39

Its a bit off topic. But i think here is good place to post it.

https://www.meretmarine.com/fr/content/ ... -et-marine

I found this french article about the first Meteor shoot from a Rafale M.

But what drew my attention was this sentence

Propulsé par statoréacteur et doté d'un autodirecteur électromagnétique actif, il devrait présenter une vitesse supérieure à Mach 4 et une portée d'une centaine de kilomètres, avec une zone d'interception assurée dans laquelle la cible ne pourra s'échapper.


Powered by a ramjet and equipped with an active electromagnetic autodirector, it should have a speed greater than Mach 4 and a range of a hundred kilometers, with a zone of assured interception in which the target will not escape.


Could that be, a NEZ of 100 km? I assume that would mean a max range of several 100 km.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 16:22

swiss wrote:
Powered by a ramjet and equipped with an active electromagnetic autodirector, it should have a speed greater than Mach 4 and a range of a hundred kilometers, with a zone of assured interception in which the target will not escape.


Could that be, a NEZ of 100 km? I assume that would mean a max range of several 100 km.

Don't get too ahead of yourself.

All the quote is saying is that there is a NEZ.

Let's say for a moment that the NEZ is actually 100km. Max range could still only be ~150km. Simply look at the Meteor and the AIM-120C/D. Which one is going to have more drag? Meteor without question. Once that ramjet goes out it will drop speed quickly. Also, since the Meteor is an air-breather and has similar or less rated max range than the AIM-120D (listed Max range 160km+) I am inclined to believe that Meteor does not loft as high. That seems to be the key to the AIM-120D range is to loft into thin air with enough speed that momentum carries it forward for tens of nautical miles and it maintains speed by coming downhill. The key to Meteor range is the ram-rocket engine. By my estimations given similar max flight ranges the Meteor would have a NEZ (defined by me as where forward speed is high enough to be at corner velocity) of roughly twice that of the AIM-120D. A portion of that increase is due to the Meteor having more lifting surface and thus a lower corner velocity.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 22:48

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
swiss wrote:
Powered by a ramjet and equipped with an active electromagnetic autodirector, it should have a speed greater than Mach 4 and a range of a hundred kilometers, with a zone of assured interception in which the target will not escape.


Could that be, a NEZ of 100 km? I assume that would mean a max range of several 100 km.

Don't get too ahead of yourself.

All the quote is saying is that there is a NEZ.

Let's say for a moment that the NEZ is actually 100km. Max range could still only be ~150km. Simply look at the Meteor and the AIM-120C/D. Which one is going to have more drag? Meteor without question. Once that ramjet goes out it will drop speed quickly. Also, since the Meteor is an air-breather and has similar or less rated max range than the AIM-120D (listed Max range 160km+) I am inclined to believe that Meteor does not loft as high. That seems to be the key to the AIM-120D range is to loft into thin air with enough speed that momentum carries it forward for tens of nautical miles and it maintains speed by coming downhill. The key to Meteor range is the ram-rocket engine. By my estimations given similar max flight ranges the Meteor would have a NEZ (defined by me as where forward speed is high enough to be at corner velocity) of roughly twice that of the AIM-120D. A portion of that increase is due to the Meteor having more lifting surface and thus a lower corner velocity.


Thanks for your opinion spurts. A lots of aerodynamics stuff here.

According to the german Wiki, The Meteor has a rocktet booster to start the missiles also from blow mach1. Which is not possible only with an air-breather. After the booster burns out, the ramjet jumps in. This is also interesting

The Electronics and Propulsion Control Unit (ECPU) calculates the correct cruising speed depending on the location and altitude of the target, and adjusts the air intake and gas control accordingly. If the ECPU determines that the rocket will not run out of fuel until impact despite acceleration, this accelerates to maximum intercept speed. If the target is at maximum distance, there will be virtually no acceleration after firing


And range is roughly 200 km.

https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MBDA_Mete ... te-vayu-34

According to this report from a Dutch laboratory the Meteor (A3M, Meteor with a german seeker) should have a range of over 250 km. On page 27

https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a322627.pdf
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4182
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post12 Mar 2019, 23:03

unfortunately that is an old document from when the meteor was still in development. They may have found that range un reachable. Everything current says 100km but I feel that is too low, all things considered. 250km seems too high. it just doesn't pass muster to me.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Next

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests