Can the Rafale or Typhoon Supercruise with combat loadout?

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

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1938
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 02:50

wil59 wrote:Super Cruise in Super sonic Speed

which means the engines can power the Aircraft without burning any flames,

even in dry thrust the engine produce flame
wil59 wrote:usually the Plane can glide at super sonic ranges without wasting much more energy and Engine power,

supercruise use less fuel compared to superburner but it still use quite a lot fuel

wil59 wrote: in a Test mission set by IAF, the Rafale Carry's four Air to air missiles along with two guided bombs, and at the speed of Mach 1.4, and impressed the IAF evaluation team,

can you give a link for that claim , i havent read in any official link that Rafale can supercruise at mach 1.4 with 2 guider bombs
wil59 wrote: Super cruise can be used to defeat most Heat seeking or IR Guided missile, which is usually tracks the Target using the Heat signatures, during dog fights or Close combat one was always try to escape from the Red zone with full power, that means he can go full after burner to achieve maximum speed, which also makes the missile for easy target, most of the time the IR guided missiles targets the Flares and the sun's because of Sun's heat spot. But with the Help of Super cruise without making Heat signs the Rafale can escape from the red zone at higher speed with the small design it can also maneuver at high rate to evade the missile.

1) supercruise does produce heat , alot of heat actually ( eventhought it still produce less infrared signature compared to after burner
2) the method you described will only work again first gen IR missiles like Aim-9A, Aim-9B , it is uselss again modern all aspect IIR missiles
2)
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 08:28

Can supercruise save the Raptor from Archer in dogfight or WVR ?
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 11:14

I want to see the airplane that can stay in super cruise in a WVR fight. LOL, What a Joke !

What are you smoking?

The first turn, and you are subsonic.
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 12:25

oldiaf wrote:Can supercruise save the Raptor from Archer in dogfight or WVR ?

here is an official document of the 49th International Air Show and the area outside http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... t-2011.jpg
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 12:40

vilters wrote:I want to see the airplane that can stay in super cruise in a WVR fight. LOL, What a Joke !

What are you smoking?

The first turn, and you are subsonic.

I did not say that; vwr pc off a fight is unrealistic; I only said it has the capacity supercruise with 4/6 missile Mach 1.4; not distorted my words.
Offline

oldiaf

Banned

  • Posts: 1434
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 23:28

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 12:56

wil59 wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Can supercruise save the Raptor from Archer in dogfight or WVR ?

here is an official document of the 49th International Air Show and the area outside http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... t-2011.jpg

I meant the F-22 Raptor not Rafale
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 14:12

oldiaf wrote:
wil59 wrote:
oldiaf wrote:Can supercruise save the Raptor from Archer in dogfight or WVR ?

here is an official document of the 49th International Air Show and the area outside http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... t-2011.jpg

I meant the F-22 Raptor not Rafale
see the subject! rafale / typhoon supercruise ability? the raptor is not here Story Idea
Offline

h-bomb

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 332
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2009, 20:07
  • Location: South Central USA

Unread post30 Sep 2015, 19:56

I suspect most modern fighters that are in a lightly loaded Air to Air config can super-cruise. When the F-15Es showed up at Lakenheath with 229s PW propaganda pamphlets pointed out they could super-cruise in and A to A config.

The real issue is can they perform a sustained super-cruise without damaging the power plants. The MIG-25 could go Mach 3.2, at the price of destroyed power plants. The F-35 program said the it can super-cruise for 30 minutes due to thermal limitations. I suspect all the late "Gen 4" aircraft with upgraded power plants can super-cruise, but with only heat limitation on the power plant limiting the endurance.
Offline

sorrydog

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 46
  • Joined: 26 Apr 2011, 15:22
  • Location: Always moving

Unread post06 Oct 2015, 14:42

h-bomb wrote:
The real issue is can they perform a sustained super-cruise without damaging the power plants. The MIG-25 could go Mach 3.2, at the price of destroyed power plants. The F-35 program said the it can super-cruise for 30 minutes due to thermal limitations. I suspect all the late "Gen 4" aircraft with upgraded power plants can super-cruise, but with only heat limitation on the power plant limiting the endurance.


The heat limitation may not be a turbine related one. I don't know, but don't assume it's power plant related when it could also be airframe related. Beyond supersonic speeds, the an airframe tend to accumulated heat faster than it can disperse it (to a point) mainly from 2 sources...adiabatic heating and frictional heating. The adiabatic heating due from compression of the air due to the supersonic speeds is the main component. The 30 minute limit would probably take into account heat soak, as that might be the time it takes components that are not normally subject to heat, to start to accumulated significant amounts of heat.... or there might be just a few parts that their operation is sensitive toward operating outside of an expected heat range, and changing design to compensate would be very expense. For instance, the canopy might fall out of safety range if heated beyond a certain temp.... or maybe it is a turbine component but you can't just assume that.

I would bet money that the MIG-25 cannot maintain 3.2 without being in burner... the SR-71 sure can't (it's in burner for normal operation). Everybody always references that Sinai event with the Egytian/Soviet MIG-25. I suspect the pilot left the burner plugged in to achieve that speed. The question is... why would he do that and risk his butt in exceeding airframe Mmo? (Not to mention later dressing down for damaging the newest Soviet plane??)

Well.... he was being pursued by Israeli F4's.... that's why. I might do the same if I was worried about a sparrow in the backside...
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post06 Oct 2020, 10:50

hornetfinn wrote:
wil59 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Anyway that same evaluation put Rafale as somewhat better performing as Swiss F/A-18C (which have EPE engines). Score 6 was minimum requirement and Rafale scored 7 in overall aircraft performances. EF Typhoon scored 9 and Gripen about 5.5. Since supercruise Mach 1.4 was especially stated as strong point for Tiffy, it seems like Rafale does not have significant supercruise capability (and Gripen NG definitely not). Of course Rafale got most of the best scores in other areas and was evaluated as most effective in both DCA and OCA despite this. I think Rafale is very close to F-16C in overall performance. I've never seen Dassault or French AF or Navy claiming that Rafale can supercruise. Some internet fans claim that though, but without any credible sources to back those claims up.

IMO, supercruise is nice capability but also something you can easily live without (as Swiss evaluation showed).

Here are the figures Swiss Evaluation 2009 http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-1xIGy5FbmLQ/T ... l_NWA2.png eurofighter obtained at 9? that you have the link? Overall performance or only super cruise capability?


http://goo.gl/ig7tG4

Figure 2-4.

They also say in Executive Summary that AC Performances was a strong point for Typhoon and especially mention Mach 1.4 supercruise.



They have 2 diferent stats for adquisition target and engagement target. I thought it was the same. What is the difference between adquisition and engagemet of a enemy fighter?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3327
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post06 Oct 2020, 11:28

falcon.16 wrote:They have 2 different stats for adquisition target and engagement target. I thought it was the same. Whhat is the differente between adquisition and engagemet of a enemy fighter?


Target acquisition means that the aircraft sensors start tracking the target for successful engagement. This usually includes also identification of target but Swiss seem to have separated these. It might also include things that the pilot needs to do to make it happen like selecting correct radar modes/submodes and how the system must be operated. I think Rafale scored best here (and in detection and identification criteria) because of estimated performance of AESA RBE2 radar.

Engagement means the process of actually shooting of missile(s) at target and guiding it until it goes active or hits/misses. Like pilot selecting the target or targets to be engaged and what weapon to use. Then the system gives the pilot information about what must be done for successful engagement and when missile can be launched and what are the weapon limits (like min/max range). After launch the system will likely give information about things like estimated time-to-target. I think EF Typhoon might've got best points here because of the aircraft performance and lower pilot workload. There is also separate criteria for pilot workload and EF Typhoon scores best there but it might affect engagement criteria also.
Offline

falcon.16

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 113
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2018, 20:10
  • Location: Spain

Unread post06 Oct 2020, 20:28

hornetfinn wrote:
falcon.16 wrote:They have 2 different stats for adquisition target and engagement target. I thought it was the same. Whhat is the differente between adquisition and engagemet of a enemy fighter?


Target acquisition means that the aircraft sensors start tracking the target for successful engagement. This usually includes also identification of target but Swiss seem to have separated these. It might also include things that the pilot needs to do to make it happen like selecting correct radar modes/submodes and how the system must be operated. I think Rafale scored best here (and in detection and identification criteria) because of estimated performance of AESA RBE2 radar.

Engagement means the process of actually shooting of missile(s) at target and guiding it until it goes active or hits/misses. Like pilot selecting the target or targets to be engaged and what weapon to use. Then the system gives the pilot information about what must be done for successful engagement and when missile can be launched and what are the weapon limits (like min/max range). After launch the system will likely give information about things like estimated time-to-target. I think EF Typhoon might've got best points here because of the aircraft performance and lower pilot workload. There is also separate criteria for pilot workload and EF Typhoon scores best there but it might affect engagement criteria also.


Thanks.

But it is strange because Swiss inform tell better sensor fusion from Rafale than Typhoon, and it should gve better engagement to the Rafale, also workload of the typhoon should be worst by the same.

I am thinking and maybe quality weapons was better on Typhoon than on rafale. Maybe Iris-T + HMD was much better combination for engagement than Mica IR and no HMD from Rafale...and on BVR Amraam C could to be better than MICA too.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3327
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post07 Oct 2020, 10:05

falcon.16 wrote:But it is strange because Swiss inform tell better sensor fusion from Rafale than Typhoon, and it should gve better engagement to the Rafale, also workload of the typhoon should be worst by the same.

I am thinking and maybe quality weapons was better on Typhoon than on rafale. Maybe Iris-T + HMD was much better combination for engagement than Mica IR and no HMD from Rafale...and on BVR Amraam C could to be better than MICA too.


It depends on how the Swiss defined their criteria. For example engagement is impossible without detection, acquisition and preferably identification. I think the engagement might only mean preparing for and actually shooting and guiding missiles. So the target is already detected, acquired by fire control system and identified. Here EF Typhoon might have advantages due to higher performance than competitors, so it would likely be able to fire missiles at higher speed and altitude, giving them more energy and reach. I think that HMD in EF Typhoon might've given it additional points compared to Rafale which didn't have HDM in that evaluation.

I'm a little baffled by the "Data dissemination" criteria, where all got very low scores but there is no mention of it in the text. It's also interesting that in Endurance/AAR/Loiter time only Rafale meets the minimum expected capabilities which are based on F/A-18C capabilties. Identification criteria is also one where none meets the minimum expected capabilities, which is a bit surprising.

Rafale got better points in SA/force coordination, detection, acquisition, identification and CNI. These are all affected by the sensors and sensor fusion and these were stated to be the strong points of Rafale. I think pilot workload could mean how much and what the pilot has to do to fly and operate the aircraft and systems. While Rafale has better sensors and sensor fusion, maybe it has more complex interfaces and operating logic.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4269
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post07 Oct 2020, 15:21

These 2 likely have some supercruise capability, but quite honestly - I can only see Typhoon using it operationally. Speaking of which, does not Typhoon carry what are often referred to as, "supersonic tanks"?

Not sure if Rafale carryies an equivalent..
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 234
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post08 Oct 2020, 11:41

mixelflick wrote:These 2 likely have some supercruise capability, but quite honestly - I can only see Typhoon using it operationally. Speaking of which, does not Typhoon carry what are often referred to as, "supersonic tanks"?

Not sure if Rafale carryies an equivalent..
/////// yes fox3.2.
Conformal Fuel Tanks: the latest innovation tested on Rafale
During combat operations , it clearly appeared that fighters were required to hit distant targets, and tankers were in very high demand. Air forces soon realised that they had become dependent on extre- mely vulnerable assets, and that long-range strike fighters were necessary to overcome this worrying trend. Thankfully, the Dassault Rafale was conceived from the start to carry an extremely large fuel load, as the internal tanks of a single-seatercontain 5,750 litres (1, 519 US g all ons). Add itionally, the fighter is equipped with no fewer than
five wet points, and two types of external tanks are available: 1,250 litre (330 US gallon) supersonic tanks may be carried on any of the five wet pylons, and 2,000 litre (528 US gallon) drop tanks can be mounted on the centreline and inner wing stations. A pressure refuelling system is fitted as standard for both internal and external fuel tanks, and internal tanks can be refilled in four minutes only. Finally, the Rafale is equipped with an in-flight refuelling probe located to the right of the nose, ahead of the windscreen.
For air forces in need of an even larger capacity, Dassault Aviation has d esigned two 1,150 litre (303 US gallon) d etachable Conformal Fuel Tanks (CFTs) which can be mounted on the upper surface of wing/fuselageblend, causing less drag than traditional tanks, and freeing underwing stations for armament. CFTs b ring the Rafale’s maximal external fuel load to an a st onis hing 10,800 lit res (2,853 US gallons), and they

can be mounted or removed in less than two hours. All Rafales have a built-in CFT capability: CFTs can be adapted to any variant of the fighter, including naval and two-seat versions.
The CFTs are being tested at the Dassault Test Centre in Istres, and the first flight of a Rafale fitted with CFTs took place on April 18, 2001, with pilot Eric Gérard at the controls. Supersonic speeds have been evaluated, and various confi- gurations have already been succ ess fully t est ed: long-range strike with three 2,000 litre drop tanks, four Mica and two Scalp stand-off missiles, and air-to-air confi- gurations with Mica missiles. It has been determined that the CFTs had negligible impact on aircraft handling.
With CFTs and drop tanks, the Rafale boasts an unrivalled range for such a compact aircraft, offering Commanders greater flexibility, and giving aircrews unprecedented deep strike capabilities.
Previous

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests