F-16.net

The 100 km figure probably refers to the NEZ (or not too far short of it). Max kinematic range is probably in the 150-200 km ballpark.

That's what my calculations are showing.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: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.

I've wondered about the relative ranges of rocket propelled missile like AMRAAM and ramjet one like Meteor. I found this about rocket vs ramjet range performance:
https://www.sto.nato.int/publications/S ... 185-06.pdf

3.0 CASE STUDY - CRUISE FLIGHT PERFORMANCE OF 1/6 SCALED RAMJET OR ROCKET PROPELLED X-15 CONFIGURATION

(starting from page 6-18)

The predicted results (see Figure 24) indicate that a Mach 6 cruise at 40 km altitude may result in cruise flight ranges around 700 km for a rocket propelled vehicle compared to roughly 1800 km for the ramjet propelled vehicle.

(page 6-20)

So according to this, ramjet could have very significantly longer range than rocket propelled missile. Of course this level flight profile is very different to what air-to-air missiles are flying. Like you noted in earlier post, rocket propelled missiles likely loft a lot more than ramjet powered ones. AFAIK, rocket provides enormous amount of thrust for about 10 seconds in AMRAAM sized missiles. Ramjet on the other hand provides lot less thrust, although it gives that thrust for a lot longer time. So I think Meteor is not going to loft as aggressively and high as AMRAAM which makes the comparison more difficult. I think Meteor can have bigger advantage when missiles are launched at lower altitudes as neither missile is going to loft that much as range and missile speed are significantly lower in any case. Of course who is going to launch their missiles at lower altitudes if they can choose to use higher altitudes? I do think that Meteor missile has some long range advantages (like possibly larger NEZ) compared to even AIM-120D. But they might not be that significant in real life. But for Rafale I do think that Meteor and MICA combo is great. Too bad for the one-way data link only though...

Meteor claims range of 100km, or 62 miles. AIM-120D claims 160km, or about 86 miles

At issue is the Meteor's PK, or probability of kill and (related) it's NEZ or No Escape Zone. As I understand it, the Meteor's ramjet engine can be throttled up/down over the course of its trajectory to more aggressively engage a target. The AIM-120D on the other hand, expends its rocket motor in one dramatic burst, allowing the missile to reach its target, albeit unpowered.

Those ranges obviously depend on the target's orientation, speed etc. and probably aren't the real figures. If it were me, I'd probably want the Meteor for its increased PK. The 120D will likely miss more often, but then again it depends on several factors. I'd also want the Meteor for its greater speed. The 120D is cited as a Mach 4 missile, the Meteor "above mach 4". If its significantly above, that's a major advantage.

I'm not into playing DCS, but it was pretty clear in F-14 vs. F-18 fights the Phoenix got to the F-18 a lot faster than the AMRAAM got to its target (given similar launch ranges), thereby creating a very difficult situation for the Hornet pilot. He was almost purely defensive as the AIM-54C's rapidly closed on his aircraft..

@ Spurts: So your resume, the AIM-120D and Meteor have roughly the same max range, but the Meteor has probably the double nez then the AMRAAM.

hornetfinn wrote: do think that Meteor missile has some long range advantages (like possibly larger NEZ) compared to even AIM-120D. But they might not be that significant in real life. But for Rafale I do think that Meteor and MICA combo is great. Too bad for the one-way data link only though...

That is also i was thinking. Because the Meteor don't have to carry oxygen, and has the high efficient propellant boron.

About the one-way data link compere to the two way. That means the Rafale can send course upgrades to the missiles, but the meteor can't send data back. Of her current course or if the seeker still has lock-on Target, e.g.

swiss wrote:@ Spurts: So your resume, the AIM-120D and Meteor have roughly the same max range, but the Meteor has probably the double nez then the AMRAAM.

That's what my models are showing.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:

swiss wrote:@ Spurts: So your resume, the AIM-120D and Meteor have roughly the same max range, but the Meteor has probably the double nez then the AMRAAM.

That's what my models are showing.

Thanks again for you work.

Okay, So I thought I would share my missile model results.

Caveats - I calibrated the models to a ~160km max range, which was defined for my purposes per the minizap missile simulator. 33,000ft launch from 1.02M against an inbound target at 33,000ft at 0.83M. I calibrated such that ~160km was the maximum LAUNCH RANGE at which the missiles would intercept with a forward speed of at least 1.2M. These are the missile flight profile models I use for my comparison project and have no guarantee of accuracy, they simply match publicly available data with the assumptions I use.

The results below, Meteor over AIM-120D, have x-axis of range in nm. Launch is from 36,000ft and 1.0M. "target" is stationary at 36,000ft and 81.5nm distance. Additional Notes: AMRAAM ToF was 179s. Meteor ToF was 159s.



The different loft profiles I modeled are obvious. The change in G force around 56nm is when the guidance algorithm changes from "loft" to "track".

swiss wrote:

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.

Since I don't know the drag index of those external stores, I don't know. We also don't know under what other conditions are present, to achieve this figure. Is it in a 1, 2 or X degree dive? What altitude is it flying at? Was this a test bird, or a real, operational capability?

If that information is out there, I haven't seen it. But do I think it's impossible? No. Probable? Maybe. And I would think It would be best to hear from the pilots themselves, not just the manufacturer.

swiss wrote:

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.

You will not find any information on the subject of the super cruise on the Dassault site, for the simple reason that the super cruise is a configuration created by Lockheed Martin for the F-22 and (look at the list to reach to be admitted to the 5G, which has changed since the entry of the F-35 lol) the super cruise has disappeared from the list to include the F-35 all this is marketing, useless for most missions.
In addition the super cruise is used to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible without the consumption too high compared to the pc.The speed of an airplane is not really high when releasing some weapons and on the contrary can be more difficult if the speed is too high, example: copy of a text on a French Forum dating from 2015: Regarding supersonic weaponry, I remember articles evoking a certain number of difficulties. From what I retained:

 

* Armament under pylons:

    - the behavior of precision AS ammunition in supersonic / transonic regime is poorly controlled for the free part of their flight: their bearing surfaces and flight logic are not provided for the aerodynamic effects that occur at these speeds.

    - The smooth bombs can be pulled without much difficulty, provided that the ejectors have fishing. Multiple mounts per pylon, however, should be avoided.

    - I did not see anything about the firing of missiles ejected from a pylon.

 

* Semi-recessed armaments:

    - Missile fire is possible, provided the ejectors correctly separate the missile from its carrier. The control surfaces and the steering system are capable of handling subsonic / transonic and supersonic.

 

* Armament on rail:

    - it seems that the firing of rail missiles is the most favorable case for supersonic firing.

 

* Armament in the hold:

    - the cargo hold lifts all the reports on the conditions of carriage in relation to the pylons or the rails: multiple stowage, mixing, etc. On the other hand, difficulties can occur at the time of the shooting.

    - BAe has carried out numerous design studies to minimize aeroelastic couplings in the F-35 bunkers. They carried out a multidisciplinary parametric optimization (partly with software developed from an EU research program) to prevent the ammunition from being simply torn off by the flow at the opening of the trap doors. supersonic bunker.

    - Rail shooting from the cargo hold remains the easiest to manage

    - the firing of precision ammunition with strong aerodynamic control, mounted on ejectors, continues to pose a problem.

    - The firing of precision ammunition with terminal trajectory correction, without large control surfaces, is possible in the same way as the smooth bombs. Hence the proposed use of JDAM as the main bomb on the F-35.

 

Otherwise, we must not forget that some munitions are so planned as subsonic that they do everything to stay: the AASM is thus likely to degrade its energy if it approaches too much of the transonic; it twists around its trajectory, producing a characteristic buzz, but remaining subsonic. I doubt then that a supersonic shot is favorable to him.

wil59 wrote:

swiss wrote:

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.

You will not find any information on the subject of the super cruise on the Dassault site, for the simple reason that the super cruise is a configuration created by Lockheed Martin for the F-22 and (look at the list to reach to be admitted to the 5G, which has changed since the entry of the F-35 lol) the super cruise has disappeared from the list to include the F-35 all this is marketing, useless for most missions.
In addition the super cruise is used to get from point A to point B as quickly as possible without the consumption too high compared to the pc.The speed of an airplane is not really high when releasing some weapons and on the contrary can be more difficult if the speed is too high, example: copy of a text on a French Forum dating from 2015: Regarding supersonic weaponry, I remember articles evoking a certain number of difficulties. From what I retained:

 

* Armament under pylons:

    - the behavior of precision AS ammunition in supersonic / transonic regime is poorly controlled for the free part of their flight: their bearing surfaces and flight logic are not provided for the aerodynamic effects that occur at these speeds.

    - The smooth bombs can be pulled without much difficulty, provided that the ejectors have fishing. Multiple mounts per pylon, however, should be avoided.

    - I did not see anything about the firing of missiles ejected from a pylon.

 

* Semi-recessed armaments:

    - Missile fire is possible, provided the ejectors correctly separate the missile from its carrier. The control surfaces and the steering system are capable of handling subsonic / transonic and supersonic.

 

* Armament on rail:

    - it seems that the firing of rail missiles is the most favorable case for supersonic firing.

 

* Armament in the hold:

    - the cargo hold lifts all the reports on the conditions of carriage in relation to the pylons or the rails: multiple stowage, mixing, etc. On the other hand, difficulties can occur at the time of the shooting.

    - BAe has carried out numerous design studies to minimize aeroelastic couplings in the F-35 bunkers. They carried out a multidisciplinary parametric optimization (partly with software developed from an EU research program) to prevent the ammunition from being simply torn off by the flow at the opening of the trap doors. supersonic bunker.

    - Rail shooting from the cargo hold remains the easiest to manage

    - the firing of precision ammunition with strong aerodynamic control, mounted on ejectors, continues to pose a problem.

    - The firing of precision ammunition with terminal trajectory correction, without large control surfaces, is possible in the same way as the smooth bombs. Hence the proposed use of JDAM as the main bomb on the F-35.

 

Otherwise, we must not forget that some munitions are so planned as subsonic that they do everything to stay: the AASM is thus likely to degrade its energy if it approaches too much of the transonic; it twists around its trajectory, producing a characteristic buzz, but remaining subsonic. I doubt then that a supersonic shot is favorable to him.

When to know if the supercruise was in the specifications of the Rafale or not, again, it is necessary to know what we are talking about!

 

-Flying in supersonic mode without the use of post-combustion, almost all modern and future fighter planes can do it, including the Rafale. Was it in the initial specifications or simply a positive consequence of the increase in the power of the reactors, I would rather look for a mix of both.

Flying in supersonic without a PC can have significant operational benefits, even if it depends on how fast, how long, and with what fuel consumption. But the possibility of crossing the Korean peninsula at supersonic speed to drop a pair of bombs on an airfield without anyone being able to intercept you, it has its small effect ... Still it is necessary to be able to carry bombs to this regime (this that the F-22 can do) Fly in supersonic mode without NEVER turn on the PC, that's another question. That's what the F-22 is doing very well, and that's what the Lockheed (then BAe) commercial services have been doing for years like defining the super cruiser, and thus the 5th generation of planes of fight. Convenient, it limits the definition to the only product F-22, all the rest being sh*t, the F-22 is good etc etc. So yes, the F-22 was not present at the export, but it still had to sell to Congress, so it's a marketing strategy at the base.

The proof ? Given that the F-35 craps completely to do the same thing and that it is still a 5th generation from a marketing point of view, well we have changed the definition of supercruiser.This is a specific request in the program sheet to allow the ATF to cross the Atlantic and the Pacific as quickly as possible, but also to penetrate the enemy defense and fight over the other territory with maximum survivability. to interceptors.

In the initial program sheet ATF, we do not even talk about the need to pass the wall without a PC, just the need to operate long supersonic, and therefore without a PC. The fact of crossing the wall in PG dry is a direct consequence, but at that time the idea of ​​discretion IR was secondary (the passage in supersonic is done before the arrival above the enemy territory).

 

 

So basically, everything depends on what you're talking about.

I agree that the only "real" super cruiser is the F-22 simply because it was an essential part of the specifications. For the other programs, I think especially that we had arrived at a time when the ration power / weight of the reactors and their intrinsic conception mechanically allowed all the modern devices to remain in supersonic without PC. But if they have not been optimized for that, they will not necessarily do as well as the F-22.

Anyway, the debate is quickly settled: in his generation, only the F-22 has a cargo hold allowing him to operate in supercruise with a full load of ammunition air-air or air-ground.When to be surprised that the Rafale can make super cruising without it being a request of the Air Force, it is not surprising.

ACT's program sheet (which later gave the ACX) was rather succinct, leaving Dassault plenty of leeway. The ACX / Rafale A was initially developed without State control, Dassault inquiring directly from the Air Force and the Navy, not to mention its knowledge of the export market.

Basically, the Rafale that we know has actually been derived from the ACX / Rafale A to make it stick to the specifications of the forces, but a large part of the capabilities of the aircraft and technical choices have been entirely made by Dassault teams.In the literary definition of things, we simply say that the super-cruise = Fly> Mach 1.0 without a PC. In reality, the tactical definition was given by the USAF in 1984, in the Statement of Operational Need (ATF).

In his definition of the time I noted, there is:Supersonic cruise, including:

the ability to cruise at Mach 1.4-1.5 when in hostile territory up to 300 miles in and out

the ability to accelerate from Mach 0.6 to Mach 1 in 20 seconds

the ability to accelerate from Mach 0.8 to Mach 1.8 in 50 seconds at 20-30,000 ft

Supersonic manoevure, including:

2 g turn sustained at Mach 1.5 and 50,000 ft

5 g turn at Mach 1

6 g turn at Mach 1.5 and 30,000 ft,

9 g turn at Mach 0.9 and 10,000 ft for 30 secs.

mixelflick wrote:Since I don't know the drag index of those external stores, I don't know. We also don't know under what other conditions are present, to achieve this figure. Is it in a 1, 2 or X degree dive? What altitude is it flying at? Was this a test bird, or a real, operational capability?

If that information is out there, I haven't seen it. But do I think it's impossible? No. Probable? Maybe. And I would think It would be best to hear from the pilots themselves, not just the manufacturer.

Its an official statement from Dassault for the current Rafale. From a booklet from Dassault in German.



On top right, you can read 6 micas and one 1250l EFT



At the bottom left and on top right you can read Mach 1.3 and supercruise.

Here is also the link when i posted this the first time.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&p=376482#p376482

I don't read German, is that saying at 40,000ft?

Edit, per google "Thanks to its extreme speed of climb, the Rafale can not reach a stable altitude of 40,000 feet two minutes after releasing the brakes. To speed the intruder faster, let the pilot and accelerated to supersonic. At Mach 1.3 it takes power out and then goes back to maximum power without afterburner, but remains supersonically fast. This ability is called Supercruising, which allows for the fastest possible change of position and thus offers decisive advantages in aerial combat"

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I don't read German, is that saying at 40,000ft?

Roughly translated:

"Thanks to it's extreme climbing speed the Rafale reaches withing 2 minutes after releasing it's brakes a stable flight level of 40.000ft."

botsing wrote:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I don't read German, is that saying at 40,000ft?

Roughly translated:

"Thanks to it's extreme climbing speed the Rafale reaches withing 2 minutes after releasing it's brakes a stable flight level of 40.000ft."

Yes this is correct.

@ Spurs: The rest from your google translation is also correct.