The Rafale on the Fighter Pilot podcast

Dassault Rafale on FPP:
Le Magnifique!!
Le Magnifique!!
Military Aviation Forum
https://www.c-130.net/forum/
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?
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.
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.
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".
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.Cant wait for your performance model about the Rafale. Sadly my understanding of aerodynamic is very low.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
(starting from page 6-18)3.0 CASE STUDY - CRUISE FLIGHT PERFORMANCE OF 1/6 SCALED RAMJET OR ROCKET PROPELLED X-15 CONFIGURATION
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I don't read German, is that saying at 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."
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:And this is given as a time stamped series of events? At 6:33 they take off with 6 MICA and a fuel tank, at 6:35 they are level at 40,000ft at which point they accelerate to 1.3M and then pull back to Mil power?
gc wrote:Seven Rafale M fighters divert to Aceh, Indonesia due to weather
https://alert5.com/2019/05/19/seven-raf ... o-weather/
Does this incident mean that the CDG air wing is not blue water certified? AFAIK, you do not see deployed USN CVWs divert to land bases as they are all blue water certified, which means they do not need to operate with any land base divert options available, and therefore will have ways to recover their aircraft or hold them up with tankers in the event of bad weather regardless the circumstances.