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.