Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Why? The F414 fits in the bay.

F-16.net Sponsor

[quote="geogen"]Totally out of context.
/quote]

And how do you know? Were you there?
Besides, i'm sure the King is well informed and pretty much technically correct in what he said.

shep1978 wrote:

And how do you know? Were you there?
Besides, i'm sure the King is well informed and pretty much technically correct in what he said.

Sure a king of a country like that being well informed Laughing

Let alone that the original article stated the King agreed with the US General. How surprising that the US General lobbying for his national aerospace industry downplays the competition in order to promote his countries products as the better choice. Rolling Eyes

bjr1028 wrote:

Why? The F414 fits in the bay.

Thanks for the insightful response, as always. If that's in fact true, that was actually the answer I was seeking. It would verify a very interesting and game-changing upgrade proposal (i.e., F414 EDE), imho.

I'll take two with the next gen fluidic chevron nozzle, thanks.

I'd hardly call the F414EDE a 'game changer' ,nice to have, yes but game changer no.

And yes Scorp, I do think the King would have his people look into his countries potential military hardware buys and report back to him, that's often how it works in such places (as weird as it may be) so yes i expect him to have a good understanding of the out dated vs next gen aircraft. Have you been to Sandhurst or been schooled at Cambridge? Because the King has. He is no dunce.

geogen wrote:

bjr1028 wrote:

Why? The F414 fits in the bay.

Thanks for the insightful response, as always. If that's in fact true, that was actually the answer I was seeking. It would verify a very interesting and game-changing upgrade proposal (i.e., F414 EDE), imho.

I'll take two with the next gen fluidic chevron nozzle, thanks.

I'd probably have to strengthen the airframe for the extra thrust and you'd need redesigned air intakes and then there's the hardest part, getting the french to play ball.

@shep,
it was not even quantified in which way the Rafale is "yesterdays" technology. If we are nitpicky we can conclude that all aircraft in service are yesterdays technology, because it needs many years to develop, test and mature a system until it's fielded. By the time it's fielded technology hasadvanced and new tech being under development or in the testing time is already current technology.

And whether the king studied here or there doesn't make him an expert on everything. I can say the F-22 is yesterdays technology, as is an F/A-18E/F, a Eurofighter, a Rafale, a Su-30MKI or fill in whatever aircraft in service you want.

Thanks for reply BJR.. re: strengthening the airframe, I was actually contemplating the M variant as a starting point (as a multi-purpose, carrier capable switch hitter). But can't an aircraft simply apply a G limiter to FCS w/regard to absorbing upgraded power? Perhaps then, a hypothetical GE-SNECMA upgraded M88 engine venture would be the most prudent selection over the F414 afterall.

But if not requiring substantial inlet design work, then I'd argue it's worth the body augmentation to accommodate F414EDE - imho.

And Shep, the suggested game-change performance part of the equation, vis-a-vis F414 EDE in a Rafale, should be the high T/W (even more extreme w/ performance engine mode set); an extrapolated extreme Rate of climb; superior acceleration and super cruise advantage. Then the possibility would also exist for said next gen F414 engine incorporating fluidic chevron nozzle. Cheers-

You guys are aware that the F414 is not only ~25% heavier but also a fair bit larger than the M88?

[quote="geogen... maybe good enough for US ANG?[/quote]
The USAF is nearly broke, and having to cut costs over the next few years. There is no way they would even consider this... nevermind the political ramifications of buying a foreign jet.

geogen wrote:

... maybe good enough for US ANG?

The USAF is nearly broke, and having to cut costs over the next few years. There is no way they would even consider this... nevermind the political ramifications of buying a foreign jet.

Scorpion82 wrote:

You guys are aware that the F414 is not only ~25% heavier but also a fair bit larger than the M88?

Hi Scorp,

Apparently the prototype Rafale flew with F404, hence the discussion whether the ability to physically fit F414.

Even with 25% heavier dry weight, hypothetical twin F414 EDE would significantly boost aircraft T/W to extreme levels.

I have to be skeptical on a Rafale F414 EDE integration therefore, yet would love to see it. Therefore, I'm more realistically in the camp to support a joint-developed M88 upgrade thrust.

huggy wrote:

geogen wrote:

... maybe good enough for US ANG?

The USAF is nearly broke, and having to cut costs over the next few years. There is no way they would even consider this... nevermind the political ramifications of buying a foreign jet.

Oh, this would not be in addition to F-35A procurements if that's what you were thinking. And with all due respect, screw politics. Those days are over. Anything goes today in times of raw survival interests and massive restructuring.

geogen wrote:

Oh, this would not be in addition to F-35A procurements if that's what you were thinking. And with all due respect, screw politics. Those days are over. Anything goes today in times of raw survival interests and massive restructuring.

What makes you think that??? The US has not opeated foreign made fighters in modern times that I can think of apart from Kfir's that were leased as DACT jets. Claiming "Anything goes" is a wild and completely unfounded assertion, especially seeing as nothing has changed or will change.

geogen wrote:

Hi Scorp,

Apparently the prototype Rafale flew with F404, hence the discussion whether the ability to physically fit F414.

Even with 25% heavier dry weight, hypothetical twin F414 EDE would significantly boost aircraft T/W to extreme levels.

I have to be skeptical on a Rafale F414 EDE integration therefore, yet would love to see it. Therefore, I'm more realistically in the camp to support a joint-developed M88 upgrade thrust.

The sole F404 powered Rafale was the Rafale A, which is more some kind of technology demonstrator. The aircraft was designed around the F404 as the M88 was still in development at that time and not available. The Rafale A is not representive for todays Rafale which is smaller than the Rafale A. I'm subsequently sceptic about the F414 fitting into the Rafale without redesigning the rear fuselage and intakes.

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Another setback for the RAFALE?