Page 186 of 197

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 22:29
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I'm skeptical of that image. I see no pictures of Rafale flying with anything other than LGBs, EFTs, or Recce Pods on the centerline.

EDIT* I suppose I need to saw Production Rafale. I was able to find a picture of the white demonstrator with the 6 flush/wingtip AAM load.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 22:37
by optimist
operaaperta wrote:
herciv wrote:http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/files/fiche-rafale-le-bourget-2011.jpg
This document is made by Dassault to be used by the official airshow speaker at le bourget. It is written :
"The snecma m-88 engine in the rafale develops 11 250 lb of dry thurst and 16 900 with afterburner.
They allow it to supercruise at mach 1.4 with four missiles and a 1 250 litters belly drop tank.
The naval version can supercruise up to mach 1.4 while carrying six air-to-air missiles (MBDA MICA).
"


The actual document doesn’t mention Mach 1.4 in the first statement, only supercruise with AAMs and centreline tank. Mach 1.4 is only mentioned in second statement, but here droptank reference is removed.

My interpretation is that it can supercruise (C model, no mention of Mach number) with AAMs and drop tank, and supercruise at Mach 1.4 with AAMs but no droptank (Naval version)

Some aircraft can do M1 in dry, an EU definition of supercruise. All would be in a clean configuration, I would think and haven't seen otherwise. There was a lot of talk/threads at the time, when the f-22 was given the supercruise spec.

M1.4 is something else and is getting close to the US definition of 1.5. I think there would be a lot more official statements if it really was 1.4. There are enough users, competitions and evaluations. There seems to be only crickets chirping there. It really does sound like active cancellation myth and we know the eruption at the time. It is putting this 1.4 a long way behind.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 22:45
by ricnunes
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I'm skeptical of that image. I see no pictures of Rafale flying with anything other than LGBs, EFTs, or Recce Pods on the centerline.

EDIT* I suppose I need to saw Production Rafale. I was able to find a picture of the white demonstrator with the 6 flush/wingtip AAM load.


Yes, I would say that I trend to concur with your skepticism as well. I also wasn't able to find a real photo of the Rafale with 4 under-fuselage missiles/MICAs (and believe me, I tried quite hard) so it's quite possible that the image that I posted doesn't reflect a real capability of the Rafale (i.e. can be "fake").

To be honest, I'm also quite skeptical about that a Mach 1.4 Supercruise capability for the Rafale and I here trend to agree with optimist (I wouldn't be surprised if it did look like that active cancellation/active stealth BullSh*t).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 22:52
by optimist
It also needs to be in level flight. Going from 50k to 35k while the frame is unloadsed, supersonic and in dry, shouldn't count.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 22:53
by f-16adf
The document only says the M1.4 figure is for Rafale M version. The prior sentence (about 4 aams +CL tank) ends with a period and does not link to the next sentence; or to the said figure for the Marine version of 1.4M SC (as the above poster said). The Mach 1.4 figure is also attested by Lt. Pierre “Até” Chuet (pilot of naval Rafale M) on Jello's FPP. He did not state an exact load-out/condition, but he is a Rafale pilot; I am not, nor are any of us, so I believe him-

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:02
by optimist
f-16adf wrote:The document only says the M1.4 figure is for Rafale M version. The prior sentence (about 4 aams +CL tank) ends with a period and does not link to the said figure for the Marine version of 1.4M SC (as the above poster said). The Mach 1.4 figure is also attested by Lt. Pierre “Até” Chuet on Jello's FPP. He did not state an exact load-out/condition, but he is a Rafale pilot; I am not, nor are any of us, so I believe him-

I found on page 9, fox 3 from 2007, where I think is where it started.
https://web.archive.org/web/20071122095 ... e_nr_8.pdf
«The Rafale is ideal for the job, stresses one of the two duty pilots.
It can climb to 40,000 feet in under two minutes and accelerate very rapidly to supersonic speed. More significantly, it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly drop tank. Endurance is excellent too, and we can stay airborne up to two hours with one tank.» The pilots also praise the Rafale’s advanced man-machine interface which considerably reduces their workload.

I would think that it is significant, to sustain supersonic/EU supercruise in that drag configuration. The eurofighter I think has an official EU supercruise spec.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:10
by f-16adf
Yes, I read that too. However, no figure is given. That load-out, like in the posted doc (I believe) pertains to Rafale C. The 1.4M figure in the doc is explicit for the Rafale M- as with agreement of Lt. Chuet's statement (1.4M) on the podcast.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:27
by f4u7_corsair
There are several docs and several pilots (including Até who is not serving anymore) accrediting this M1.4 SC capability. I know that there is a certain primary skepticism about anything non-LM here, but come on.

WRT centerline MICA: it's not an operational loadout and AFAIK it hasn't even been tested on prototypes (Rafale A was a demonstrator).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:35
by sprstdlyscottsmn
f4u7_corsair wrote:There are several docs and several pilots (including Até who is not serving anymore) accrediting this M1.4 SC capability. I know that there is a certain primary skepticism about anything non-LM here, but come on.

I don't doubt 1.4M SC. I doubt some of the loudouts stated to be used in said SC. Four MICA? Sure. Four MICA and a CL tank, ehhh... Six MICA? ehhhh... 1.3M with six MICA and a CL tank? That is sounding like too much.

And for the record I get on people who inflate LM planes too. When a poster says the F-35C hit 1.2+M with the six GBU-31s, I corrected them that it was only credited with "supersonic", 1.0+M.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:45
by f-16adf
I for one have always said Rafale is a great jet, no arguments here-

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:54
by Corsair1963
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
f4u7_corsair wrote:There are several docs and several pilots (including Até who is not serving anymore) accrediting this M1.4 SC capability. I know that there is a certain primary skepticism about anything non-LM here, but come on.

I don't doubt 1.4M SC. I doubt some of the loudouts stated to be used in said SC. Four MICA? Sure. Four MICA and a CL tank, ehhh... Six MICA? ehhhh... 1.3M with six MICA and a CL tank? That is sounding like too much.

And for the record I get on people who inflate LM planes too. When a poster says the F-35C hit 1.2+M with the six GBU-31s, I corrected them that it was only credited with "supersonic", 1.0+M.



It is said the drag and weight of an External Fuel Tank. Is so high that it consumes half of the fuel in said tank. (just to overcome it) In addition Jon Beesley said that even Amraams have a big impact on performance. I honestly doubt the MICA are any better....


Which, is why I to think the claim is "suspect"..... :|

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Mar 2019, 23:59
by f4u7_corsair
No. What you mention is probably accurate for your average fuel tank, i.e. on Rafale the non-supersonic RPL 701 (530 US. gal.). The supersonic RPL 711 (330 US. gal.) drags quite less for obvious reasons (they reach M1.7 in AB w/ three of those). MICA is also quite smaller than the Slammer.

You have all the rights to be skeptic, but it's better to be so based on factual informations, and not suppositions based on apple-to-orange comparisons.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 00:07
by fbw
I’m not so sure what is “suspect” about the Rafale’s Supercruise claim. It is stated in Fox 3, Dassault’s trade magazine. The specific quote from above refers to two aircraft from flottille 12f. These were Rafale-M. Does not state supercruise speed with 4 AAM and a centerline. The Mach 1.4 figure is stated for the Rafale-C.

You have several pilots stating the said Mach 1.4 supercruise capability (including the pilot on fighter pilot’s podcast). I see people quote pilot statements as fact here constantly, why discount the statements of a French Rafale pilot?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 00:15
by f-16adf
All i was saying, that with similar load-outs (whatever they may be), you would think the Rafale C is a slightly better performer than Rafale M.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Mar 2019, 01:19
by Corsair1963
f4u7_corsair wrote:No. What you mention is probably accurate for your average fuel tank, i.e. on Rafale the non-supersonic RPL 701 (530 US. gal.). The supersonic RPL 711 (330 US. gal.) drags quite less for obvious reasons (they reach M1.7 in AB w/ three of those). MICA is also quite smaller than the Slammer.

You have all the rights to be skeptic, but it's better to be so based on factual informations, and not suppositions based on apple-to-orange comparisons.



Three external fuel tanks and can reach Mach 1.7??? Which, would be close to the maximum speed of a clean Rafale. In short I doubt that too......... :?


Oh, and top speed is very different than "sustained speed". In theory the F-15 is capable of Mach 2.5. Yet, to do so would burn all of the fuel in a few minutes at best. Which, is "one" of the reasons the Eagle will never fly at that speed. (among others)