glitter a ecrit.
"C'est pas la première fois que je lis que le Mach 1.4 en supercruise avec 4 Mica et un réservior externe a necéssité un passage en PC.
Par contrepour le EF2000, c'est la première fois. "
D'abord Typhoon supercruise speed n'a jamais ete anoncee comme etant M 14 mais M 1.21.
Second, sa configuration pour faire ca n'a jamais ete anoncee non plus.
Troisiemement les seule source ecrivant ca sont des specialistes de la rubrique des chien ecrases genre Jack le Nigot.
Cinq, les SEM volent a M 1.3 sans pc; pretendre que le Rafale ne peut pas le faire avec un RPP bein superieur c'est se foutre de la geule des gens.
Six. Mirage III AVON volait a M 1.3 sans PC en 1963.
7 Arretez vos conneries, le M est capable de supercroiser avec un bidon de 1.250 l et 4 MICAs. Le bidon produit lui meme asses de trainee pour forcer a l'utilisation de la PC pour aller a M 1.4.
>>>>>
Ripolin a ecrit:
NB : attention je ne dis pas que la maniabilité et la vitesse d'un appareil sont inutiles, mais que ces domaines sont moins prioritaires que jadis.
>>>>>
Pas aussi simple que CA. J'ai poste ca dans un autre forum:
http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1143598344/last-1143798839/Thrust+to+Weight+ratios+and+Wing+Loading+factors+in+agility
Thunder
(Login sampaix)
France My home work...
No score for this post March 30 2006, 10:21 AM
While i can't really comment on the totality of the aircraft quoted in this article i can still bring a number of corections to it as for the Rafale, Mirage 2000, and Typhoon.
And there we got some serious differences in results:
>>>>>On ACM tactics:
Some guys are dreaming of a 2D world where the opponents will not have to manoeuver and will fire their AAMs in both BWR and WVR, flying in a straight line "shooting over their shoulder". Good luck to them.
The first Typhoon/F-15 engagement have proven one thing, it is simply unrealistic and the law of physics make it a dream, no more than this.
AAMs are like aircrafts obeys to the same laws, therefore, the most manoeuvrable and faster aircraft will always have ( and give it to its AAM) the advantage, expecially so in BVR.
Top of the list F-22 with the highest TWR, high operational ceiling and good manoeuvrability.
Bare the stealth issue, top ATF requierements were:
High cruising speed, high manoeuvrability, high operational ceiling.
ALL of which translate to an advantage in BVR.
This allows for lower vulnerability, higher discretion, higher probability of kill.
Even the last generation of AAMs have a variable volume of engagement envelop depending on launch and target parameters. This translate to:
The faster and the higher the shooter, the more energy the AAMs inheritate from. This translate to:
A longer (energy extended*) AAM range, *higher manoeuvrability and *larger the "non escape zone".
>>>>>On manoeuvrability itself.
Quote:
"If a fighter can turn faster than its opponent, it will find it easier to get into a favorable position,"
This is NOT the only advantage offered by a higher level of manoeuvrability.
A highly manoeuvrable aircraft will always loose less energy for equivalent moderate G turning manoeuvres and when loosing more it will also turn about faster.
They generally also enjoy a higher level of transcient manoeuvrability, combining turn rate, lower energy loss, higher acceleration, higher climb rate.
This not only allows for a faster/better positioning over an opponent, it also allows for the opposite/reverse, i.e. the possibility to get out of its weapon engagement envelop.
No so many realise that in real life, the actual "real" engagement envelop of AAMs like AIM-102/MICAs is closer to 50 km than 80/120.
Also saying that out-runing a Mach 4 AAM is impossible is false; AIM 120 have been out-ran in many occasions during the Gulf War.
If the AAM is fired from the target rear sector it have to make up for the distance between the shooter and the target before coming anywhere close to it.
During that time the target can simply accelerate and climb to get out of the AAM engagement envelop.
If it was in it at the time of firing, it doesn't mean it doesn't have time to get out of it and fighter pilots tactics are making sure they don't offer steady easy targets to an eventual opponent.
So the higher the aircraft level of transcient and overal performances, the less vulnerable it is in BVR engagements.
Quote:
"Engine power also confers advantages in air combat. Most simply, high overall speed can allow a pilot to choose to disengage an opponent by simply outrunning it. This ability to disengage may also apply to incoming missiles, allowing escape from what would be a fatal shot to a slower airplane."
>>>>>About thrust-to-weight ratio:
The table of thrust-to-weight ratio and wing loading
shown is not accurate.
We are still strugling to figure the EXACT empty weight of Rafale, there are many discrepencies on the official figures and it could easly be as much as 10%
lower.
This would explain some exceedingly high climb rate performances with tanks and AAMs as well as supercruise capabilities in the same configuration...
Taking the "acceptable" maximum of 10 tons for the heaviest version (M), with 15 kN of thrust the TWR is 1.5 which would translate to 1.020 with 4.700 kg of fuel.
The estimated possible empty weight can go as low as 9.150 kg for the C version, this would give 1.083 with 4.700 kg of fuel.
This is with the full internal fuel, and a clean aircraft; (no weapons and no external tanks).
In real life, Rafale would carry one to three tanks and two to eight AAMs.
So all in all the given figures doesn't add-up and without even having to check i'm sure it's the same for most other aircrafts listed.
As a thumb rule: TWR allow for a more easly sustained turn rate resulting from a lift/weight ratio, not necessarly the optimum wing load.
Rafale close coupled canard provides it with more lift than Tyhpoon with a slightly higher or equivalent wing load.
This allows for a greater choice between drag reduction or lift, thus better transcient performances.
>>>>>On Supercruise
quoting:
"Supercruise
The Typhoon, the Rafale, and particularly the F-22 have a considerable performance advantage over the other craft in the list in that they have the ability to travel at supersonic speeds without the use of afterburners, an ability known as supercruise."
In the case of Rafale, we had operational squadron reports (12F Rafale Ms) that the aircraft can do that with a central 1.250 l tank and 4 MICAs.
There was never any clear indication of the configuration in wehich Typhoon achieved the given the time to altitude nor M 1.21 crusing speed.
The Wilki document doesn't make any mention either of M-88-3/4 and ECO with increased thrust up to 7/10 kN (dry/AB) possible already runing in their test benches.
>>>>>On Stealth.
This is an obvious subject of desagreement between the US readers and the Europeans, mainly us the French.
For example: NEURON is (DGA) regarded as mainly A2G duty bound. The A2A role will be filled by Rafale and there are several good reasons for this.
Stealth is not a US only known technology.
If it have been developed operationally further by the US it never meant the EU or France were not into it, quiet the opposite, the US tried their outmost best to slow Stealth researches in the EUs.
What it really meant is that only the US had the financial capabilities to develop several generations of aircrafts down to production and operational service.
Europe (among others) have developed technologies which have effectively defeated stealth for more than a decade.
Quote:
"Ground-based, lower-frequency radars are less affected by stealth features. The Australian Jindalee over-the-horizon radar project is reported to be able to detect the wake turbulence of an aircraft regardless of its stealth capabilities [7]."
The French Nostradamus radar network does just that and could vector fighter only a few hundred meter from a B-2 or F-22.
Another aspect of European technology which is detecting stealth targets: Optronic.
While the US were focusing mainly on stealth/radar technology, the EU have been working actively on reducing IR/Near-IR and UV sensors weather dependency.
The breakthrough came at the time Germany and France were working on the Tiger Attack helicopter Trigat anti-tank weapon as well as its sensor suite.
The reason is simple: The european weather doesn't allow for the easy detection/acquisition of targets in all weather, thus the researches funded by the Tiger partners in an effort to solve this problem.
During Kosovo, the results obtained by France's AdA and MN pilots vs ground targets (fist and second highest kill ratio with PGMs ahead of the whole coalition) were largely due to the higher optical and IR qualities of the pods they were using.
Have no doubt that with an average of 20 hours of training hours/year desadvantage over the rest of NATO aircrews, the French weren't obtaining these results by pure luck even if some NATO officials qualified their performances of virtuoso display.
In a word: The US lag behind by a full generation in the Optical and IR/UV sensors and France is actively developing new generations of IR/Near-IR and UV Optical sensors to keep the gap open.
Quote:
Last 1999 report Test:
"For this particular flight we have a development OSF with the TV sensor only. Neither the SPECTRA nor the DVI will be available on this flight.".
>
Suddenly, as we exit a turn, the RBE2 acquires a contact at medium altitude, Philippe Rebourg initiate immediately an air intercept, accelerating. The target is automatically followed by the weapon system and the pilots validates the proposed option by pressing a button on the throttle. For evident reasons no radar or OSF performance will be disclosed here. We are outside MICA range and we must still close in but the OSF having locked the target at the beginning of the interception shows an image of a Transall despite a fine layer of clouds separating us from the target. The OSF TV way works in fact in the near visible infrared and her large field of view allows tracking of high boresight objectives. The pilot can choose between two firing domains : maximum range or no escape zone. Max range is materialized by a doted line and no escape by a steady line surrounding the target. In WVR combat a minimum shooting distance is materialized on the tactical display. As soon as we are in range the weapon system signals 'shoot' on the HUD, by cycling between the contacts the pilot can immediately engage the other targets, the second missile is automatically locked on the n+1 target. MICA can be fired every 2 seconds, the one from the airframe points are ejected up to 4G while wings pylons can release MICA up to 9G. The propulsed phase is very short (a few seconds) and the shooting is nearly undetectable, no smoke is produced by the rocket motor. For long range intercept, the missile follows an inertial trajectory toward coordinates continuously refreshed by the datalink then uses the seeker before hitting target. The time of flight of the missile is indicated on the HUD and the datalink duration appears as a decreasing camembert plot.
>OSF realities.
What we know:
OSF is capable of operationg the same way in intercept AND BVR passive engagement with the radar turned off.
OSF developement is started in 1991 (contract awarded) and first flew in 1996 and this performance is only that of a developement system without the IRST mounted.
While visibly and proven all weather capable, OSF mk1 only have a slighly lower level of weather dependency than the contemporary French pods, and in Assemblee Nationale LPM 2006 was described as a "clear weather" system with too high a performance/price.
This in reality means "not totaly" all weather.
French research labs have achieved another breakthrough in optronics mainly new materials allowing for a significant increase in performance since 1999.
OSF "Mk1" have been developed and tested untill the production of the 37 units been delivered to AdA.
Only 37 OSF were subsequently ordered to equip the first F-2 standards Rafales due to enter active service in Sept 2006 with EC 1/7.
Together with most of of Rafale critical systems and avionics pre- F1, it have been judged insufficient in terms of future growth potential and competition (guess which aircraft is the admited target), the "industry" then agreed to develop a new generation of OSF.
OSF NG is now developed privately and will incorporate the latest in IR/Near-IR/UV developement when it is demonstrated.
The main reason for the reconised "lack" of performances of the actual OSF is its range which is like that of RBE2 PESA, suited to that of MICA.
For the use of the futur METEOR a longer ranged OSF and RBE2 are needed.
OSF Mk 2 will be of a newer generation and more performant than anything the US will be able to oppose to it when it is released for service.
>Stealth vs performaces.
There again, there have been lines writen in this forum which were simply a revisionist version of history and reality.
All stealth aircraft have to pay a performance penalty in a way or another, F-22 included.
First of all, stealth features doesn't follow the rules of aerodynamic to the letter, this translates by a lower level of transcient and overal performances over that which would have been possible without ressorting to stealth features in the aircraft design.
In the case of F-22, aerodynamics have proven to be troublesome: Lateral instability had to be sorted by twicking the FCS and even ressorting to the use of TVC to allow for a reasonably stable aircraft.
By contrast, with Rafale it was Aerodynamics which were the main drive behind its design, accessorly the resulting low RCS was obtained by adition of features, the result of the evolution from A to C/B/N.
F-22 manoeuvrability with TVC is nothing to shout about, in fact, there are aircrafts which F-22 pilots already recon are more manoeuvrable. i.e. Typhoon, Rafale, Su-37.
Where F-22 compensate is in the use of extremly powerfull engines which gives it a higher TWR.
All in all, with the high cruising speed obtained, this makes for the best overal transcient performances.
This is not the case of the F-35 which doesn't have F-22 level of stealth, TWR or even low wing load.
So this is where stealth actually turns into a desadvantage if any opponent become capable of detecting it:
Quote:
"Loss of stealth advantages would make the F-35 particularly vulnerable."
The reasons are simple: TWR allows for freedom of engagement/disengagement and lower vulnerability, low wing load for higher manoeuvrability, resulting in an further decrease in vulnerability.
This also involves the new A2A buzword: Supercruise, there are doubts about F-35 supercruising at all...
Stealth have also a natural drawback: A permanent drag penaly due to the higher frontal surface (cross section) resulting from the addition of the internal bay.
In the case of F-35 transcient performances are barely equal to that of F-16, and it have to rely on its stealth features, newer avionics and higher level of sensor fusion to compensate.
It is said to be 4 time more effective in A2A than "legacy fighters" i.e Harrier II, F-16, F-18.
Compare with the success rate of Mirage 2000 vs these and you'll see for yourself, Mirage 2000 wins more than 90% of its engagements vs F-16.
Typhoon and Rafale posses transcient performances by the bucket, once their tanks droped they fly faster in both dry and After-burner, climb faster, turn tighter, recover their energy faster etc.
Rafale with three 2.000l is cleared to fly at F-35 Max speed of M 1.6, with M-88-3, a 1.250 l central tank and 8 MICAs it is its predicted/simulated cruising speed.
With the actual level of sensor developement, F-35 will probabilly be kept to the role it was laways designed to fill in the first place... Strike.
>SPECTRA and active cancellation.
I personally cannot comment too much on that for the simple reason that SPECTRA performances are obviously higly classified.
What we know; It have been tested at the most comprehensive NATO exercises at Cazaux test range during two successive (known) MACE-X, it is also still in developement today.
Thales is now responsible for SPECTRA but they also have a huge experience in AESA radars including three familites of GaAS in actual service, Offensive ECMs pods, Defense suites, and are now developing the first European GaN AESA with a service entry scheduled for 2010/2012.
What most doesn't know, they are also the one behind the AdA Electronic Warfare Squadron equipement used to simulate radar threats at Cazaux testing range.
The only known SPECTRA (declassified) performances are the capability to detect all known radar emission within a 360X360* "buble" at up to 200 km with a precision of less than 1*.
Considering that they master the technology in use on US radars up to the AN/APG 70 to 81 it leave for little doubt that SPECTRA is given as we write the capability to detect them the very same way.
note: SPECTRA being still developemed today, those fited to Rafale F-1 and even F2s are not the definitive version by all mean...
Active cancellation have been talked about not only for Rafale but also for its implementation on SCALP-EG/APACHES weapons.
>Avionics
It's too easy to forget that avionics can easly be upgraded. So claiming that F-22's or F-35's to be superior to that of Typhoon or Rafale might well turn to be inacurate even at pre-production stage.
If little is known about Typhoon avionic upgrades, what i managed to figure out was:
F-35 avionic developement started during the same period of time that of Mirage 2000-9.
Quoting:
"The Rafale and Eurofighter have slower main computers and internal data networks."
This is a stament resting on a total absense of informations and is more related to that of the F-1 standard:
Reasons: Rafale F-2 main computer is NEW, originally developed for the Mirage 2000-9 and further developed for Rafale F-2 post 2000.
The fact that it enters service this year doesn't mean it is less performant, it only means it is fited to an existing and tested airframe.
More ot the point it is, like the rest developed further and have been so since the release of the F-2 standard by CEV last year.
Same for the radar: F-35 AN/APG-81 is actually of a older generation of technology as that developed by Thales for Rafale next AESA, using GaAS instead of GaN which provides with about 6 time the same power output.
As an indication, Thales states that new modes will allow for early L.O (stealth targets) detection.
The rest is only about been logical.
Data fusion and more developements can make both Typhoon and Rafale not only capable of countering stealth but in the case of F-35 to outperform it by a fair margin simply because they are designed with more performances built-in.
>>>>>A BIASED vue of the world:
Quoting:
Aircraft Odds vs.
Su-35
Lockheed Martin/Boeing F-22 Raptor 10.1:1
Eurofighter Typhoon 4.5:1
Dassault Rafale C 1.0:1
Sukhoi Su-35 'Flanker' 1.0:1
McDonnell Douglas F-15C Eagle 0.8:1
Boeing F/A-18+ 0.4:1
McDonnell Douglas F/A-18C 0.3:1
General Dynamics F-16C 0.3:1
Let me spell it for you: Rafale have absolutly NO proven performance desadvantage whatsoever over Typhoon and even enjoy a 50% lower RCS. You can conclude by yourself.
>>>>>Back to the real world:
Quoting:
"During the 1999 Kosovo War, a Netherlands F-16 shot down a Yugoslavian MiG-29; USAF F-15s shot down four MiG-29s and a USAF F-16 shot down a Mig-29, the last aerial victory scored against the Mig-29.[18]"
What it doesn't SAY is; up to four AAMs were necessary to down a single Mig 29 and NATO pilots enjoyed the tactical advantage of AWACs and the absense of effective ground control in the case of the Serbian Mig 29 pilots...
Things are never as close to be nearly as simple as that and we are laughing...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Mes excuses pour l'utilisation de la lange perfide d'Albion...
