The International Rafale forum

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x9wx7p_s2-ep18-visions-du-futur-25_tech
S2 ep18 - Visions du futur (2/5)

I have to say that part of this movie made me laugh, there are so many assumtpions and innacuracies involved....

At 14.00 for example the F-22 pulls a "Cobra" in order to try to get the Rafale to overshoot, but in reality this maneuver was proven to be relatively easy to defeat with a high yo-yo.

More to it, the F-22 TVC kick in at Speeds and AoA where what is claimed as an advantage over the Rafale at the speed involved during the frontal engagement (merge) makes unlikely that the Raptor would out-turn it...

F-16 and F-15 pilots didn't find it too hard to beat the F-22 in WVR so what would a Rafale be able to do?

Another interesting point is that this video mentions the low RCS of the Rafale (reason why it allegedely survived the first BWR engagement...

Your opinion?

I think that the guys who did this movie did have some good basic informations, technical informations I mean.

The fact that the Rafale was chosen as the adversary (and not the Typhoon or the Gripen for example) and that it is claimed to have a low RCS for example show that they really want a realistic scenario for their movie.
I've been once told that the export Rafale is often considered as the most feared future adversary for the US forces*, at least for the western build aircrafts.

But on the tactical side, there is a lot of lacks in this movie. I particularly laugh when we see the Rafale and the F-22 crossing each others BEFORE starting the WWII's like dog-fight!!
It reminds me old time knights greeting each other before riding their horses and starting the fight!

Did the directors of this movie forget all-aspect missiles abilities? It's been decades since we don't have to wait to be in the enemy's six before shooting it!

In the same dogfight, it's incredible to see how lucky the F-22 are!! Every flare and chaff they launch always defeat the Russian (!!??) missiles launched by the Rafale! But every time a Sidewinder is after a Rafale, the Rafale's pilots simply "forgot" to launch their chaff/flares... That's very sad!!


But well, the what-if fan in me just LOVE this video!! Heavy fighter B-1R !!! F-22 with dual AIM-9X launchers!! Rafale with R-77 and R-73 missiles, including under the air-intakes!!
Very funny!!



*Not necessarily because it's better than anything else, but mainly because its low RCS and its weapon system are quite unknown by the US forces (while the Typhoon and Gripen for example use the same AMRAAM as the US aircrafts as its main weapon system)

Well at least he got the bit on survivability right...



That explains a LOT...



I didn't strike me as being unusual appart for the fact that i know it is often done during the merge during mock-up combats, i don't know in real life with all-aspects IR AAMs.

What stroke me is the assumption that the French would apply the known Typhoon RAF tactic going into the merge at M 1.6 or so, this is not the best turning speed of the Rafale, it would beat both F-22 or typhoon a lower Mach.

But even before this point, the F-22 would have been detected and IDed as hostiles passively, which would have allowed the Rafale pilots to maneuver accordingly, in the vid, they seem unaware until they acquier them in visual.



It's a also a used tactic, forcing the adversary to face you make sure you are not at desadvantage when you start turning.



They are still convinced MICA is a really inferior AAM in performances...



Agreed.




~Yes hilarious...




To tell you the truth, Rafale overall performances seems to have been well under-rated up to now, the more it goes, the more we learn about it.

For example its turn rates, i can remember some topics in other forums where claiming a 11.0 g pick for a sustained 400 kt+ 9.0 g turn would have resulted in a flame war with support from the modos and due eviction for inapropriate behavior.

This is well above the maximum turn rate of the Raptor both instantaneous and sustained.

I know it was in a light/airshow configuration (So are the figure given for the Raptor), but what we have seen recently proves one thing, there is probably more into the aircraft than we thaught and so the Anglo-american are bluffed which is a good thing after all.

I agree, theorically.

But in this particular movie, it just sound wrong: both aircrafts were allowed that the guy out there is here to KILL me! Why just even START a dog fight when modern IIR missiles like MICA and AIM-9X (and, I'm sure, futuristic R-73 too) are able to be shot in face to face confrontations?

I am always surprise to see that most of well informed people missed one of the revolution in air battle made by the all aspect trust vectoring IIR missiles.
We often read that "dog-fight are old history" etc (We all know it's not true, just an exaggeration of a real phenomenon). But that's not simply because of the BVR abilities of the new combat systems.
That's also because modern IIR missiles are able to be fired against a frontal approaching enemy. Of course, its easier to avoid a missile in those conditions than when it's fired directly in your 6 at close range, but still...

Moreover, the first to shoot in face to face (i.e. the one with the longer ranged missile) is almost certain to win the dog-fight if the enemy avoid the first missile, because avoiding the first missile means you made evasion figures and lose most of your energy, making the kill easier for the second incoming missile!


I'm quite SURE you'll love that idea Wingman, particularly if we remember the compared range of a MICA-IR against a AIM-9X



But wait, I'm not telling that the Rafale is ALWAYS a Raptor killer! I'm just talking about the particular dog-fight seen it that TV-show, with both the Rafale and the F-22 fighting with short range missiles only!!
If we're not in a 1vs1 scenario, we have to take into consideration the position of the wingmen and the use of datalinks (as the Rafale show while firing a MICA over the shoulder on a target designed by the wingman during a test).
And we don't have to forget that if the F-22 still have an AMRAAM in their weapon bay, they could be able to shoot first (the AMRAAM is claimed to have reasonably good abilities in "long range BVR", that's why the F-35 carry it for self defense).

At 30 km it's at the limit between BVR and WVR, nothing like the MICA, what this stament generally means it that this generation of seekers are truely BVR capable, but not necessarly the whole AAM due to the range of its motor.

Don't forget that this is very much a US made video to demonstrate the supposed superiority of their fighters.

How can ANYONE forget this?

Disclosed datas and demonstrated performances shows only one thing; when it comes to maneuvrability, the European fighters are well under-rated, in particular the Rafale, the fans make a lot more "noises" than Dassault-Aviation so it seems that the infos on its real performances are only beggining to get to the public now.

As i was stating, claiming "11.0g possible" some time ago, would have started a flame war in a few forum (and still does today, ask Bluewing) and get every US fanboys jumping up and down screaming "trolls".

Le'ts NOT forget a few things:

TVC doesn't make F-22 "more meneuvrable", it makes it less prone to control effisciency losses at high AoA and/or in rarefied air at high altitude.

Without it, its Max AoA is about equivalent to that of a F-16 and turn rates (in particular instantaneous) would be average, with TVC its useful Max AoA is still only 70*.

Its aerodynamic arrangement doesn't land itself for the lowest trim drag ratio either, the elevators are only lifting surfaces at 1 g, passed this they always are used whatever speed, AoA or altitude.

Static instability isn't aerodynamicaly viable in supersonic, while with a close coupled canard it is compensated for by DYNAMIC instability, thus the need for TVC to reduce trim drag is way higher.

The Cobra maneuver was judged (and later proven in mock-up combat vs USN F/A-18 and the Raptor) to be more than a "double edged blade"; i.e. it looses you most of your energy and F-15/16 pilots (as well as MN Rafale Ms pilots) DID find a way around it by using high Yo-yos.

Funnyly enough, i can remember a US fighter (F-16) pilot saying this very same thing when the Sus first passed their Cobras at the Paris Airshow.

If according to this video, the Rafale can escape the BVW engagement, it have every chance against the Raptor in WVR and would most probably be able to beat it in a gun-only fight, note that its implies a combat speed of no more than 250 kt at which the Raptor can pull a "Cobra"...

According to Aviation week (Jan 8 2007), the F-22 pilots discovered the virtues of post-stall maneuvers in WVR pitted vs F-15 and F-16...

What everyone tends to forget is that these maneuvers had long been tested by IPNER pilots with the Rafales, including "Herbst Turn" and "Cobra" with a difference.

Passed 100* AoA vs 70* AoA and 40 kt negative speed vs 0 kt...

NO TVC and a resulting AoA and minimum speed WAY better on aerodynamic only:

Considering the differences in demonstrated minimum turn radius where a Rafale wins by 3 sec, and the 2g difference in Maximum possible g load it become obvious that Rafale have very chances to out-turn and out-fight a F-22 in close combat.


Remember:

Minimum turn radius and best turn rates are computed with the BEST possible wingloading and air density, meaning in very similar conditions of altitude and playloads.

This implies in reality that WE DON'T KNOW Rafale's maximum turn rates other than that seen during Airshows (Max Structural Loaing os 11.0g vs 9.0g), if it is not too plausible that it could sustain 11.0g a 10.g sustained is still possible, we just are missing fundamental datas for validating this.

These are; Maximum Lift Coeficient and Drag Coeficient.

As for what TVC does for you, for this class of aircraft, it only can minimise the desadventages of size, weight and inertia, aerodynamics still rules the rules.

Now i start to understand why Dassault never seriously considered using it on Rafale.

For the 11g, I don't thing we'll ever saw such a capablity on operational aircrafts, not with the nowaday anti-g suits Rafale's pilots are flying with.

What is done on a test bed doesn't mean all the operational aircrafts can do the same.
But I figure that in war time, the computer G-lock will be disengage or modified to allow superior G-loads, right?

Oh yes, I forgot! We don't have to forgot that in WVR, actual Raptor have no AIM-9X, only old-gen Sidewinder, and no Helmet Mounted Display. Actually, it seams the video didn't put any HMD on any aircrafts, but I'm quite sure the Rafale (at least, maybe the F-22 too) will have it quite soon if we don't screw up the export markets.

Well that's clearly not the opinion of Cedric Ruet who when asked what was his g load during the demo at the Paris Airshow replied: "Maximum ca peut aller jusqu'a 10.0, 10.5, voir 11.0g", i don't think he was braging.

Where he was mentioning instantaneous and sustained is still not known though...



The Rafale in question was not a testbed but an AdA two-seater and i think we are far from having seen the best of it.

All Rafale are 11.0g capable, it is sustained turn rate which interesses me in this "comparative" as i heared an USAF Colonel giving the value for the Raptor in a Red Flag video...

Cornering speed for example at 360 kt, computed over 9.0g is <> = 32.06*/sec, that's 4.06*/sec above the Raptor alleged Maximum, before making a certainty of it i will still try to find more sources but looking at the aircrafts it won't surprise me...

At 400 mph = 28.3*/sec; we have HUD shots of 10g above 400kt with the visual "Release Stick" warning, but we DON'T know if it is sustainable or was just ONLY a pick value...

At 500 mph = 22.6*/sec, this is at 10.000 ft and it still accelerate, we DON'T Know its maximum turn rate at this altitude and speed either.

As i said until we know its Maximum Lift Coeficient and Drag Coeficient (as to say never) we can't tell it is not a 10.0 g aircraft in the true sens of the term with the actual engines(sustained turn performances), structuraly IT IS...

With 2 X 90 Kn, I know some "Hypermaneuvrable" aircraft which are going to be left for dust from 0 kt to M 1.8.

See video: Préparation du pilote pour la démo Rafale -

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/services/fr/menu-newsletterphotovideo/webtv.html

Ask him.



I dont see this happening, there is no need for it.

The "Hard" limit is 11.0g and its maximum structural load factor 2.5 g above the international standard for all Rafales, perhaps even a little higher in the case of the Rafale Ms (This of course is only an assumption based on the structural strengthening necessary for its navalisation).

So applying the SAME standard to all aircrafts, to compute properly its maximum turn rate, the 11.0 g Maximum structural imposed by the FCS limiter should be taken into account because if it is regarded as "In case of emergency" it is still totaly within the International standard when other aircrafts are de-facto limited to 9.0g.

The "In case of emergency" limit is not structural but human, it is no tasken into account for computing maximum turn rates.

According to Capitaine Ruet, the anti-g suits takes 2/3 g out of the g-load.



I havent heared of an Helmet Mounted Dysplay suitable for the AdA/MN needs to date, have you?

Something else; we know more or less about the g limiter, what about the AoA limiter?

rafale A was able to pull 24 degres per second sustain turn rate . rafale C,B,M are more powerfull than the A and have much better aerodynamic , so their sustain turn rate will be probably much better .