Dassault Rafale Full Module

[Thinder]

Yeah, no bias at all... :megalol:

 

You're more than welcome to demonstrate where the BIAS is, all that is written here is well documented...

 

Just for fun, compare their respective max roll rates and g limits.

[Svsmokey]

Bias ? From a Brit whose country pushed the Eurofighter ?

I choose not to participate in most polls , but would love to see a Rafale . Prolly the best multirole aircraft in existence .

Not gonna happen in my lifetime though .

[Thinder]

Bias ? From a Brit whose country pushed the Eurofighter ?

I choose not to participate in most polls , but would love to see a Rafale . Prolly the best multirole aircraft in existence .

Not gonna happen in my lifetime though .

 

Well, actually the Brits got hard done in this deal, the BAE design was turned down in favor of Herbst's TFK-90 which was a generation behind in terms of canard-delta aerodynamics and never conceived to fly without TVC, and it's not the prototype EAP I'm talking about, but their original proposed concept previous to it.

 

TVC was tested but never adopted, the aircraft is far from being what it could have been if BAe close-coupled canard concept had been adopted.

 

It's not even a question of nations; if Britain had kept their edge in terms of front line fighter design after the war, I'm sure Dassault would have been more than happy to work with them simply because they would have had more weight and expertise in front of MBB.

 

Unfortunately, Britain didn't design any M 2.0 front line fighter since the Lightning and the cancelation of the TRS2 was also a political disaster, in collaborative ventures, portfolios are as important as politics, and in the case of Britain, the politician did their worst for their aerospace industry.

 

As for France, the need to produce a carrier-base aircraft explains why they chose to leave the programme, I guess it was the right choice.

[Northstar98]

Eh, even with the Typhoon being developed I'm still kinda against Gen IV+ aircraft in DCS - literally no other asset is of the same era apart from BLUFOR. I mean I thought even the F-16C Block 50 and F/A-18C Lot 20 (both mid-2000s) were pushing it...

 

I mean, it's not just the aircraft here... Think about everything else around it.

 

We have nothing even approaching parity when it comes to REDFOR aircraft, (excluding the JF-17, which is only really REDFOR in what-if? scenarios).

 

If we're talking high-fidelity, we only get as far as 1972 (and 80s-ish with the RAZBAM MiG-23MLA).

 

But it's not like with low fidelity is much better, the Su-27 we have is the very first production aircraft and the Su-33 which apart from having 2 more hardpoints, has identical capability. Our MiG-29s are also first generation -29s, with the first production version, and it's first major upgrade. Again, both Soviet era (early-to-mid 80s, though the MiG-29S "Fulcrum C" has access to a 2002 missile, but apart from that, near enough identical capability to the "Fulcrum A"). Not saying they'll be immediately non-competitive, but they're already pretty eclipsed in near enough everything as it is, adding more modern stuff only worsens the problem, especially when peer Russian aircraft are a no-no.

 

But it doesn't stop there either... What about ground units? Our most capable REDFOR SAMs are again, early-to-mid 80s and like with the aircraft are either the 1st or 2nd iteration of a particular system... And they're already matched, if not eclipsed by current BLUFOR...

 

So we have modern aircraft, fighting 80s aircraft and 80s air defences... And the MiG-29 and Su-27s we have are already effectively countered and basically eclipsed in all but 1 aspect by the F-14B (and even that's only really down to the R-73) and in every aspect (by a pretty long way too in some cases), by the current F-16 and F/A-18. Adding modern Gen IV+ aircraft only exacerbates the problem, and to a further degree. DCS is already a pick 'n' mix when it comes to a consistent era, and apart from WWII, the only matches we really have is the F-86F and MiG-15Bis (next to no ground vehicles, and no period air defences) and the F-5E and MiG-21Bis (again, basically no ground vehicles, but at least 1 air defence system per side (better). plenty of more contemporary assets.

 

Much of our air defences are 80s, and the only aircraft that kinda matches that is the F-14B (though, that's early 90s) but at least the F-14B has the MiG-29/Su-27/Su-33 as contemporaries with plenty of other assets, apart from maybe ships. The rest of BLUFOR is mid-2000s with basically no other asset (except for the Arleigh Burke Flt. IIA and arguably the Nimitz, Roosevelt subvariant aircraft carriers, which is again, BLUFOR) occupying the same era. REDFOR at best gets stuff 2 decades out of date. And if you want some context for 2 decades out of date, well the WWII, propeller driven Hawker Tempest was 2 decades out of date when the F-4C Phantom II came around; the M4 Sherman was roughly 2 decades out of date when the M60A1 came around; the S-75/SA-2 was 2 decades out of date when the S-300/SA-10 came around... Now these are probably some more extreme examples sure, but the list goes on and it just goes to show how things can change.

 

I mean, will we see the S-300PMU-2 or even better the S-400? What about the S-300VM? Buk-M2E? Tor-M2E? 2K22M1 Tunguska (let alone Pantsir-S1)? So far we're getting the S-200, a system from the early 70s... Which matches the F-5E-3 and MiG-21 quite well, the planned F-4E quite well as well as a whole host of potential modules (F-111E/F). It doesn't really match 2000s+ BLUFOR (though still something to be reckoned with) and it doesn't suit Gen IV+ aircraft like the Rafale at all...

 

I hope we can see the problem, DCS is already pretty one-sided in favour of BLUFOR (probably putting it lightly). Adding peer REDFOR aircraft is a no-go (at least by ED), which means that the better option is to instead develop aircraft from the mid-to-late 60s to the early-to-mid 80s. Because then, all the other assets get to keep their relevancy, rather than the current mix-up of assets, with nothing really comprehensive/consistent across BLUFOR and REDFOR, which is again, a problem only exacerbated by even more modern BLUFOR.

 

Then there's other issues, like developing PESA/AESA RADARs (especially if we're going to do real beam stuff - no other module has a phased array RADAR with electronic beam steering - not even the Eurofighter in development has one).

 

Sorry, but if it wasn't for these aspects, I definitely wouldn't have said no. They just seem pretty far out of the current scope with no complimentary assets or peer REDFOR aircraft.

 

Again, personally, I think the best bet is Cold War stuff; preferably say from the 60s to mid-to-late 80s/early 90s, with only a select few exceptions. It just seems like a more workable option, and better fits the current asset pool and scope.

 

Not only that, but sourcing documentation and licensing should be easier to obtain with older, mostly retired aircraft. Apart from maybe a couple of things (like RADAR modelling - the greater fidelity RADAR simulation we see from Heatblur modules - something which is basically a requirement for aircraft with RADARs that display a raw RADAR image), should at least in theory be easier and take less time to develop.

 

These IMO would be much better fits.

 

• Lockheed F-104G Starfighter
  
• General Dynamics F-111F Aardvark
  
• SEPECAT Jaguar GR.1A/GR.3/GR.3A
  
• Panavia Tornado IDS
  
• McDonnell Douglas F-4S / K / J / E / M Phantom II
  
• Grumman A-6E TRAM/SWIP Intruder
  
• Fiat G.91R/3 / R/4
  
• Dassault Mirage F1CT / CT-200
  
• McDonell Douglas F-15A
  
• General Dynamics F-16C Block 40
  
• Dassault Mirage 50 (w. RADAR)
  

Edited July 3, 2020 by Northstar98

[HILOK]

i think FC3 / MAC could build a bridge for these kinds of projects, as long as too many things are classified. at a later point these modules could be moved to hi-fidelity...

 

personally i dont see that balance would ever be an issue. this is a matter of mission design. besides, there's already a eurofighter project ongoing.

[Top Jockey]

You're more than welcome to demonstrate where the BIAS is, all that is written here is well documented...

 

Just for fun, compare their respective max roll rates and g limits.

 

Hello,

 

Sure you are biased.

Anyone who reads your post #49 can see it: after all you write only faults about the Typhoon and not 1 fault on the Rafale...

 

The info throughout the web seems to vary a lot regarding the 2 of them, and sometimes even contradictory.

Although many places consider aspects like for instance, their Turn Rates (both instantaneous and sustained) roughly similar.

 

Regarding close coupled canards vs nose mounted canards, again the info varies.

Some say close coupled favors pitch rate, and nose mounted favors high alpha / nose pointing authority, at slower speeds.

 

Personally I have no way of telling which site / forum is the most trustworthy.

 

From the back of my head I can recall one disadvantage of the Rafale: its lower top speed, and less powerful engines... that was what the Saudis reported to France when they first evaluated the Rafale, and asked if more powerful engines could be installed.

(Read this a few years ago, so I don't know how it is today.)

 

Even still just for the record, I voted YES for the Rafale.

(As I really find it a very impressive machine, in several aspects.)

[TAW_Blaze]

Eh, even with the Typhoon being developed I'm still kinda against Gen IV+ aircraft in DCS - literally no other asset is of the same era apart from BLUFOR. I mean I thought even the F-16C Block 50 and F/A-18C Lot 20 (both mid-2000s) were pushing it...

 

I mean, it's not just the aircraft here... Think about everything else around it.

 

We have nothing even approaching parity when it comes to REDFOR aircraft, (excluding the JF-17, which is only really REDFOR in a what-if? scenarios).

 

If we're talking high-fidelity, we only get as far as 1972 (and 80s-ish with the RAZBAM MiG-23MLA).

 

But it's not like with low fidelity is much better, the Su-27 we have is the very first production aircraft and the Su-33 which apart the addition of 2 more hardpoints has identical capability. Our MiG-29s are also first generation -29s, with the first production version, and it's first major upgrade. Again, both Soviet era (early-to-mid 80s, though the MiG-29S "Fulcrum C" has access to a 2002 missile, but apart from that, near enough identical capability to the "Fulcrum A"). Not saying they'll be immediately non-competitive, but they're already pretty eclipsed in near enough everything as it is, adding more modern stuff only worsens the problem, especially when peer Russian aircraft are a no-no.

 

But it doesn't stop there either... What about ground units? Our most capable REDFOR SAMs are again, early-to-mid 80s and like with the aircraft are either the 1st or 2nd iteration... And they're already basically matched by current BLUFOR...

 

So we have modern aircraft, fighting 80s aircraft and 80s air defences... And the MiG-29 and Su-27s we have are already effectively countered and basically eclipsed in all but 1 aspect by the F-14B (and even that's only really down to the R-73) and in every aspect (by a pretty long way too in some cases), by the current F-16 and F/A-18. Adding modern Gen IV+ aircraft only exacerbates the problem, and to a further degree.

 

The only other modern stuff again, is BLUFOR stuff (such as the Arleigh Burke Flt. IIA 5"/62).

 

I mean, will we see the S-300PMU-2 or even better the S-400? What about the S-300VM The 9K332 Tor-M2E? 2K22M1 Tunguska (let alone Pantsir-S1)?

 

I hope we can see the problem, DCS is already pretty one-sided in favour of BLUFOR (probably putting it lightly). Adding peer REDFOR aircraft is a no-go (at least by ED), which means that the better option is to instead develop aircraft from the mid-to-late 60s to the early-to-mid 80s. Because then, all the other assets get to keep their relevancy, rather than the current mix-up of assets, with nothing really comprehensive/consistent across BLUFOR and REDFOR, which is again, a problem only exacerbated by even more modern BLUFOR.

 

Then there's other issues, like developing PESA/AESA RADARs (espeically if we're going to do real beam stuff - no other module has a phased array RADAR with electronic beam steering - not even the Eurofighter in development has one).

 

Sorry, but if it wasn't for these aspects, I definitely wouldn't have said no. They just seem pretty far out of the current scope with no complimentary assets or peer REDFOR aircraft.

 

Again, personally, I think the best bet is Cold War stuff; preferably say from the 60s to early-to-mid 80s, with only a select few exceptions. It just seems like a more workable option, and better fits the current asset pool and scope.

 

Not only that, but sourcing documentation and licensing should be easier to obtain with older, mostly retired aircraft. Apart from maybe a couple of things (like RADAR modelling - the greater fidelity RADAR simulation we see from Heatblur modules - something which is basically a requirement for aircraft with RADARs that display a raw RADAR image), should at least in theory be easier and take less time to develop.

 

These IMO would be much better fits.

 

• Lockheed F-104G Starfighter
  
• General Dynamics F-111F Aardvark
  
• SEPECAT Jaguar GR.1A/GR.3/GR.3A
  
• Panavia Tornado IDS
  
• McDonnell Douglas F-4S / K / J / E / M Phantom II
  
• Grumman A-6E TRAM/SWIP Intruder
  
• Fiat G.91R/3 / R/4
  
• Dassault Mirage F1CT / CT-200
  
• McDonell Douglas F-15A
  
• General Dynamics F-16C Block 40
  
• Dassault Mirage 50 (w. RADAR)
  

 

I agree completely. However sadly we are getting completely incoherent module development with no connection to each other. Now we have 2 late 2000s NATO fighters in an environment with a long retired F-14 variant, against some other random timeframe modules and mainly frankenstein low fidelity redfor aircraft. It seems nobody at ED cares at all about this, even though this would be one of the very foundations of having a successful environment.

 

I equivalently don't comprehend why they are sinking loads of resources into trying to hopelessly compete with another WW2 simulator that is a thousandfold better in every aspect except FMs. Imagine if all those resources were focused on core development of modern DCS..

[Baco]

I would love a Rafale, no Doubt at all! And a Clemenceau TOO!

 

But I wonder who is going to bribe the Defense Minister of France and who is going to pay Dassaults fees jajajaja

[iborg]

I would love a Rafale module but it would be a tall order. ED would have to program a PESA/AESA radar, not a small task in itself. And good luck accurately modeling SPECTRA and its advances capabilities. It's a galaxy away from DCS' current, archaic implementation of ECM.

[Thinder]

Hello,

 

Sure you are biased.

Anyone who reads your post #49 can see it: after all you write only faults about the Typhoon and not 1 fault on the Rafale...

 

The info throughout the web seems to vary a lot regarding the 2 of them, and sometimes even contradictory.

Although many places consider aspects like for instance, their Turn Rates (both instantaneous and sustained) roughly similar.

 

Regarding close coupled canards vs nose mounted canards, again the info varies.

Some say close coupled favors pitch rate, and nose mounted favors high alpha / nose pointing authority, at slower speeds.

 

Personally I have no way of telling which site / forum is the most trustworthy.

 

From the back of my head I can recall one disadvantage of the Rafale: its lower top speed, and less powerful engines... that was what the Saudis reported to France when they first evaluated the Rafale, and asked if more powerful engines could be installed.

(Read this a few years ago, so I don't know how it is today.)

 

Even still just for the record, I voted YES for the Rafale.

(As I really find it a very impressive machine, in several aspects.)

 

"Some says" is not a valid point, especially when it comes to aerodynamics, and you're not anyone or everyone, some know their basis, some don't, you're not going to learn anything on the subject reading whatever from this sort of sites. Try studies made by DRYDEN before accusing people of bias.

 

From the back of your head, you might not recall the required top speeds for both aircraft; Rafale never was intended to reach M 2.0, as for the Saudi they highlighted one factor that cost me to be called biased on French forums, engine thrust, that could be higher, but then again, Typhoon only achieves its higher TWR thanks to much lower ultimate structural limits.

 

If you do not know what this implies; the aircraft has less material (thinner spars, beams, skin etc) to resist g loads in order to obtain a lighter airframe, but it is firmly limited to 9.0 g and 6000h, vs 11.0 g and 7.000 h for the Rafale, which was designed stock for carrier Ops, so all models are structurally strong enough for this, specific mods (landing gear and hook) come later.

 

The long moment arm solution is an older solution, aerodynamics have evolved since, and Dassault experimented with long moment canards with the Mirage Asterix from Sept 1968 and Milan from May 1969.

 

Close-coupled canard also has evolved, from a 3 vortex to a 4 vortex in the case of Rafale (Canard root, LEX, LEX/wing junction, canard tips), you can turn it on its head all you want, but Typhoon canard doesn't interact with the delta wing this way, instead, it only reduces drag slightly at near-zero AoA thanks to the canard tips downwash effect.

 

The funny thing about it, is that Eurofighter attempted to correct those shortcomings by applying the same solutions than Dassault-Aviation, testing LEX and even proposing enlarged elevons to gain some roll rate, only to hit structural limits again, they had no margin for increased structural stress. You just can't patch up aircraft design and expect good results.

 

Studies conducted by IAI, SAAB, Dassault-Aviation, DRYDEN and some more concluded that the close-coupled canard displays a lot of advantages in comparison to long-moment arm canards such as that mounted on the X-31 and Typhoon, btw which reached a maximum of 70* AoA, compared to Rafale 100* and Gripen 90*.

 

Here are some:

 

1) Delta wings work with vortex lift. Close-coupled canard triggers the appearance of vortex lift at a much lower angle of attack, which in turn reduced the amount of AoA needed for the same amount of lift, hence reducing drag.

In short, Rafale drags less at equivalent AoA for MORE lift.

 

2) Close-coupled canard always displays a much higher tolerance to out of cG and asymmetric load. (this has been a hot topic in the development of Typhoon A2G capabilities, that's a detail you missed, I didn't).

This means it doesn't have the same limitations with weapons such as wingtip mounted missiles when one is fired, a particularly sensitive topic in transonic.

 

Some aircraft such as F-16 or some Sukois are limited in the transonic region and asymmetric loads for this reason, an asymmetric load will trigger a spin at high AoA, close-coupled canard are immune to this.

 

3) Close-coupled canard are spin-resistant, more to the point, they have enough control authority to get out of a superstall, not the case of long-moment arm canards.

 

4) "Pitch rate", doesn't mean anything. Pitch authority demands LIFT, or else, you risk a dynamic stall, if you're out of lift, it matters little how fast you can pull your nose up.

 

Let's consider the FACTS: Typhoon has a longer moment arm, Rafale produces more lift and less drag when both aircraft vortex lift is triggered at their respective AoA. lower on Rafale.

You'll be hard-pressed to explain how a Typhoon has better pitch authority with less lift available and more drag induced.

 

In real life, Rafale has proven the opposite in every single encounter vs Typhoon, every single NATO pilot pitted vs a Rafale have highlighted its nose pointing ability and low speed/high AoA control authority.

 

It's not as if the data for comparing those solutions didn't exist, they did, but instead of doing your homework you prefer to accuse someone of bias on a subject I doubt very much you even start to comprehend...

 

So I'll refer you to the history of Typhoon, it was TFK-90 which concept was chosen vs that of BAe and the reasons were not aerodynamics, BAe solutions were both close-coupled canards.

 

Now, are you implying, (while accusing me of bias), that Britain and BAe had LESS experience in the conception and design of Mach 2 fighter than Germany? Well done, talk about bias.

 

BAe P-110

Edited May 20, 2020 by Thinder

[iborg]

Good explanation by Thinder on the canard formulas.

In addition, max speed was deliberately set lower than the previous generation. The Mirage 2000C could go to Mach 2 (and let's not even mention the Mirage IV) and I vaguely remember the Rafale A demonstrator did fly at M2 (I might be wrong on that). And a Rafale C/B/M can materially accelerate past M1.8. M1.8 is an operational limitation like the 50K feet operational limit. The airframe itself can fly higher, but other factors are in play (pilot safety in case of depressurization, for eg).

For the current generation it was decided that supercruise was more useful than a M2 top seepd that was seldom used IRL. Besides, the Typhoon itself is operationally limited to M1.8 currently IIRC. Saves wear and tear on the airframe.

[Top Jockey]

"Some says" is not a valid point, especially when it comes to aerodynamics, and you're not anyone or everyone, some know their basis, some don't, you're not going to learn anything on the subject reading whatever from this sort of sites. Try studies made by DRYDEN before accusing people of bias.

 

From the back of your head, you might not recall the required top speeds for both aircraft; Rafale never was intended to reach M 2.0, as for the Saudi they highlighted one factor that cost me to be called biased on French forums, engine thrust, that could be higher, but then again, Typhoon only achieves its higher TWR thanks to much lower ultimate structural limits.

 

If you do not know what this implies; the aircraft has less material (thinner spars, beams, skin etc) to resist g loads in order to obtain a lighter airframe, but it is firmly limited to 9.0 g and 6000h, vs 11.0 g and 7.000 h for the Rafale, which was designed stock for carrier Ops, so all models are structurally strong enough for this, specific mods (landing gear and hook) come later.

 

...

 

2) Close-coupled canard always displays a much higher tolerance to out of cG and asymmetric load. (this has been a hot topic in the development of Typhoon A2G capabilities, that's a detail you missed, I didn't).

This means it doesn't have the same limitations with weapons such as wingtip mounted missiles when one is fired, a particularly sensitive topic in transonic.

 

...

 

It's not as if the data for comparing those solutions didn't exist, they did, but instead of doing your homework you prefer to accuse someone of bias on a subject I doubt very much you even start to comprehend...

 

So I'll refer you to the history of Typhoon, it was TFK-90 which concept was chosen vs that of BAe and the reasons were not aerodynamics, BAe solutions were both close-coupled canards.

 

Now, are you implying, (while accusing me of bias), that Britain and BAe had LESS experience in the conception and design of Mach 2 fighter than Germany? Well done, talk about bias.

 

 

Thank you for the lecture professor, but it would have gone much more valued without the arrogant tone, sorry about that.

The arrogant tone speaks volumes about one's credibility, but I doubt very much you even start to comprehend...

 

About the last bold: I'm not implying anything regarding BAE or Germany - you did, because that was your chance to act the teacher role. :thumbup:

 

2 things :

 

- just because you dump a load of technical info, that doesn't invalidate you were also bashing a tone the other aircraft ;

- I couldn't care less in defending the Rafale or Typhoon... neither of them is my relative.

 

I just stated the obvious; whoever reads your posts, gets the ideia that one fighter is the "Holy Grail", while the other is a useless piece of garbage.

And I always tend to take those views / comparisons with a grain of salt - but I believe this is an easy point for you start to comprehend.

 

So I don't know:

- why are several nations operating the Typhoon;

- what all the engineers were doing on it;

- neither why you didn't offer your counseling to them, as after all you make it look like the aircraft came out such a piece of cr4p.

[iborg]

 

So I don't know:

- why are several nations operating the Typhoon;

- what all the engineers were doing on it;

- neither why you didn't offer your counseling to them, as after all you make it look like the aircraft came out such a piece of cr4p.

 

Eh, Typhoon's basic design may have suffered (in comparison with Rafale) from the "design by committee" syndrome, which is hardly unavoidable in such a multinational project (see the A-400M for another contemporary example). But it's still a great A2A platform, with advanced systems and good weapons. Even if it's "second best" it still means it's very good. Designing a fighter plane is not a popular sport... nations able to do it can be counted on one hand after all.

[Top Jockey]

Eh, Typhoon's basic design may have suffered (in comparison with Rafale) from the "design by committee" syndrome, which is hardly unavoidable in such a multinational project (see the A-400M for another contemporary example). But it's still a great A2A platform, with advanced systems and good weapons. Even if it's "second best" it still means it's very good. Designing a fighter plane is not a popular sport... nations able to do it can be counted on one hand after all.

 

Hello,

 

Now this seems more a realistic view, I completely agree.

Sure, in the past I've read about the inevitable compromises which had to be made, thanks to the aircraft being developed by 4 different nations.

[Thinder]

Thank you for the lecture professor, but it would have gone much more valued without the arrogant tone, sorry about that.

The arrogant tone speaks volumes about one's credibility, but I doubt very much you even start to comprehend...

 

About the last bold: I'm not implying anything regarding BAE or Germany - you did, because that was your chance to act the teacher role. :thumbup:

 

2 things :

 

- just because you dump a load of technical info, that doesn't invalidate you were also bashing a tone the other aircraft ;

- I couldn't care less in defending the Rafale or Typhoon... neither of them is my relative.

 

I just stated the obvious; whoever reads your posts, gets the ideia that one fighter is the "Holy Grail", while the other is a useless piece of garbage.

And I always tend to take those views / comparisons with a grain of salt - but I believe this is an easy point for you start to comprehend.

 

So I don't know:

- why are several nations operating the Typhoon;

- what all the engineers were doing on it;

- neither why you didn't offer your counseling to them, as after all you make it look like the aircraft came out such a piece of cr4p.

 

Like I have to be credible writing basic aerodynamics in forums, seriously?

 

What I wrote are known facts about the Typhoon, why don't you go and read on the subject in professional forums like Pprune or NAO reports on the UK Defense Minister website?

 

Where do you think I get those information from? Forums? LOL!

 

I had heated arguments about the Rafale engine in French forums because I KNOW for a fact that it has been under-developed, which doesn't mean that the aircraft is underpowered just that its development was slow and it entered service in its formal and E4 form before it could be fully developed as SNECMA wanted.

 

But of course, forumers like yourself take facts and truth for "bias" and call everything that doesn't fit their picture for "bashing", meanwhile DGA signed a contract to SAFRAN for technological studies on the SCAF engine program with SAFRAN mentioning M-88:

 

Improvements in view for the M88 engine

The Rafale jet engine will benefit from the works carried out on the engine of tomorrow's fighter jets.

It was in this regard that France's defense procurement agency entrusted Safran with an upstream research program, worth 115 million euros over five years to boost the engine's thrust while improving its lifespan.

 

https://www.safran-group.com/media/futuristic-engine-scaf-20190418

 

That's where I laugh, especially when I am suggested that my attitude is "arrogant" and that what SAFRAN wrote doesn't mean what they wrote, because you see, according to some, SAFRAN will spend a good chunk of this budget in M88 development while it doesn't need it.

 

Want to know why I believe the Rafale is limited to M 1.8? Not the inlets, not the engines, the aircraft clean will accelerate gladly passed M 1.8 to M2.0 and like the 2000 at M 2.2 have to be throttled back, it's a little known issue, the serrated material added to the surface of the airframe can get damaged by local pressure and detach, some of it is located in the inlets.

 

It's a part of the airframe which is always in the subsonic regime but it would be rather bad for the engine to ingest debris because this material decay and detach.

 

 

That's the only real defect I can find to an airframe otherwise way sturdier than the Typhoon.

 

So take it the way you wish, I couldn't care less, I was responding to comments suggesting that France would have been better off staying in the Eurofighter program with precise, documented arguments, that's perhaps what your problem is.

 

If France had stayed in the Eurofighter program we wouldn't have a Marine version of it, it wouldn't be as performant from low speed to mid-supersonic and our pilots wouldn't be able to pull 11.0 G and bring it back home in one piece. Your turn now, prove me wrong.

 

As for the engineers needing counseling, there is little one can do for them since defects comes from design stage.

 

How arrogant was MBB to think they could design a M 2.0 fighter with less than the 10th of the experience of France when it comes to the number of prototypes since the end of WWII?

 

Ask the UK MoD if they solved their inlet resonance issue (MBB design), as far as they go, the RAF Typhoon are limited to M 1.8.

 

https://www.raf.mod.uk/aircraft/typhoon-fgr4/

 

If you guys have no heavier argument than personal when reality doesn't suit you, I suggest you shift your interest to something else than Aerospace and Aviation, but don't accuse people of bias or being arrogant because they are more informed than you...

Edited June 30, 2020 by Thinder

[Thinder]

Eh, Typhoon's basic design may have suffered (in comparison with Rafale) from the "design by committee" syndrome, which is hardly unavoidable in such a multinational project (see the A-400M for another contemporary example). But it's still a great A2A platform, with advanced systems and good weapons. Even if it's "second best" it still means it's very good. Designing a fighter plane is not a popular sport... nations able to do it can be counted on one hand after all.

 

It is not something that would have worked for as long as the companies were looking to acquire the experience they didn't have rather than offering design and conception capability they had.

 

nEUROn was much more successful as a cooperative venture because the most capable and experienced company had design lead and all partners contributed to the best of their respective capabilities.

 

Eurofighter problem is more in the choice of the design and tasking than anything else, ask yourself, how many M2.0 fighters prototypes or having seen service did MBB had under their belt?

 

I don't know how MBB managed to impose their concept over that of BAe who had tons more experience in the field (and came up with a close-coupled canard), but technically, Herbst concept was older, relied on TVC for hyper-maneuvrability and when it comes to structural design, the need for performances lead to choices that resulted in a lower Ultimate Structural limit.

 

Other than that and the other issues they might have encountered since it entered service, I can only agree with you.

 

Within the best part of its flight envelop it has superior performances than the Rafale which was not designed to operate faster than M 1.8, (apart for the inlets design qualified for M 2.0) and at a lower operational ceiling.

 

Although it is more a question of Max ceiling for security than capabilities, Typhoon performs better at higher altitudes, their respective flight envelops are different from conceptual design stage.

[TotenDead]

Ooof, what a rafalelover

[Northstar98]

Sorry, why are we having a gentitalia waving contest between the Rafale and the Typhoon?

 

Relevancy much?

Edited June 30, 2020 by Northstar98

[Furiz]

I wont join the fight, just wanted to add my YES to the Dassault Rafale! Great plane, would be nice addition to DCS.

[Xilon_x]

[tosmonaute]

All i know is : RAFALE and TYPHOON are beautiful and efficient machines...

And i won't buy a module just because one is superior to the other, but just

because i love planes...

 

So i am sorry but i do not understand the point of debate who's the best of them in this thread!

 

BTW the TYPHOON module is already announced if i understood well( and for sure i will buy it), and just to answer to the thread.

 

YES i would love so much to see the RAFALE in DCS.

And if it could be a M version, would be even better to me.

I really hope it will become reality someday.

[Thinder]

Sorry, why are we having a gentitalia waving contest between the Rafale and the Typhoon?

 

Relevancy much?

 

I didn't bring Typhoon into this topics, it should have been irrelevant IF it haven't been suggested that France would have been better off with Eurofighter, I responded to that, that's why.

Edited June 30, 2020 by Thinder

[...]

Although he is not an airplane that represents me, he is a great fighter and also has the ability to operate on aircraft carriers. I support the petition because he is a great fighter and I want to support the neighboring community of France. The classification is no longer an excuse, the F-16 is operational and the Eurofigther is on the way. My vote is yes.

[...]

Balance can be obtained on servers. Hornet's AGM-154C are restricted on some servers because they have the ability to disarm the enemy in half an hour when there are no players defending airspace

[Northstar98]

Balance can be obtained on servers. Hornet's AGM-154C are restricted on some servers because they have the ability to disarm the enemy in half an hour when there are no players defending airspace

 

Yeah, but this is a workaround, it wouldn't be as much a problem if there were more contemporary assets to defend against the JSOW (again, we have mid-to-late -80s air defences at best, the JSOW is a weapon in use from 1998)

 

Sorry, but I don't see the point in pouring effort into getting advanced things to work, if they're just going to get ban-hammered in multiplayer.

Edited July 2, 2020 by Northstar98