Come on you can say it it's not that hard. I'll help you. French plane (F1 version) has the same top speed (clean) as the F-18E (clean) but slower than the F-35 when carrying a combat load.
Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning and F-22 'Raptor' : News & Discussion
- Thread starter Nick
- Start date
So bunch of bs and nothing else. It's so hard not to insult Americans to be honest. But whatever.
(Translation) Crap he's got me I should stop BS-ing.
Yes you should stop making up crap.
The Rafale has a speed that is operationally limited to mach 1.8, but is capable of mach 2. In the same way that it is limited to 9g with a light load but is capable of 11.5g and that it is limited to 5.5g with a heavy load but is capable of 7.5g.Come on you can say it it's not that hard. I'll help you. French plane (F1 version) has the same top speed (clean) as the F-18E (clean) but slower than the F-35 when carrying a combat load.
The speed of Mach 1.8 is achievable with all loads that are capable of it, there is no weight limit because this limit is a consequence of the fact that there are no moving parts in the air intakes to preserve the low observable aspect of the aircraft.
The fact of linking the maximum speed to the power of the engine is typical of the Americans who do not know how to design good aircraft and go for the easiest solutions when they have problems.
The Mirage 2000 has a thrust to weight ratio of 0.7 much lower than the Rafale and is capable of Mach 2.2, which shows the fallacy of your reasoning.
I am talking about chicom. So rafaels are un effective against Chinese IADS? How? That's surprizing
May be you are talking about the S400 which the Chinese have deployed? But then that also depends on multiple factor, getting a lock on an aircraft with electronic counter measures, depends on height, moisture in air, the terrain below, the weather and the type of payload it's carrying.
That's why I said , during any air raid it won't carry a lot of payload to reduce RCS.
Last edited:
It's not for technical reasons. The US is still not comfortable enough to show off to India yet. Their so-called "interoperability" is just a political buzzword.
You're Delusional af...
The su 35 has a publicly known RCS of 1sqm. These are public figures. J16 is most probably in similar ranges of stealth. The f-15 is not stealthy infact it's a *censored*ing fat bus, simple as that. Maybe they add RAM on the EX taking inspiration from their silent hill program which would be a god sent for it.
Well congrats that the french plane is able to pull 11Gs for a sec at an airshow in clean and very light configuration. F-15 has also pulled 10Gs+ by accident. Only dopey fanboys like you would consider something insignificant very significant because that is all you got.
As for speed...
-Throughout the flight test programme, the Rafale A performed numerous day and night take-offs and landings aboard the carriers Clemenceau and Foch to investigate the pilot's field of view during carrier operations. It reached a speed of Mach 2 (2,450 km/h; 1,520 mph; 1,320 kn) and a height of 13,000 metres (42,000 ft).[15] The demonstrator was initially powered by General Electric F404-GE-400 afterburning turbofans from the F/A-18 Hornet, instead of the Snecma M88, to reduce the risk that often comes with a first flight, and since the M88 was not considered sufficiently mature for the initial trials programme.[3][16] It was not until May 1990 when the M88 replaced the port F404 in the demonstrator to enable the aircraft to reach Mach 1.4 and demonstrate supercruise, or sustained supersonic flight without use of afterburners. After 865 flights with four pilots, Rafale A was retired in January 1994.
Engineering:Dassault Rafale - HandWiki
handwiki.org
What's funny is Dassault used these numbers from the 1990s and calculated that with a skinny center tank and 6 missiles its demonstrator or F1 production model can SP mach 1.4 without even a flight test! Lol! WHAT A JOKE! French plane F3+ has gotten a lot heavier and according to Safran CEO still uses the same engine but somehow it can still SP at mach 1.4 with center tank and missiles!
What kind of BS scam is Dassault trying to pull here? Actually I should be honest Dassault does not promote SP capability it actually never brings it up only fanboys in forums tout the french planes SP "capability" Dassault doesn't. Only forum fanboys still live in this delusion which is pretty sad I must say.
This right here proves what an imbecile you really are. That mach 1.8 was achieved with a clean configuration and by the early/lighter model of the french plane. Believing that it can sustain even reach mach 1.8 with a combat load including drop tanks shows you're an imbecile and severely lack knowledge of basic fighter kinematics.
That's your assumption.
Oy vey. You really lack logic or you're a liar and have been telling this story to the dimwitted in other forums. The mirage 2000 reached mach 2.2 as a prototype darling in clean/light configuration. Either you are lying or you really don't know this which makes you a dummy. Seriously.
Jean Coureau in Mirage No. 01 was the test pilot that took the Mirage 2000 over mach 2 giving the mirage the tittle as a mach 2.2 fighter but since you lack any sort of logic in that frog brain of yours you have stupidly correlated those speed numbers from a prototype to the much heavier Mirage 2000-5+with a combat load because that is how dumb or dishonest you really are.
HQ-9s
HQ-12s
HQ-22s
AEW&C with J-10s, Flankers and likely J-20s flying CAP.
There's nothing the french plane can do to reduce its RCS against chicom detection capability. Once you hang tanks pylons and weapons it doesn't matter and if they start using their EW it will just alert the chicoms something is on their way.
It's funny to see someone who doesn't know anything about it come and challenge well known performances with a reasoning like "the fact that prototypes have reached the performances you claim proves that production planes can't do it" and he does it in front of a former director of Dassault for the performances of Dassault planes.Well congrats that the french plane is able to pull 11Gs for a sec at an airshow in clean and very light configuration. F-15 has also pulled 10Gs+ by accident. Only dopey fanboys like you would consider something insignificant very significant because that is all you got.
As for speed...
-Throughout the flight test programme, the Rafale A performed numerous day and night take-offs and landings aboard the carriers Clemenceau and Foch to investigate the pilot's field of view during carrier operations. It reached a speed of Mach 2 (2,450 km/h; 1,520 mph; 1,320 kn) and a height of 13,000 metres (42,000 ft).[15] The demonstrator was initially powered by General Electric F404-GE-400 afterburning turbofans from the F/A-18 Hornet, instead of the Snecma M88, to reduce the risk that often comes with a first flight, and since the M88 was not considered sufficiently mature for the initial trials programme.[3][16] It was not until May 1990 when the M88 replaced the port F404 in the demonstrator to enable the aircraft to reach Mach 1.4 and demonstrate supercruise, or sustained supersonic flight without use of afterburners. After 865 flights with four pilots, Rafale A was retired in January 1994.
Engineering:Dassault Rafale - HandWiki
What's funny is Dassault used these numbers from the 1990s and calculated that with a skinny center tank and 6 missiles its demonstrator or F1 production model can SP mach 1.4 without even a flight test! Lol! WHAT A JOKE! French plane F3+ has gotten a lot heavier and according to Safran CEO still uses the same engine but somehow it can still SP at mach 1.4 with center tank and missiles!
What kind of BS scam is Dassault trying to pull here? Actually I should be honest Dassault does not promote SP capability it actually never brings it up only fanboys in forums tout the french planes SP "capability" Dassault doesn't. Only forum fanboys still live in this delusion which is pretty sad I must say.
This right here proves what an imbecile you really are. That mach 1.8 was achieved with a clean configuration and by the early/lighter model of the french plane. Believing that it can sustain even reach mach 1.8 with a combat load including drop tanks shows you're an imbecile and severely lack knowledge of basic fighter kinematics.
That's your assumption.
Oy vey. You really lack logic or you're a liar and have been telling this story to the dimwitted in other forums. The mirage 2000 reached mach 2.2 as a prototype darling in clean/light configuration. Either you are lying or you really don't know this which makes you a dummy. Seriously.
Jean Coureau in Mirage No. 01 was the test pilot that took the Mirage 2000 over mach 2 giving the mirage the tittle as a mach 2.2 fighter but since you lack any sort of logic in that frog brain of yours you have stupidly correlated those speed numbers from a prototype to the much heavier Mirage 2000-5+with a combat load because that is how dumb or dishonest you really are.
20e anniversaire du Mirage 2000-5
The French Ministry of the Armed Forces has made a statement in 2019 to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the Mirage 2000-5. The following paragraph can be extracted from it:Avec une envergure de plus de 9m, une vitesse maximale de 2,2 mach (soit environs 2717 km/h) et un monoréacteur, le Mirage 2000-5 constitue une évolution du Mirage 2000C. Il est le premier avion français à disposer de missiles MICA de type air-air et FOX 3.
Translation
You show everyone how limited your brain is in understanding complex technologies and operational situations.
It's using the same numbers of the No 01 you dope. F-16 blk 52 still uses the top speed of the F-16A of mach 2+ as its "official speed" when even a chimp knows that is not true. You're not dumber than a chimp are you? The M53-P2 engine entered service in 1985 the mirage has gotten a lot heavier and you expect people who are not experts but knowledgeable in this topic to believe your BS? Sir.... you're an idiot. It's using the same numbers from the first mirage 2000 speed test where it reached mach 2.2 in CLEAN CONFIGRATION without all the heavy avionics and draggy fuel probe.
Mirage2000-5+ has gotten A LOT HEAVIER and still uses a almost 40 year old engine but somehow with tanks and missiles it still does mach 2.2... Child puh-leeze! Take your BS back to airdefense where the dumb fanboys dwell.
They have someone there, that is a USN fanboy. He uses the USN jolly rogers squadron insignia. So some of them know what a fighting force is.
For the comedy value, we will proceed. With 5 tanks the rafale has a fuel fraction of 0.011 or 3% more than the F-35 0.434. Leaving drag aside for now. Do you want to say that the current F-35 engine isn't at least 3% more fuel efficient? Or keeping to these future specs, the new F-35 engine, that is at least FUNDED AND IN TESTING with 25% more range efficiency.
IT'S A SAD DAY, when rafale loses another talking point and another peter pan, Rafale fairy losses it's wings. I do believe in magic, I do, I do
While it's true that the MORE than 18,000, F-35b load of 18,300 has become the shortened to 18,000. That is repeated all over the net. The F-35a has 22,200 Lbs total ordinance, 18,300 internal fuel and weight of 29,300. It is 69,800 and less than the 70,000 max take off weight. So my load of 2x 4,000 fuel, 4x 2,000 bombs and 2x missiles. = 16,750 plus pylon and empty tank weight, will fit well within these parameters.
So with a FANTASY extra station and the same engine. That would require funding for a life of frame stress test to be redone. As well as the flight control system and flight tests to remap the energy management. Never going to happen.
For the comedy value, we will proceed. With 5 tanks the rafale has a fuel fraction of 0.011 or 3% more than the F-35 0.434. Leaving drag aside for now. Do you want to say that the current F-35 engine isn't at least 3% more fuel efficient? Or keeping to these future specs, the new F-35 engine, that is at least FUNDED AND IN TESTING with 25% more range efficiency.
IT'S A SAD DAY, when rafale loses another talking point and another peter pan, Rafale fairy losses it's wings. I do believe in magic, I do, I do
While it's true that the MORE than 18,000, F-35b load of 18,300 has become the shortened to 18,000. That is repeated all over the net. The F-35a has 22,200 Lbs total ordinance, 18,300 internal fuel and weight of 29,300. It is 69,800 and less than the 70,000 max take off weight. So my load of 2x 4,000 fuel, 4x 2,000 bombs and 2x missiles. = 16,750 plus pylon and empty tank weight, will fit well within these parameters.
Last edited:
PS, did you add your pylon weight to the 1,000 kg bombs, missile and tanks? I don't think you did.. Would you like to do your number again. Only this time include them..Or state that they aren't included.
This is still a fantasy load until the Rafale is cleared for 1,000kg bomb on outer stations. Howerver this is a possibility, unlike the Rafale getting another station.
It has the same fuel fraction as the F-35, with 2x tanks 2x 2000lb and 2x missiles. Only the Rafale would have more pylon and empty tank weight. So it would lose again
Rafale C
Empty weight 9850 Kg
Internal fuel 4700 Kg
External fuel: 3 tank of 2000l => 1600 Kg 4800 kg of fuel
Bomb 2000Kg
Missile 500kg
Total mass 21850 plus pylons and tanks
Total fuel 9500
Fuel fraction: .434
It has the same fuel fraction as the F-35, with 2x tanks 2x 2000lb and 2x missiles. Only the Rafale would have more pylon and empty tank weight. So it would lose again
Rafale C
Empty weight 9850 Kg
Internal fuel 4700 Kg
External fuel: 3 tank of 2000l => 1600 Kg 4800 kg of fuel
Bomb 2000Kg
Missile 500kg
Total mass 21850 plus pylons and tanks
Total fuel 9500
Fuel fraction: .434
Last edited:
Actually because it was close. I used a calculator this time. The F-35 has a larger fuel fraction, with 2 missiles .436 but I allowed 1,000 and it came to .434
It would be larger still when we add pylons and tanks, The F-35 will use less pylon and empty tank weight. So the F-35 will have more fuel fraction that the Rafale
F-35a
Empty weight 29,300
Internal fuel 18,300
External fuel: 8,000
Bomb 4,000
Missile 1,000
Total mass 60,600 plus pylons and tanks
Total fuel 26,300
Fuel fraction: .434
It would be larger still when we add pylons and tanks, The F-35 will use less pylon and empty tank weight. So the F-35 will have more fuel fraction that the Rafale
F-35a
Empty weight 29,300
Internal fuel 18,300
External fuel: 8,000
Bomb 4,000
Missile 1,000
Total mass 60,600 plus pylons and tanks
Total fuel 26,300
Fuel fraction: .434
Last edited:
.430 when we add the Talios targeting pod of 265kg. There would be a mounting weight as well. It just keeps getting worse. Is the FSO included? What else has to hung on the Rafale?
No, but you are extraordinary, who says that the French military will announce the performance of their aircraft based on the performance of the prototype made 20 years earlier? They are quite capable of knowing these performances by measuring them themselves.
And your reasoning suffers from many flaws, first of all it makes the hypothesis that mach 2.2 was a speed limit of the prototype that was hardly reached by an aircraft that had to be lightened to the maximum. But this is not at all the case: the M-53s are quite capable of taking the plane to mach 3, but as it is made of aluminium alloy and not steel alloy, it is necessary to stop at Mach 2.2 so that the plane does not melt.
Then when the plane evolves and gains weight, it doesn't prevent it from continuing to reach Mach 2.2 because that's the speed at which the plane would start to melt.
Finally, as far as the performance of Dassault aircraft is concerned, I have no beliefs, I only have certainties because I have had access to the performance measured during flight tests.
On the other hand I did not say anything about the loads of the Mirage 2000 and I never said that the Rafale could do Mach 1.8 with the tanks and the missiles, I specified that if it carried a load its speed would be limited by the speed that the load could support.
For example subsonic tanks are only certified to Mach 1.6 whereas supersonic tanks can go to Mach 1.8. Only if you go continuously at supersonic speeds with a 2000 l subsonic tank, it will drag so much that the range will be less than with a 1250 l supersonic tank, that's where their name comes from.