People in glass cockpits shouldn't throw stones? Rafale cheek....
Thread Starter
People in glass cockpits shouldn't throw stones? Rafale cheek....
There's a cheeky 'Almost/Most' Rafale ad on pages 76/77 of Flight (7-13 June)?
"Rival late generation fighters offer your armed forces almost everything required. They're almost on budget. They're almost on schedule. They're almost ready to fly the full range of missions needed to be truly effective. But what if 'almost' isn't good enough?Omnirole Rafale offers the most versatile, most cost-effective, most technologically evolved military performance available in a late generation fighter today. Rafale. A most welcome alternative to endless promises, and almost endless delays. Rafale. The OMNIROLE fighter"
I had to chuckle. It's pithy and pointed, and even funny. But is it fair?
Are they seriously claiming that Rafale is on schedule? On budget? "Ready to fly the full range of missions"?
Really?
I thought it was at least ten years late, and that they'd found a €1.5 Bn hole in the funding?
I thought that the only Rafales in current operational service were the Aéronavale's F1 standard jets, and that they offer little real improvement over the F-8 Crusader - carrying only Magic, Mica, and a refuelling pod?
I thought that the RAF, the Germans, the Spanish and the Italians all got their single-seat Typhoons before last Friday, when the Armée de l'Air got its first single-seater?
I thought that most of the clever stuff wouldn't happen unless and until they got an export customer who would help pay for it?
Or are we just talking about different lengths of 'almost'?
"Rival late generation fighters offer your armed forces almost everything required. They're almost on budget. They're almost on schedule. They're almost ready to fly the full range of missions needed to be truly effective. But what if 'almost' isn't good enough?Omnirole Rafale offers the most versatile, most cost-effective, most technologically evolved military performance available in a late generation fighter today. Rafale. A most welcome alternative to endless promises, and almost endless delays. Rafale. The OMNIROLE fighter"
I had to chuckle. It's pithy and pointed, and even funny. But is it fair?
Are they seriously claiming that Rafale is on schedule? On budget? "Ready to fly the full range of missions"?
Really?
I thought it was at least ten years late, and that they'd found a €1.5 Bn hole in the funding?
I thought that the only Rafales in current operational service were the Aéronavale's F1 standard jets, and that they offer little real improvement over the F-8 Crusader - carrying only Magic, Mica, and a refuelling pod?
I thought that the RAF, the Germans, the Spanish and the Italians all got their single-seat Typhoons before last Friday, when the Armée de l'Air got its first single-seater?
I thought that most of the clever stuff wouldn't happen unless and until they got an export customer who would help pay for it?
Or are we just talking about different lengths of 'almost'?
Blame My Parrot
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Somerdorset, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We're definitely talking about different lengths of something.............!
What they won't tell you is how much of what they have delivered actually works/is fully integrated/has crews fully trained and authorised to operate/fire/release/drop etc.
There may be scope for another thread on military sales speak (a la estate agent speak) and what it actually means. For instance, what is the difference between a multirole and omnirole fighter in reality?
What they won't tell you is how much of what they have delivered actually works/is fully integrated/has crews fully trained and authorised to operate/fire/release/drop etc.
There may be scope for another thread on military sales speak (a la estate agent speak) and what it actually means. For instance, what is the difference between a multirole and omnirole fighter in reality?
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had to chuckle. It's pithy and pointed, and even funny. But is it fair?
According to my books, you don't know Rafale nor its progrmme wery well.
"I had to chuckle. It's pithy and pointed, and even funny. But is it fair?
Are they seriously claiming that Rafale is on schedule? On budget? "Ready to fly the full range of missions"?
Really?
I thought it was at least ten years late, and that they'd found a €1.5 Bn hole in the funding?"
I thought it was the only one which haven't experienced technical problems that caused the aircraft to be nicknamed the "Hangar Queen", grounded for two years, to crash or need a major structural redesign, (Typhoon = FCS + engines, JAS39 = FCS, F-22 = FCS, F-35 bad design management).
I thought it was the only one which delay was entirely related to finances.
I thought it was necessary to have a minimum level of untellectual honnesty to write in something usually as good as AFM.
I thought it wat the very superior "F-8 derivative" which outted Typhoon in THREE major competitons Korea, Holland, Singapore, and will probabilly win its first major export order soon...
I thought smart guys would KNOW that AdA had their first Rafale C (C101) some time ago in OPVAL at Mont de Marsans but that it was the delivery to the active squadron forming at St Dizier (EC 1/7) which was the subject of this agitation.
I thought a good reporter would have been looking at the Assemblee Nationale documents to figure exactly what was the finances status for the Rafale programme.
I thought NO Typhoon squadron had been put to full operational status YET, that when this happens, the entire world will be loudly made aware as is the use for the Eurofighter company.
I thought that even if Eurofighters partners doesn't officially put it this way, the aircraft, fresh from the factories are still not only in OPVAL but also NOT at the definitive standard requiered just YET.
I thought they (Eurofighter) are about three years behind in type developement and that their capabilties aren't anywhere near to be equal to Rafale standard F2.
But the best part, the one that proves that the Eurofighter "clan" have been outsmarted:
"I thought that most of the clever stuff wouldn't happen unless and until they got an export customer who would help pay for it?"
I thought assumption to be the mother of all FCUK-UPs?
I thought that after the Quinetiq "clever simulated demonstration" on Typhoon so called superior performances they would have learned their lessons?
I thought our Defense Minister was somehow smarter than yours?
I thought that Rafale was a far better design, a better system and had better performances in real life? (Not in the fancy Typhoon sites you guys are visiting these days).
I thought that potential export custromers could easly have spoted this, and that's the reason why Rafale leaves Typhoon behind in every competitions they are pited against.
I thought a new radar, new OSF, improved SPECTRA, new EMTI and avionics are making Rafale even better than it was.
I thought SNECMA havedeveloped the 90Kn M- 88-3 for thefutur upgrade, and that Dassault's designers have been smart enough to give it enough growth and upgrade potential.
I thought that any aircraft with a developement time that long would need the same treatment, but that Typhoon didn't get most of the clever stuff.
I thought the "clan" are pissed off at the way the Rafale programme goes and cannot accept the fact that one get what one needs.
I thought we where talking about different standards of information and intellectual honnesty here.
Thanks we're proud of France the Rafale GIE Thales, Snecma and Dassault but more to the point, fade up with some guys constant abuse and use of the excuse of their ignorance:
My pic: Learn French if you want ot write anything about our aircraft, my prediction. Singap[ore is ours, so is Greece.
Have a nice day gentlemen.
"I had to chuckle. It's pithy and pointed, and even funny. But is it fair?
Are they seriously claiming that Rafale is on schedule? On budget? "Ready to fly the full range of missions"?
Really?
I thought it was at least ten years late, and that they'd found a €1.5 Bn hole in the funding?"
I thought it was the only one which haven't experienced technical problems that caused the aircraft to be nicknamed the "Hangar Queen", grounded for two years, to crash or need a major structural redesign, (Typhoon = FCS + engines, JAS39 = FCS, F-22 = FCS, F-35 bad design management).
I thought it was the only one which delay was entirely related to finances.
I thought it was necessary to have a minimum level of untellectual honnesty to write in something usually as good as AFM.
I thought it wat the very superior "F-8 derivative" which outted Typhoon in THREE major competitons Korea, Holland, Singapore, and will probabilly win its first major export order soon...
I thought smart guys would KNOW that AdA had their first Rafale C (C101) some time ago in OPVAL at Mont de Marsans but that it was the delivery to the active squadron forming at St Dizier (EC 1/7) which was the subject of this agitation.
I thought a good reporter would have been looking at the Assemblee Nationale documents to figure exactly what was the finances status for the Rafale programme.
I thought NO Typhoon squadron had been put to full operational status YET, that when this happens, the entire world will be loudly made aware as is the use for the Eurofighter company.
I thought that even if Eurofighters partners doesn't officially put it this way, the aircraft, fresh from the factories are still not only in OPVAL but also NOT at the definitive standard requiered just YET.
I thought they (Eurofighter) are about three years behind in type developement and that their capabilties aren't anywhere near to be equal to Rafale standard F2.
But the best part, the one that proves that the Eurofighter "clan" have been outsmarted:
"I thought that most of the clever stuff wouldn't happen unless and until they got an export customer who would help pay for it?"
I thought assumption to be the mother of all FCUK-UPs?
I thought that after the Quinetiq "clever simulated demonstration" on Typhoon so called superior performances they would have learned their lessons?
I thought our Defense Minister was somehow smarter than yours?
I thought that Rafale was a far better design, a better system and had better performances in real life? (Not in the fancy Typhoon sites you guys are visiting these days).
I thought that potential export custromers could easly have spoted this, and that's the reason why Rafale leaves Typhoon behind in every competitions they are pited against.
I thought a new radar, new OSF, improved SPECTRA, new EMTI and avionics are making Rafale even better than it was.
I thought SNECMA havedeveloped the 90Kn M- 88-3 for thefutur upgrade, and that Dassault's designers have been smart enough to give it enough growth and upgrade potential.
I thought that any aircraft with a developement time that long would need the same treatment, but that Typhoon didn't get most of the clever stuff.
I thought the "clan" are pissed off at the way the Rafale programme goes and cannot accept the fact that one get what one needs.
I thought we where talking about different standards of information and intellectual honnesty here.
Thanks we're proud of France the Rafale GIE Thales, Snecma and Dassault but more to the point, fade up with some guys constant abuse and use of the excuse of their ignorance:
My pic: Learn French if you want ot write anything about our aircraft, my prediction. Singap[ore is ours, so is Greece.
Have a nice day gentlemen.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: uk
Posts: 277
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well this guy gegene seems to have some interesting points. anyone able to provide a better argument than "surrender monkeys" or is that all you get on here when you cant face up to a proper debate? just waiting for the usual comments about spelling to be brought up too. dont know anything about either program but would like to hear some decent opinions.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Absolutly FABULOUS.
Exactly what i expected from some of you at least. Any comments on my remarks?
I have a present for you boys.
Click'n'enjoy.
http://img82.echo.cx/img82/782/photo26.jpg
Staight from combat Op and still in OPVAL.
http://img52.echo.cx/img52/5763/blasonheracles.jpg
I have a present for you boys.
Click'n'enjoy.
http://img82.echo.cx/img82/782/photo26.jpg
Staight from combat Op and still in OPVAL.
http://img52.echo.cx/img52/5763/blasonheracles.jpg
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: earth
Posts: 1,397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What might be more interesting to debate is why one of the founding members of an integrated Europe went it alone with Rafale instead of staying with the Eurofighter.
Now we have two types in export competition and one European Nation competing with a European consortium - hardly the most effective behaviour in a trading block such as the EU.
If Rafale is better than the Typhoon in cost/timescale/effectiveness it would not be surprising because multi-national projects are certainly slow, cumbersome and expensive. However, economies of scale can only be achieved with numbers and the bigger the export market the better. Splitting it makes no sense at all.
If European aerospace is to compete with America and soon, China, we need to smarten up our act.
Now we have two types in export competition and one European Nation competing with a European consortium - hardly the most effective behaviour in a trading block such as the EU.
If Rafale is better than the Typhoon in cost/timescale/effectiveness it would not be surprising because multi-national projects are certainly slow, cumbersome and expensive. However, economies of scale can only be achieved with numbers and the bigger the export market the better. Splitting it makes no sense at all.
If European aerospace is to compete with America and soon, China, we need to smarten up our act.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This one is easy.
Dassault was the most experienced of all partners (more than 90 prototype since 1945 before joining the programme, Rafale A being No 93) and wanted design lead. The reason was they had quiet a lot of tight specs from Marine Nationale and the Typhoon design was snot easyly navalysable if i can put it this way:
First low speed:
Rafale close coupled canards energises the boundary layer over the win in a way no other aircraft does.
http://img63.echo.cx/img63/3474/C01.jpg
http://img9.echo.cx/img9/8494/rafale0210243ve.jpg
Second. Air-intakes. On Typhoon they are "boxed" side by side under the fuselage, this implies that to adapt the airframe to the stress of repetead chocks from traps, the weight penalty was higher than with separated intakes which doesn't need to be beefed-up.
This is why there is no Naval Typhoon.
http://img214.echo.cx/img214/3153/mbringback4ri.jpg
But this one have a hell of bring back capability:
Two 1.250 L tank probabilly empty but also six (6) AASMs of more than 250 Kg each.
Also they weren't happy with the dual chin intake solution because of the risk of double flame out. Un case of one engine dying on you, the pressure bulid-up in its uintake glove bleeds over the intake lips and "polute" its airflow, i believe this is what caused the Spanish Typhoon double engine failure during an engine iddle flight test.
They went further:
Rafale is the most aerodynamically developed Canard delta i have seen so far. Even more so then the HIMAT drone, which datas were used to design Typhoon.
http://img74.echo.cx/img74/3441/Inta...rrangement.jpg
They used compression (A) and expension (B) airflow to increase the boundary layer airflows energy on both side of the wing.
http://img76.echo.cx/img76/4244/Compressiveflow.jpg
http://img83.echo.cx/img83/4456/Expansiveflow.jpg
As a result, they were able to fly it passed 100* AOA and 40 Kt negative spoeed without loss of control. Go beat this with Eurofigher and i still have to hear about the CCV F-22 doing any better.
First low speed:
Rafale close coupled canards energises the boundary layer over the win in a way no other aircraft does.
http://img63.echo.cx/img63/3474/C01.jpg
http://img9.echo.cx/img9/8494/rafale0210243ve.jpg
Second. Air-intakes. On Typhoon they are "boxed" side by side under the fuselage, this implies that to adapt the airframe to the stress of repetead chocks from traps, the weight penalty was higher than with separated intakes which doesn't need to be beefed-up.
This is why there is no Naval Typhoon.
http://img214.echo.cx/img214/3153/mbringback4ri.jpg
But this one have a hell of bring back capability:
Two 1.250 L tank probabilly empty but also six (6) AASMs of more than 250 Kg each.
Also they weren't happy with the dual chin intake solution because of the risk of double flame out. Un case of one engine dying on you, the pressure bulid-up in its uintake glove bleeds over the intake lips and "polute" its airflow, i believe this is what caused the Spanish Typhoon double engine failure during an engine iddle flight test.
They went further:
Rafale is the most aerodynamically developed Canard delta i have seen so far. Even more so then the HIMAT drone, which datas were used to design Typhoon.
http://img74.echo.cx/img74/3441/Inta...rrangement.jpg
They used compression (A) and expension (B) airflow to increase the boundary layer airflows energy on both side of the wing.
http://img76.echo.cx/img76/4244/Compressiveflow.jpg
http://img83.echo.cx/img83/4456/Expansiveflow.jpg
As a result, they were able to fly it passed 100* AOA and 40 Kt negative spoeed without loss of control. Go beat this with Eurofigher and i still have to hear about the CCV F-22 doing any better.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gegene
Why do you only quote types since 1945, any problems with your combat design capabilities before then?
Why so many prototypes, do you have a problem getting things right first time?
The Charles de Gaulle has been a disaster for the French navy, and the ship is known amongst sailors as le bateau maudit, or "the ship of the damned". It has never completed a tour of service. In November 2000, a large segment of one of the 19-ton propellors broke off during exercises in the Bermuda Triangle. The ship limped back to Toulon to discover that the manufacturer, Atlantic Industries, had gone bankrupt the previous year, so the propellors were cannibalized from the older carriers. Vibration in the rudders means that it cannot exceed 15 knots despite being powered for 27 by its two reactors.
Prior to this, the ship had to undergo an expensive modification when it was discovered that the flight deck was actually too short to operate the US-made Hawkeye radar surveillance aircraft. In addition, the decks had to be repainted, because the paint corroded the arrest wires needed for aircraft to land. In 1996, the casings surrounding the reactors needed reinforcement because the crew were being exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation.
Close coupled canards - go look at the J10 and Gripen, nothing unique there.
The reason there is no naval Typhoon is there was and is no requirement.
The rest is just drivel.
Why do you only quote types since 1945, any problems with your combat design capabilities before then?
Why so many prototypes, do you have a problem getting things right first time?
The Charles de Gaulle has been a disaster for the French navy, and the ship is known amongst sailors as le bateau maudit, or "the ship of the damned". It has never completed a tour of service. In November 2000, a large segment of one of the 19-ton propellors broke off during exercises in the Bermuda Triangle. The ship limped back to Toulon to discover that the manufacturer, Atlantic Industries, had gone bankrupt the previous year, so the propellors were cannibalized from the older carriers. Vibration in the rudders means that it cannot exceed 15 knots despite being powered for 27 by its two reactors.
Prior to this, the ship had to undergo an expensive modification when it was discovered that the flight deck was actually too short to operate the US-made Hawkeye radar surveillance aircraft. In addition, the decks had to be repainted, because the paint corroded the arrest wires needed for aircraft to land. In 1996, the casings surrounding the reactors needed reinforcement because the crew were being exposed to dangerously high levels of radiation.
Close coupled canards - go look at the J10 and Gripen, nothing unique there.
The reason there is no naval Typhoon is there was and is no requirement.
The rest is just drivel.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes of course, i should have thoguht about it earlier, stupid me...
Is that all you've got? I wont bother correcting you. If this is the level of situational awarness and accuracy of intelligence in your forces, you're going to have your back side biten by the Zulus next time you try them. Keep at is sunny you're perfect for a snack.
So far my friends i'm laughing.
So far my friends i'm laughing.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just doing the same as you my friend, quoting newspaper articles to support my point of view. One of the joys of the information world is being able to find plenty of information to support any mad proposition you wish to put forward.
Publishing military intelligence on a public forum is not generally considered intelligent, that is the way to get your backside bitten by the algerians.
Keep laughing you need all the help you can get.
Publishing military intelligence on a public forum is not generally considered intelligent, that is the way to get your backside bitten by the algerians.
Keep laughing you need all the help you can get.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 224
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hurrah, Navaleye also recognises the troll is here (Gogo / Gegene). The mods really need to deal with this guy quickly as he follows a standard pattern - firstly vaugely reasoned argument, in response he quickly degenerates into an abusive pattern, throwing abuse out left right and centre and claims that anyone else is an amateur and that he is the fountain of all knowledge. This is based on two years claimed national service as a lance corporal in the French airforce in the 1970's. I suggest a pre-emptive ban is in order for this guy as I have seen him wreck entire forums before with his rantings.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: London
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No mate
I'm not coting news papers YOU are.
This is what the difference between you and i is:
All my comment i can bring them to YOU in the form of scans from Jane's all the world's aircraft from 1980 to 2005, all in due form.
You can't begin to contemplate facts and have little to bring us a proper infos. Keep at it.
This is what the difference between you and i is:
All my comment i can bring them to YOU in the form of scans from Jane's all the world's aircraft from 1980 to 2005, all in due form.
You can't begin to contemplate facts and have little to bring us a proper infos. Keep at it.
