Dismiss Notice
Welcome to IDF- Indian Defence Forum , register for free to join this friendly community of defence enthusiastic from around the world. Make your opinion heard and appreciated.

Eurofighter Typhoon v/s Dassault Rafale - Analysis

Discussion in 'Indian Air Force' started by jagjitnatt, Apr 29, 2011.

?

which aircraft do you prefer

  1. RAFALE

    177 vote(s)
    54.1%
  2. TYPHOON

    150 vote(s)
    45.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Bandua, if Oman gets Typhoons I will jump for joy. Because if it happens then BAE workers can keep their jobs. I mean if we start getting many orders we cant just push out like 30 jets a year. < That didnt sound right :blink:
     
  2. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    Geez its 1:05AM here!!!!

    Gd night y'all
     
  3. Steel

    Steel Lieutenant SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2011
    Messages:
    754
    Likes Received:
    226
    Buddy its 6.50 a.m here. Just came from jogging. So gud mornng frm me.
     
    1 person likes this.
  4. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    Good Morning

    Good Night

    :partay:
     
    2 people like this.
  5. Mr_Breaker

    Mr_Breaker Lieutenant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2011
    Messages:
    622
    Likes Received:
    63
    From what I can gather the Oman is a done deal... just a matter of crossing the Ts and doting the i... I believe the order will be between 12-16 typhoons.
     
  6. SpArK

    SpArK SorCeroR Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    ADS CALLS INTO DOUBT CREDIBILITY OF TIMES ARTICLE
    26/01/2012
    NEWS RELEASE

    Issued: Thursday 26 January 2012
    Our reference: ADS PR 2012 004

    For immediate release

    ADS CALLS INTO DOUBT CREDIBILITY OF TIMES ARTICLE

    Trade body says Times article built on unsubstantiated evidence

    ADS today (Thursday) calls into doubt an article published in The Times (MoD turns to France as fears grow over fighter jet choice, 26 January 2012).

    The article cites as its source a detailed note of a speech made by Admiral Soar at an ADS event being held under the Chatham House rule. This note however has misled the journalist, wrongly attributing statements to the Admiral and in certain cases alleging, such as with the main premise of the article, a comment which was not made during the course of the Admiral’s speech at the ADS event.

    Rees Ward, CEO at ADS, says:

    “While it is lamentable that the Chatham House rule of the event where the Admiral spoke was broken, of greater concern is the inaccurate reporting. The Admiral’s comments were wrongly attributed and in certain cases not even raised during the course of his speech or at the event itself as the article alleges.

    “Had the journalist sought to contact ADS, we could have verified whether these comments were made, but their lack of contact suggests they have accepted at face value the second hand reporting of what has turned out to be an unreliable source. In doing so they have potentially damaged the reputation of a senior member of our armed forces - certainly they have thrown into question their own personal credibility and ultimately the paper for which they write.â€￾

    ENDS



    ADS CALLS INTO DOUBT CREDIBILITY OF TIMES ARTICLE
     
  7. halloweene

    halloweene Major MILITARY STRATEGIST

    Joined:
    May 25, 2011
    Messages:
    4,346
    Likes Received:
    2,357
    Question : why would a journalist call ADS to confirm sentences from a (newly former) military???
     
  8. Dare2

    Dare2 Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    602
    It might be the case but the International standards takes Operational Maximum loads into account in this configuration.

    So if you build your aircraft around a 1.5 (standard) limit, computed from a 9.0 g structural load you will be able to pull 1.5 X 9.0 g before failure as Ultimate structural load.

    Apparently, Rafale was designed around the structural requierements for the M and have an Ultimate structural load demonstrated at 1.8, this leaves you with a FAIR margin at the FCS limit of 11.0 g.


    That would be empty, but the pylons, attacements and assemblies for A2A load are designed to sustain a very high g load.


    Bring back weights are also depending on the landing gear absorbtion capabilities in terms of vertical speed.


    Of all version, they are structurally identical until strengthening for the specific M version.


    The M is limited not only in terms of number of harpoint (1 less by memory) but also load size in the ventral hardpoint due to the size of the landing gear.


    Not the AoA, you have a cockpit setting for external loads and their respective flight envelop, if you chose air-to-ground DFCS Stores Position 1 (ST1) for example, you will limit the aircraft maximum g load but not the AoA, the aircraft will always take as much AoA as needed to respond to pilot imput up to its FCS limit of 30* AoA, in heavy configuration the limit is 30* AoA/100 kt.

    One feature of Rafale is the close-coupled canard very high level of integration; this allows for vortex lift to appear earlier in the AoA scale, reducing induced drag, for the same amount of g you need less AoA on a Rafale, whatever the external load (comparatively).

    Lift-to-drag ratio is better in the case of close-coupled canards.
    [​IMG]

    These polars are those of the Mirage IIIS which have proportionaly smaller canard surfaces than the Kfir or Rafale, you can see on the left the drag polar, cL vs cD, and when lift starts to increase vs AoA compared to the non canard version.

    This also mean that on a Rafale you can perfectly pull 10 g+ and be 17* away from you AoA limit, and still have a realtively low Drag ratio, g number and time you can sustain them will depend on your energy level, whatever the weight, it is the energy vs g load which matters here because you need the energy to pull the g, with some other aircrafts, when you are AoA limited, it means much lower speeds and energy and on Rafale the only limit is 30* AoA, no ALSR here.

    [​IMG]
    440 kt, 13*A0A, 10.3 g.

    By experience, i can tell you that weight influences maximum AoA of course but certainly not up to the point where it would equal Air density or speed or come to the FCS limit of 30*, for as long as you have air density and energy the only remaining factor would be Maximum Lift Coeficient.

    For example, the new Rafale demo pilot, MICHAEL BROCARD said during the UAE airshow that it was harder to pull 11.0 g there because it was hot, that he really had to pull on it, this is because of air density, as for AoA in different configuration than Airshow, see the picture below.
    [​IMG]
    Rafale M 1 X 1.250 l central.

    I believe Ruet when he says that they can do "every figure during combat as well", including Max AoA and g in A2A configuration without tanks because the aircraft, pylons and AAMs are designed for higher g loads than 11.0 g, you need structural, AoA and Mach margins to qualify the different configuration (all of them) flight and firing envelops.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2012
    1 person likes this.
  9. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,462
    Depends on what orders you are talking here! New orders, or just another case of diverting the original orders to other countries. IF Oman would get EFs from the RAF T3A order, it reduces not only RAF fighters, but also wouldn't add a single fighter to the EF production line. Same goes for any deals with countries that might get T1s from the RAF or German Luftwaffe! The only chance to add new orders and keep the jobs of the BAE workers is, if Oman, Saudi or India would takeover some of the original T3B orders, which would add at least 12 more fighters to the production line. The more fighters your MoD can divert from their own T3B order instead of cancelling them, the longer BAE will be able to produce.
    However, there are several problems for this:

    - Oman might not be able to afford latest EFs, even T3A would be very expensive for them, especially when they compare price vs capability to the F16s
    - the Saudis wanted an assembly line in their country, which didn't worked out an now even their initial order has to be done in the UK, which they didn't liked. So there must be good reasons why they should buy new fighters, which again will add no advantages to their local companies
    - the reduction of production capabilities in Europe and divert them to India was part of the offer in MMRCA, to get India as a production partner for parts of all EFs. When BAE would not cut the production in England, they can't outsource them to India and that would make the MMRCA deal difficult, which they won't risk

    As sad it is, but it's not looking too good for the workers of BAE, not only because of EF, but also because of the delays of F35, even though the contribution to that fighter is small anyway.


    Doesn't matter anyway, the only way to convince the UK to take Rafale Ms as a stopgap solution, would be a joint aircraft carrier. Otherwise the US will use all their political influence to pressure them towards F18SHs and Boeing will do anything that this will happen.
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2012
  10. littlejohn

    littlejohn 2nd Lieutant FULL MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jan 14, 2012
    Messages:
    107
    Likes Received:
    23
    Yes I understand that, I guess my post was not very well written. What I meant is at equal speed and level flight you would use say 1deg AoA in clean config but 5deg in heavy config to generate the extra lift necessary to offset your extra weight (I have no idea about the actual figures this is just an example). So the limit AoA of course is the same (namely 30deg) but in clean config you still have 29deg AoA in your pocket to pull plenty of Gs, whereas you have only got 25deg left in heavy config which therefore could constitute a limitation in terms of number of G available (purely from the aerdynamic point of vue). This may especially be the case at low speed where high AoA are already needed just to maintain a straight level flight path which further limits the amount of AoA left before the 30deg limit. Would you agree with that?

    I quite like HUD pictures as they can tell a lot about the aircraft performance. I take it the speed shown isn't the true airspeed, it is the "indicated speed" isn't?

    I remember watching this video... This Rafale nearly crashed into the sea...

    Thanks again for your informative answer.
     
  11. SpArK

    SpArK SorCeroR Staff Member ADMINISTRATOR

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2010
    Messages:
    4,159
    Likes Received:
    2,111
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
     
    5 people like this.
  12. G777

    G777 Lt. Colonel ELITE MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2011
    Messages:
    6,312
    Likes Received:
    1,284
    Country Flag:
    United Kingdom
    I like how you see things. I am sure however many countrys will look into these problems before making a selection on what aircraft they want and how to benefit from a deal even if the aircraft is expensive, old or even problems with the industry. So far it looks like some countries might actuall take Eurofighters. Probably best just to wait and see.
     
  13. Sancho

    Sancho Lt. Colonel IDF NewBie

    Joined:
    May 3, 2011
    Messages:
    5,687
    Likes Received:
    3,462
    Of course some countries might take EF, but that depends on many different reasons. The only reason why the Saudis wants EF for example is Strom Shadow. The US (pressured by Israel) won't allow the addition of cruise missiles to their fiighters sold to Arab countries. That's the same reason why the UAE wanted addiitional Mirage 2000s or now considers Rafales and why additional F16s or new F15, F18SH doesn't make any sence to them.
    However, we were talking about benefits for BAE workers and the only way they benefit are new orders that will be placed at their lines and that logically can only be T3As, since T3B is not even developed yet and most likely will be diverted mainly to India, IF we select EF.
    I still hope that your MoD will push for the Telemos and BAE workers will at least get parts of this production, as well as I hope that BAE will join the nEUROn development.
     
  14. Manmohan Yadav

    Manmohan Yadav Brigadier STAR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2011
    Messages:
    21,213
    Likes Received:
    5,716
    Country Flag:
    India
    I heard that Even though Rafale is comparatively cheaper than the EFT, the spares are worth Gold for the Rafale.


    BTW, Rafale Nadal Beat Roger Fedrer in a match yesterday :toast_sign:
     
  15. Dare2

    Dare2 Captain SENIOR MEMBER

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2011
    Messages:
    1,728
    Likes Received:
    602
    Yes of course, it is what i was saying but in a different way, the real issue being the Lift coeficient and wingloading, if you are heavier, overal lift vs weight is lower so you will need a little more AoA to compansate.

    But this doesn't play with a difference of 650 kg in the case of the Rafale M compared to the C, it won't makes more difference with 4 or 6 AAMs and pylons, the aircraft flight envelop will still be very close if not similar, only drag will start to tell a little in terms of acceleration and energy recovery/loss though AAMs and pylons are very low drag, wingtip AAMs are not taken in to account to compute drag for example, for an aircraft which LIFT allows it to carry 1.5 its own weight it is to be expected if you see what i mean.


    I think it is true airspeed, i can't possibly remember everything but if it was me flying this thing (one can dream) i would like to have True airspeed (TAS) because it is what matters most, you don't really care about anything else when you maneuver close to the gound.

    Wind at ground level determines your landing speed for example...

    (ps Au sujet du debat sur les incidences en diferenciel des canards dans le forum A-D (si tu a l'occasion:)

    Je ne le sais pas dans le cas des Chinois, mais pour les Europeens je suis sur d'une chose, si leur incidence peut etre "testee" au sol en differenciel par l'ordinateur de vol, ces surfaces ne sont pas utilisee en differenciel en vol sur Rafale/Gripen/Typhoon comme c'est le cas pour F-14/F/A-18 par example.

    La raison etant que ce genre de mise en incidence des surface de controle de tanguage en roulis demande des structures dessinees en fonction de cette utilisation, plus resistante a la torsion et que si c'est apliquable sur l'arriere du fuselage a vitesses basse dans certain appareils (rigidite demandee par la presence moteurs et empennage qui est en fait assez similaire aux ailerons dans sa fonction; utilise en roulis aux grand angles), ca n'est pas le cas pour l'avant pour des raisons de poid.

    De plus ca n'a pas de sens dans la mesure ou par example, comme c'est le cas sur les canard integres mobiles (Rafale/Gripen), l'incidence des canard (+ ou -) augmente la reponse de l'aile a l'incidences des surfaces de controle, c'est la difference fondamentale entre la generation Kfir/Mirage IIIS/Mirage IIING et le Rafale.

    Donc a priori, une solution utilisee avant tout pour palier a la baisse d'efficacite des ailerons au vitesse plus basse et angle d'attaque plus eleves (F-14/F/A-18) n'est pas d'actualite sur les avions dont l'aerodynamique permet cette compensation naturellement sans recourir a cette solution, le Typhoon lui n'a pas cette chance avec un taux de roulis 90*/sec plus lent et des reponses en roulis sans commune mesure avec celles du Rafale.

    Dans le cas du Rafale, le plus simple marche aussi le mieux, une aerodynamique achevee, ca sauve du poid, de la trainee et on retiens un niveau de controle et une reponse aux changement d'incidence des surfaces aux basse vitesses et grand angles la ou les autres sont a la peine...
     
    Last edited: Jan 28, 2012
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page