What's new

Australian scientists recommended F35, F15E and RAFALE!

sancho

ELITE MEMBER
Joined
Feb 5, 2009
Messages
13,011
Reaction score
27
Country
India
Location
Germany
This is not directly related to MMRCA, but though the study includes some of the fighters, it is interesting to read other point of views of them and also about the F35, which is possible for IN.

Scientists warned defence department against Joint Strike Fighter

AN internal Defence study warned that the new Joint Strike Fighter would be a high-risk venture for Australia, admitting that the plane had weaknesses, including poor engine thrust that made it difficult to dodge missiles.

The blunt criticisms of the warplane contained in the study by Defence scientists in 2000 have never been aired publicly by the government.

But the Defence Science and Technology Organisation study, obtained by The Australian, was far more critical of the other fighter jet options available to Australia if it did not choose the JSF.

The document uses highly undiplomatic language to trash the performance of the warplanes used by Australia's closest allies.

The DSTO study, described as a "first-cut analysis" of Australia's future fighter needs, was written two years before the Howard government signed up to the US-led JSF program in 2002, abandoning the tender process and stunning aircraft manufacturers.
Titled "A Preliminary Assessment of Inhabited Platforms for AIR6000" and written by the DSTO's Graeme Murray and David Carr, the study is significant because it is one of only a handful of studies that looked at alternatives to the JSF.

The government plans to buy 100 JSFs for $16 billion in what will be the largest Australian defence purchase in history.

The DSTO report, written at a time when the JSF existed only on paper, said that if Australia signed on to the JSF program, it would be doing so without knowing the plane's final capability and costs.

"JSF has present serious shortfalls in engine performance and incomplete sensor-fusion capability," the DSTO said.

"The aircraft lacks engine thrust in the baseline configuration due to the high weight, affecting the use of manoeuvrability to defeat missile attack."

It also warned of hi-tech risks in the program because of tight schedule and cost targets, but it gave the plane strong marks for its stealth, range, payload and its "all weather, 24-hour lethality".

It said the JSF would not be cheaper to acquire than other fighters, but would be cheaper to maintain and service.

The study favours the JSF over other options and is blunt about the shortcomings of Australia's other fighter options. It describes the US F-16 used by the US Air Force as having a weak airframe and poor stealth.

"Old airframe lacks agility to outmanoeuvre missiles and has a small internal fuel capacity," the DSTO said of the F-16.

It said Europe's Typhoon fighter had limited strike capability and was unreliable.

"Present (strike) capability is lacking due to limited sensors and weapons carrying capability," it said of the Typhoon.

"Low reliability will mean high costs to operate."

It said Sweden's Gripen fighter had poor stealth, an underdeveloped electronic warfare system and payload and range limitations.

The DSTO found that the earlier version of the F/A-18E Super Hornet -- not the Block II version that has since been purchased by Australia -- was underpowered, lacked endurance and "risks being shot from behind with a radar-guided missile".

The US F-15E lacked stealth while France's Rafale had an unreliable and weak engine.

"The F-15E is good now, but not likely to be defensible in the expected electronic warfare environment in the 2010 timeframe," the DSTO said. "Rafale has short-term shortfalls in engine and radar performance."

The DSTO said the F-22 fighter -- the production of which was recently cancelled by US Defence Secretary Robert Gates -- had limited strike capability and was very expensive.

Despite these criticisms, the study recommended narrowing Australia's choice of a new fighter jet to only three: the JSF, the American F-15E and the French Rafale.

Scientists warned defence department against Joint Strike Fighter | The Australian

So although the study found out that the Rafale has not enough engine thrust (possibly the same reasons that UAE pointed out before, because of hot climate conditions) and radar performance, it was prefered over EF, Gripen NG and F16!
 
This is not directly related to MMRCA, but though the study includes some of the fighters, it is interesting to read other point of views of them and also about the F35, which is possible for IN.



Scientists warned defence department against Joint Strike Fighter | The Australian

So although the study found out that the Rafale has not enough engine thrust (possibly the same reasons that UAE pointed out before, because of hot climate conditions) and radar performance, it was prefered over EF, Gripen NG and F16!

Australian scientists recommended F35, F15E and RAFALE!
The title is wrong..

Also, the article seams more like usual Aussie propaganda against F-35..

The article says lack of thrust will reduce the capacity of the plane to out-maneuver missile. How much chances are there that a stealth plane will have to run away from an incoming missile?
Also, the maker is actually advertising the sensor-fusion of the plane..

May be the thrust is not so much, and may be sensor fusion inadequate, still, f35 is the best plane in market as of now.
 
General characteristics

* Crew: 1
* Length: 51.4 ft (15.67 m)
* Wingspan: 35 ft (10.7 m)
* Height: 14.2 ft [nb 1] (4.33 m)
* Wing area: 460 ft² [63] (42.7 m²)
* Empty weight: 29,300 lb (13,300 kg)
* Loaded weight: 44,400 lb (20,100 kg)
* Max takeoff weight: 70,000 lb[nb 2] (31,800 kg)
* Powerplant: 1× Pratt & Whitney F135 afterburning turbofan
o Dry thrust: 28,000 lbf[215] (125 kN)
o Thrust with afterburner: 43,000 lbf[215] (191 kN)
* Internal fuel: 18,480 lb (8,382 kg) [nb 3]

Performance

* Maximum speed: Mach 1.67[216] (1,283 mph, 2,065 km/h)
* Range: 1,200 nmi (2,220 km) on internal fuel[217]
* Combat radius: 610 nmi [nb 4] (1,110 km) on internal fuel[217]
* Service ceiling: 60,000 ft[218] (18,288 m)
* Rate of climb: classified (not publicly available)
* Wing loading: 91.4 lb/ft² (446 kg/m²)
* Thrust/weight:
o With full fuel: 0.84;[63][nb 5]
o With 50% fuel: 1.04 B: [63][nb 6]
* g-Limits: 9 g[nb 7]

Armament

* Guns: 1 × GAU-22/A 25 mm (0.984 in) cannon internally with 180 rounds[nb 8][60]
* Hardpoints: 6× external pylons on wings with a capacity of 15,000 lb (6,800 kg)[60][63] and 2 × internal bays with 2 pylons each[63] for a total weapons payload of 18,000 lb (8,100 kg)[219] and provisions to carry combinations of:
o Missiles:
+ Air-to-air: AIM-120 AMRAAM, AIM-132 ASRAAM, AIM-9X Sidewinder, IRIS-T
+ Air-to-ground: AGM-154 JSOW, AGM-158 JASSM[68]
o Bombs:
+ Mark 84, Mark 83 and Mark 82 GP bombs
+ Mk.20 Rockeye II cluster bomb
+ Wind Corrected Munitions Dispenser capable
+ Paveway-series laser-guided bombs
+ Small Diameter Bomb (SDB)
+ JDAM-series
+ A future nuclear weapon[220][221]

Avionics

* AN/APG-81 AESA radar

feaafee7d712cc3e5a54dc3916f5d2e8.jpg




fcc56607238374448b3dd2a73eb1d82a.jpg


68cf8be8527200de21f0d5a3a15f3c43.jpg


76938c34fca9b2a07f14ec4a4c4af439.jpg
 
Well IN wont go for any of the jets cause the have already ordered mig29k for carriers and we even have the 5th generation fighter jet developed by russia .we'll have the naval version for the navy though years to come .some mig29k have already arrived in india though theyll operate from land till carrier gets ready
 
Australian scientists recommended F35, F15E and RAFALE!
The title is wrong..

Also, the article seams more like usual Aussie propaganda against F-35..

The article says lack of thrust will reduce the capacity of the plane to out-maneuver missile. How much chances are there that a stealth plane will have to run away from an incoming missile?
Also, the maker is actually advertising the sensor-fusion of the plane..

May be the thrust is not so much, and may be sensor fusion inadequate, still, f35 is the best plane in market as of now.
Read the last paragraph:
Despite these criticisms, the study recommended narrowing Australia's choice of a new fighter jet to only three: the JSF, the American F-15E and the French Rafale.
The study only points out the disadvantages of F35 like the high costs ($160 millions per fighter), but still say that it's a good fighter and one of the preferable for Australia, they just think about other alternatives too.

Btw stealth don't mean invisible for radar, only very hard to detect. If the distance is not too far, or the F35 carries external loads (fuel tanks, cruise, or anti ship missiles) it will be much more visible for radar and those weight problems are not only published from Australians.
However, the pros and cons of F35 as well as the advantage of Rafale over the others are interesting points for our forces as well.
 
worth sharing

FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale - Rampant Rafale​

Most advanced Allied air forces now have operational fleets of fourth-generation fighters (defined by attributes such as being fly-by-wire, highly unstable, highly agile, net-centric, multi-weapon and multi-role assets).

These Western types include the Boeing F/A-18E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon and Saab Gripen NG. The Boeing F-15E and Lockheed Martin F-16 have an older heritage, but their latest upgrades give them similar multi-role mission capabilities. Of the above group, only the Super Hornet and Rafale M are capable of aircraft-carrier operations.

As these fourth-generation fighters' weapons, sensor systems and net-centric capabilities mature, the likelihood of export orders for such an operationally proven package becomes much more realistic.

EXCLUSIVE ACCESS

On behalf of Flight International, I became the first UK test pilot to evaluate the Rafale in its current F3 production standard, applicable to aircraft for both French air force and French navy frontline squadrons.

he "proof-of-concept" Rafale A first flew in 1986 as an aerodynamic study, leading to the programme's formal launch two years later. The slightly smaller single-seat Rafale C01 and two-seat B01 for the French air force and single-seat M01 and M02 prototypes for the navy flew from 1991.

The first production-standard Rafale flew in 1998, and entered service with the navy's 12F squadron at Landivisiau in 2004 in the F1 (air-to-air) standard. Deliveries of the air force's B- and C-model aircraft started in 2006 in the F2 standard, dubbed "omnirole" by Dassault. Since 2008, all Rafales have been delivered in the F3 standard, which adds reconnaissance pod integration and MBDA's ASMP-A nuclear weapon capability. All aircraft delivered in earlier production standards will be brought up to the F3 configuration over the next two years.

The French forces plan to purchase 294 Rafales: 234 for the air force and 60 for the navy. Their Rafales are set to replace seven legacy fighter types, and will remain as France's principal combat aircraft until at least 2040. To date, about 70 Rafales have been delivered, with a current production rate of 12 a year.

Rafale components and airframe sections are built at various Dassault facilities across France and assembled near Bordeaux, but maintained in design and engineering configuration "lockstep" using the virtual reality, Dassault-patented Catia database also used on the company's Falcon 7X business jet.

Rafale software upgrades are scheduled to take place every two years, a complete set of new-generation sensors is set for 2012 and a full mid-life upgrade is planned for 2020.

The Rafale was always designed as an aircraft capable of any air-to-ground, reconnaissance or nuclear strike mission, but retaining superb air-to-air performance and capabilities. Air force and navy examples have made three fully operational deployments to Afghanistan since 2005, giving the French forces unparalleled combat and logistical experience.

The commitments have also proved the aircraft's net-centric capabilities within the co-ordination required by coalition air forces and the command and control environment when delivering air support services to ground forces. Six Rafale Ms recently carried out a major joint exercise with the US Navy from the deck of the Nimitz-class aircraft carrier the USS Theodore Roosevelt.

The air force's B/C fighters have 80% commonality with the navy's Rafale M model, the main differences being the latter's navalised landing gear, arrestor hook and some fuselage longitudinal strengthening. Overall, the M is about 300kg (661lb) heavier than the B, and has 13 hardpoints, against the 14 found on air force examples.

'OMNIROLE' DESIGN

Dassault describes the Rafale as omnirole rather than multirole. This is derived from the wide variety of air-to-ground and air-to-air weapons, sensor pods and fuel tank combinations it can carry; the optimisation of aircraft materials and construction; and the full authority digital FBW controlling a highly agile (very aerodynamically unstable) platform.

This also gives the aircraft a massive centre of gravity range and allows for a huge combination of different mission stores to be carried, including the asymmetric loading of heavy stores, both laterally and longitudinally.

Other attributes include the wide range of smart and discrete sensors developed for the aircraft, and the way that the vast array of received information is "data fused" by a powerful central computer to reduce pilot workload when presented in the head-down, head-level and head-up displays.

The Rafale is designed for day or night covert low-level penetration, and can carry a maximum of 9.5t of external ordinance, equal to the much larger F-15E. With a basic empty weight of 10.3t, an internal fuel capacity of 4.7t and a maximum take-off weight of 24.5t, the Rafale can lift 140% of additional load, above its own empty weight, into combat.

Added to the "active" elements of the aircraft's design are Rafale's "passive" safety features, which protect the pilot in various ways. These include "carefree handling" and automatic loss of control/airframe overstress protection allowed for by the digital flight control system (DFCS); the visual and audio low speed warning system; the continuously computed "deck awareness/ground watch" system with audio warning and HUD guidance for pull-out; and the pilot-initiated "spatial disorientation" automatic recovery mode from both nose high and nose low situations. Dassault also plans to introduce an automatic "g-loc" recovery mode.

The aircraft has been designed from the outset to take on any role (air, ground, reconnaissance and strike), but still have the flexibility to rapidly switch roles effectively once the sortie is under way if operational requirements change. Dassault calls this concept "fight and forget", which means that the Rafale pilot can concentrate on the tactical situation and weapons delivery, secure in the knowledge that the aircraft's systems are continually guarding his/her back.

Sensors integrated into the Rafale F3 standard include the Thales RBE2 radar, which gives multi-track air-to-air, ship track, terrain following radar (TFR) and synthetic aperture navigation modes. The RBE2 will be upgraded to a fully active electronically scanned array starting in 2012. Dassault's large ownership share of Thales means it can have significant influence on how the radar is tailored to the aircraft and how it can be exported.

The Spectra electronic countermeasures system is fully internal and provides radar warning receiver (RWR), active jamming, infrared missile approach warning, laser detection and chaff/flare. Data from Spectra is also "data fused" and fed into the pilot's tactical display. Additionally, the system can be rapidly reprogrammed by frontline ground technicians, as demonstrated operationally in Afghanistan.

On the aircraft's nose is the front sector optronics (FSO) suite, comprising a high-magnification TV sensor for single-target identification, and an infrared search-and-track sensor for multiple target detection in a "ball type" housing. The Thales Optronique Damocles pod is used for laser designation and can also provide a forward-looking infrared picture into the HUD. The Reco NG/Areos reconnaissance pod, carried centreline, provides long-range optical IR/visual capability by day or night, with datalink transmission of the recorded data to a ground station. The data can also be viewed by the pilot in the cockpit.

Datalinks include NATO's Link 16 standard, the close air support (CAS) Mode M datalink (image) and the CAS Rover datalink (video). The Rafale system enables the pilot to display image or video on either left or right head-down lateral displays, or on the head-level display. The pilot can also choose the cockpit image from whatever sensor source he/she wants, to transmit to a forward air controller, rather than be bound by a single image type fixed to just one sensor pod.

PAYLOAD FLEXIBILITY

The main air-to-air weapon type is the IR or radar homing Mica missile from MBDA. France is also collaborating on the same firm's beyond-visual-range Meteor missile, planned for 2016. An internal 30mm cannon with 125 shells adds short-range firepower.

For interdiction, the long-range weapons carried include the ASMP-A missile and MBDA's modular Scalp-EG, and the main anti-shipping weapon is the MBDA AM39 Exocet. For ground attack, the Rafale is cleared to carry laser-guided bomb types GBU-12 and GBU-22, with GBU-24 planned from 2010.

Sagem's 113kg AASM bomb is the French equivalent of the USA's Boeing JDAM, but has an aft rocket booster for additional range and features GPS or IR terminal guidance. It allows for a pre-programmed individual ground target engagement per bomb and from a multiple release profile, with three carried per bomb rack. In Afghanistan, the French call the AASM "magic bombs".

The Rafale has five "wet" hardpoints for fuel tanks. All five can accept the 1,250-litre (330USgal) (fully supersonic) tank, and the inner three central hardpoints can accept the larger (up to M0.95) 2,000-litre tank. An enhancing feature is that the Rafale can also carry a buddy-buddy refuelling pod.

The cockpit is fully night vision goggle compatible. Pilot helmet-mounted display and direct voice input are available as customer options.

The aircraft is a close-coupled design with two large canards, four leading-edge slats, four trailing elevons and one rudder to optimise lift/drag and reduce side-slip in all flight phases. The hydraulic system powering the flying controls operates at over 345bar (5,000lb/in2). Its DFCS is Dassault designed and manufactured in-house, and is the digital development of the Mirage 2000's analogue FCS.

The new system is better able to map the allowable flight envelope and give the aircraft even higher flying qualities than those of the Mirage 2000. The DFCS has three independent digital channels, with the fourth back-up channel being one of main analogue channels from the Mirage 2000.

The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity. The aircraft continuously "recognises" the load it carries, but indicates and leaves the final DFCS mode selection to the pilot. Minus g limit in all modes is -3.2.

Engines are two Snecma M88-2E4s generating a combined 22,500lb (100kN) of thrust dry and 34,000lb in full afterburner. Time from idle to full afterburner is just 4s at any altitude. The aircraft has a fixed flight refuelling probe and its canards and elevons operate in conjunction to act as a fully variable airbrake, with both features intended to save weight. Maximum speed is M1.8/750kt (1,390km/h), service ceiling 55,000ft (16,800m), and typical approach speed at mid-weight (15t) and 16° AoA an indicated 125kt.

Powerful carbon brakes allow for landing distances as short as 450m without the need for a brake parachute.

My evaluation aircraft was two-seat Rafale B number B301, the first production model to be delivered, which Dassault retains for test purposes. The cockpit was to full F3 standard, with just a small additional test control panel (telemetry) fitted in the front cockpit. The sortie was flown from Istres, near Marseilles.

I did not have time for any simulator, avionics bench or groundschool training. I received a 1.5h cockpit familiarisation on the ground in a Rafale at Dassault's Istres facility on the day before the evaluation. Other than this, I would fly the complete evaluation myself from the front cockpit. The ease and success with which I could fly and cope with such a massively capable fighter would be a clear indication of the Rafale's "fight and forget" design concept.

TEST OBJECTIVES

My evaluation objectives were threefold. Could the Rafale properly be termed "omnirole" with the range of its on-board sensors and weapons? Was the aircraft truly a fourth-generation fighter in terms of performance? And would its safety features keep me safe in such a demanding flight evaluation profile having had no time for any familiarisation in the simulator?

My safety pilot for the evaluation was Dassault Rafale project test pilot Olivier "Nino" Ferrer, an ex-French navy fighter pilot and highly experienced on Vought F-8 Crusaders and Dassault Super Etendards. A chase Mirage 2000 was used to provide close formation, air-to-air refuelling and tail-chase evaluation, and was flown by Philippe Duchateau, another Dassault project test pilot.

Pre-mission planning was carried out on a standard commercial computer laptop with access to the loaded program (confidential) protected by a security dongle inserted into the laptop USB. The mission plan was then downloaded onto a solid-state mil-spec memory card and loaded by the pilot via a panel on the left side of the aircraft.

I thought this straightforward but simple planning system was a very enhancing design feature, especially when the aircraft would be detached on operations or away from its main base on land-away.

I wore standard French flying clothing, including life preserver and g-suit. With the Rafale's Martin-Baker Mk16 ejection seat raked back at nearly 30°, the French have found there is no operational need for an upper-body pressure suit. Entry and exit to the B/C models is via a ground crew-positioned vertical ladder, but the M model has an integral drop-down step. Seat height and rudder pedal adjustment is electric, and the cockpit is a classic fighter "snug" fit, but with all the required flight switches forward of the 3-9 body line, it fitted me like a glove.

The single throttle and sidestick controller contain over 34 separate switches, many with multifunctions, but the main switches such as airbrake, radio telecommunications, auto pilot and auto throttle were "chunky" and easy to differentiate.

The left and right lateral head-down display screens were touch sensitive with additional L/R rotary and L/R finger switches to designate and control display modes. It is here, for some routine tasks, that a future direct voice input upgrade could be useful.

The head-level display (HLD) allowed for a wide-angle view of the tactical situation and is focused at infinity, so there is no need to refocus your eyes when scanning rapidly between head-up and head-level. Advances in display technology may enable a future HLD to retain the same advantages in a more flat panel display and give more cockpit space.

The wide-angle (30° x 20°) holographic HUD meant the displayed symbology was delightfully uncluttered and sharply focused and could be viewed completely without any head movement away from a design eye point position.

After the sideways-hinged canopy (designed to allow for unrestricted ejection seat removal if required) was closed electrically and with a rapid engine start using the auxiliary power unit completed, we were ready to taxi about 90s after engine stabilisation.

Taxi speed is easily controlled, because the residual ground thrust is limited by keeping both "mini-throttles" (acting as low-pressure cocks) in the "idle" position before setting them to "normal" for take-off. Ground steering was highly accurate and responsive, and the brakes were very smooth and progressive.

FULL AFTERBURNER

Our take-off mass was 16.1t (10.8t basic and 5.3t fuel) carrying one supersonic fuel tank centreline. Take-off was in full afterburner from the brakes and with a rotate of 125kt that came about 9s after brake release. Gear was retracted immediately after lift-off and afterburner cancelled at 250kt.

I was immediately aware after take-off of the sensitivity of the flight controls to any demand I made. The aircraft felt alive in my hands. I have never flown any aircraft that responded so instantly and so powerfully to stick input. The Mirage 2000 had previously been my favourite FBW aircraft in terms of handling qualities, but the Rafale with its DFCS betters it in every aspect of handling by a significant margin.

Climbing to 15,000ft into the test area was flown at 350kt, full afterburner and 35° nose-up. In air-to-ground DFCS Stores Position 1 (ST1) at 350kt, mild buffet was encountered at +4.5g with 4t of fuel. In full dry power, a wind-up turn showed that the aircraft could maintain 350kt at +5.0g with just 10° of nose-down pitch.

Later in the sortie at the lower fuel weight of 2t and 500kt, with the DFCS Stores Position set to air-to-air, the aircraft was pulled rapidly and effortlessly through to +9g and could be held there over a significant speed range. A final level acceleration from 200-500kt in full afterburner at 5,000ft and 1.8t fuel weight can only be described as brutal, with the aircraft increasing speed at about 30kt/s and the force of acceleration hurting my spine as I was pressed backwards against the ejection seat.

The steady state roll rate at 350kt was 270°/s and the roll onset felt rapid but comfortable. At 450kt, the same steady-state roll rate was achieved, but the rate of roll onset was simply staggering. I have never experienced any fighter aircraft start or stop to roll so quickly.

SAFETY FEATURES

The low-speed warning system was assessed by putting the aircraft into a 35° climb at 200kt at 15,000ft and closing the throttle. The HUD showed a "low speed" visual caution and the audio sounded "recover" as we went through about 100kt and flopped out.

The aircraft does feature an "anti-spin" switch but, to date, it has never been used, and even during the "spin phase" during development it proved resistant to spin even with the HUD indicated airspeed (shown in a video recording) falling to below 50kt in pro-spin manoeuvres.

The auto recovery button was evaluated and I activated it in nose-low and nose-high situations. The auto pilot and auto throttle instantly engaged to very positively roll and pull the aircraft (as required) to re-establish it in a 5° climb at 350kt. The system engagement was an impressive safety feature to recover from pilot disorientation.

Re-climbing to 25,000ft, the aircraft was put supersonic up to M1.2 in a shallow dive and then pulled back subsonic to M0.8 in a 4g turn with the throttle slammed closed. The manoeuvre was completely benign and with the canard/elevon airbrake function proving highly effective.

The formation and tail chase evaluation was initiated by locking up the Mirage 2000 chase aircraft on the RBE2 at over 55km (30nm) and identifying him visually using the FSO TV presented on the right lateral head-down display.

In close formation, I initially found the Rafale over-sensitive in pitch, but telemetry informed me that I was holding the sidestick too high up, and after changing my grip, I could hold echelon position without problem. However, it was another clear indication of just how agile the aircraft is.

In line astern, the refuel "RFL" DFCS switch was activated, which reduced the flight-control sensitivity and made the aircraft "feel" much more stable and conventional in response, much like a BAE Systems Hawk. With "RFL" selected, a pilot would find an in-flight refuelling probe contact to a tanker drogue to be routine.

Resetting the DFCS and with the warning system ensuring I had gone from ST1 to air-to-air mode, I dropped back to about 500m line astern on the Mirage for a short tail-chase. This just re-emphasised the power of the Rafale and the accuracy of its controls. The aircraft can be flown in a "bang-bang" manner between axes, rather than requiring "rolling pulls". The Rafale is an outstanding close-in dogfighter whenever it wants to be.

The final handling manoeuvre was to complete a low-speed loop in full afterburner starting from 170kt and maintaining 16° AoA. The loop was simple to fly and control and I used just over 2,000ft vertically to complete it: don't try that in a Panavia Tornado. Dassault says it may re-evaluate the fast jet format pitch ladder format to reduce pitch ladder "blur" at commanded high pitch rates.

I could not fault the carefree handling characteristics or the throttle response of the Rafale in any regime, and the only limit I ever had to remember in the flight was the gear limit (230kt). The Rafale was an absolute pleasure to fly, while remaining almost unbelievably responsive.

LOW-LEVEL RIDE

From medium level, I descended to low level and engaged the autopilot and autothrottle into covert terrain-following mode along our pre-planned mission route at 450kt/500ft above ground level (for noise abatement), first over the sea and then over the rugged terrain south-west of Arles.

The covert mode used a GPS database, but it can also use TF Radalt or the RBE2 TFR mode as back-up. Low-level ride was excellent in the gusty Mistral conditions, as was the accuracy of the TF profile followed by the aircraft over the semi-mountainous terrain, including flying towards sharply rising cliffs. The "ground watch" system painted a constantly updated escape profile floor in the HUD. With the TF engaged, Nino explained to me some more of the "data fused" symbology in the tactical HLD and altered the flight planned route and the time over target, which was then followed by the autopilot and autothrottle in speed mode.

At the same time, with both of us completely head-in and on TF autopilot, Nino locked up and the FSO TV identified airliners 10,000ft above us, and used the Spectra RWR to cue the FSO TV to do the same against a passing Mirage 2000 on a low-level mission.

Approaching the target, the release envelope ground "bubble" for the AASM was displayed in the tactical HLD, and "shoot" in the HUD. When within the AASM envelope, target bomb track is largely immaterial and, with the weapon button depressed and held, the five simulated programmed AASMs released to individual targets in a 0.5s separated salvo.

Breaking off from the attack run, I rejoined Istres for three visual circuits. The first two were "carrier" type and used the AT mode to hold 16° AOA around the final turn and which I found to be an excellent aid to reduce carrier pilot workload. The landing attitude in the flare from about 18° AoA while sitting on a seat raked back at 30° takes a little getting used to, because you tend to touch earlier than you expect.

The third circuit was flown aggressively at low level with manual throttle used around finals to a maximum braking effort landing using about 500m of runway to stop. The HUD approach symbology and especially the very rapid engine response made circuit flying simple. We shut down after a sortie of 1h 25min with 470kg of fuel.

DISTINCT ADVANTAGE

It is worth remembering that stealth-optimised, or fifth-generation fighters such as the Lockheed F-22 Raptor and F-35 Joint Strike Fighter are not only likely to be hugely expensive, but they can only preserve their stealth characteristics by carrying a very limited weapons load in their internal weapon bays.

Therefore, in the current and predicted financial defence climate, it could well be that so-called fourth-generation fighters will remain the aircraft of choice for most nations - perhaps even including the UK.

Moreover, the fact that the Rafale is the only European fighter in production that is carrier-capable gives it, in my opinion, a distinct advantage in any future export "fly-off" competition as a single combat type that can equip a country's air force and naval air arm.

In answer to my own evaluation objectives, it was obvious the Rafale has earned its omnirole definition, even though I barely scratched the surface of its sensor and weapon capabilities. The aircraft has an incredible level of performance befitting a fourth-generation type, and despite flying a highly complex and demanding evaluation sortie, I felt completely at home in the aircraft and retained full situational awareness. If it could keep me safe, it would also do the same for young first-tourist pilots coping with tactical operations.

The classic definitions of aircraft combat roles really do not do justice to this aircraft; the Rafale is Europe's force-multiplying "war-fighter" par excellence. It is simply the best and most complete combat aircraft that I have ever flown. Its operational deployments speak for themselves. If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.

FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale - Rampant Rafale
 
RAFALE, AS GOOD AS ITS PRESS?
For many observers, the star of the Dubai air show was Dassault’s Rafale, coverage of which dominated the various air show daily newspapers. Following the June 2008 announcement that the UAE government was in discussions to buy the Rafale, many expected a contract to be signed during 2009, possibly during the show.
But while the companies that make up ‘Team Rafale’ did sign a plethora of contracts with local organisations and entities that looked like part of an ‘offset’ deal, strengthening French involvement and influence in the UAE education, technology and aviation sectors, and though Dassault’s delegation at Dubai included Serge Dassault himself, and Charles Edelstenne (Dassault President), no Rafale deal was inked.
And some have speculated that the Rafale deal may have already started to slip out of Dassault’s grasp. Brigadier General Ibrahim Naser Alalawi, deputy commander of the UAE Air Force and Air Defence, expressed his hope that the UAE would have a fifth-generation fighter within a couple of years, leading some to expect that the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter might win an order in place of the Rafale.
Retired Gen Khalid al Buainnain, the former chief of the UAE Armed Forces, emphasized the need for “interoperability” with other systems and weapons platforms – and especially the US-supplied Block 60 F-16E/F, and emphasized that there was no need to rush to sign a deal “because the capability of the Mirage 2000 and the F-16 is very strong”, while Riad Kahwaji, the chief executive of INEGMA, insisted that “The French government needs to find a solution for (finding a customer for the UAE’s existing) Mirage 2000s in order for the UAE to be able to purchase the Rafale.”
Others pointed to the sudden decision by Lockheed and Eurofighter to send their fighters to Dubai as perhaps indicating that the deal had not been finally sealed.
Rampant Rafale or Arrant Nonsense?
But despite all this, Dassault seemed to be winning the media battle, with the aircraft gaining a great deal of positive coverage in the local and specialist press – most notably in the UK trade magazine ‘Flight International’, which published an extended flight test in the week leading up to Dubai. This flight test (titled ‘Rampant Rafale’) was then re-printed in full in ‘Flight Daily News’ at the show, and is presented on Flightglobal at:
FLIGHT TEST: Dassault Rafale - Rampant Rafale
Flight printed the cover line ‘Rafale Rules!’ on it’s front cover – together with the taster “Why we think favourite for UAE fighter contest is most complete combat aircraft we have flown.”
Flight’s test pilot (Pete Collins, a retired RAF Wing Commander, former RAF test pilot and Red Arrow) concluded that: “If I had to go into combat, on any mission, against anyone, I would, without question, choose the Rafale.”
From such a pilot, this ringing endorsement seemed, on the face of it, to be unarguable.
But RAF Typhoon pilots in the UAE reacted with puzzled amusement and barely disguised scorn.
“If he thought that, he can’t have flown Typhoon” one told me, bluntly, while another (who had actually flown Rafale) explained that “the Rafale is underpowered by comparison with Typhoon, and needs reheat where we would use dry. We can get through the Mach and supercruise in dry power at typical operating altitudes, and you simply can’t do that in Rafale.”
Pilots who had experienced Rafale’s much vaunted MMI were less than fulsome, concluding that it was “probably great if you’re a Mirage 2000 pilot, but the test will be how a rookie adapts to it.” Even the Armée de l’Air acknowledge that it takes more than 100 flying hours to get used to the collimated cockpit display, they told Combat Aircraft.
And looking into the Flight flight test more carefully, it became clear that the glowing praise was based on flimsy foundations, as an RAF test flying insider (who has flown Typhoon, all of the US Teen Series fighters and the MiG-29) explained to us.
The Flight pilot

“Though Flight’s test pilot is a distinguished former RAF fighter and test pilot, he has little recent, relevant experience that would provide him with any real basis for comparison with the Rafale.
“Collins’ operational RAF flying was in the old ‘steam driven’ Harrier GR.Mk 3, and he also flew in the Falklands in the Sea Harrier FRS.Mk 1. As a Squadron Leader he flew with the Red Arrows but left the team after an aircraft accident.
“He trained as a Test Pilot in 1989, but then served at RAE (later DRA) Bedford on pure Aerospace Research flying – including flying the VAAC Harrier, which was used to develop an advanced FCS for the F-35. He did not serve at Boscombe Down and thus gained no experience of clearance/assessment/’operational fitness for purpose’ testing.
“Collins left the RAF and military test flying world in 1993 and joined Fokker where he flew F60 & F70 airliners, moving to Dornier at Ober Pfaffenhofen for two years after Fokker went bust. He flew the Do 328 turboprop and 328 Jet at Dornier. He subsequently joined KLM. He joined Raytheon as the UK TP/project pilot on the ASTOR Sentinel, and is still with Raytheon, based at Broughton in North Wales.
“Collins writes for Flight as a freelance 'guest Test Pilot' - mostly civil business jets and trainers, but he has flown and ‘reviewed’ four military trainers, the Aermacchi M311 and M346, the KAI T-50 and the Pilatus PC-21.
“As far as I know, the Rafale is the first Combat jet he has flown since the Harrier. He has not written any other articles on such aircraft. He has not flown much in the way of other advanced jets even when he was in the RAF. His comparisons with the Mirage 2000 seem to be quite dated - I suspect that he flew the Mirage 2000 as part of his ETPS course.”
The article itself
“Though a magazine article, it follows a well known and internationally accepted formula for a single flight evaluation. It is important to note what is an actual part of the evaluation and what is 'background'
“The article begins with a basic history of the aircraft’s development and in-service history. (Note though, the two-year software upgrade cycle!)
“The article moves on to a detailed aircraft description (headed Superb Performance & Cockpit Image). But while he broadly follows the template, he often strays from the normal specific Test Pilot descriptions and uses journalistic descriptions and superlatives which are not proven.
“He makes much of the fact that he flew front seat with 90 minutes cockpit familiarization - as if this was an unusual attribute that somehow demonstrates the greatness of the Rafale.
“This is not the case – Test Pilot training is to do exactly that for many aircraft. RAF test pilots routinely fly fighter types like this on one or two sortie evaluations, including the Su-27 Flanker, F-14, F15, F-16 and F/A-18.
“The article then moves on to the Test Flight itself, beginning with Pre-mission planning. Overall this was a very simple sortie profile, and his comments are hardly incisive.
“350 kt, in full afterburner at 35 degrees nose up is not that impressive - at that angle Typhoon will go Supersonic! Note that he was initially only allowed to fly A/S FCS laws! The quoted turn performance (mild buffet at 4.5 g and dry power and a sustained 5g at 350 kts needing 10 deg nose down pitch) is less than startling -our test pilots could do as well in an F-15 19 years ago when they assessed it at the end of the ETPS course. The acceleration (taking approximately 10 seconds to go from 200-500 knots) is good but so it should be for a twin engine fighter at that weight and altitude.
“Roll rates were clearly assessed at 1 g - a better evaluation would have been at elevated g or AoA as a combat capability - noticeably missing in his test.
“At 25,000 ft he went supersonic in a shallow dive - he does not say what power he used - if it was using afterburner, this is not great SEP (specific excess power). He made no comments on radar handling or as to what range the TV was used at. He treated pitch sensitivity as an indication of how agile the aircraft is – and this is bad Test Pilot analysis. The assessment of the AAR laws was cursory. His comments about the tail chase were similarly lacking - he could be comparing this to a Hawk and not another advanced aircraft.
“Two approaches in Auto-throttle mode say little about the aircraft, and Collins made no mention at all of flight path stability and the ability to rapidly correct a poor line up from decision height - both essential TP tests for approaches.
“Achieving 1 hour and 25 minutes with 5.3 tonnes of fuel (needing a centre line tank) and landing with 500 kg after the profile described says to me that the aircraft is not that different from the competition when it comes to range/endurance/fuel consumption.
“He is right in saying that he ‘only scratched the surface of the sensor and weapon capabilities'. That explains his claim to be 'fully at home in the aircraft, retaining full situational awareness.'
“The evaluation was rather cursory and the concluding superlatives are more journalistic than real conclusions and recommendations. If he would risk his life in any combat situation based on the evidence of what he actually saw...... words fail me!”
http://www.combataircraft.net/reports/rafale.php
 
Read the last paragraph:

The study only points out the disadvantages of F35 like the high costs ($160 millions per fighter), but still say that it's a good fighter and one of the preferable for Australia, they just think about other alternatives too.

Btw stealth don't mean invisible for radar, only very hard to detect. If the distance is not too far, or the F35 carries external loads (fuel tanks, cruise, or anti ship missiles) it will be much more visible for radar and those weight problems are not only published from Australians.
However, the pros and cons of F35 as well as the advantage of Rafale over the others are interesting points for our forces as well.

Well, sorry...
I did a selective reading (oops)!!
 
Engines are two Snecma M88-2E4s generating a combined22,500lb (100kN) of thrust dry and 34,000lb in full afterburner.
A bit misleading I think, because that is only the normal engines with a dry thrust of 50 kN and afterburner thrust of 75kN.
 
Also, the article seams more like usual Aussie propaganda against F-35..


Are you suggesting that Australia is purposely trying to make the JSF look bad? That would be very odd since Australia has funded a major part of the JSF program.


I think my country will definitely go for the JSF, since we put money in to fund it, otherwise i think we would go for the new Russian jet fighter.
 
Last edited:
Are you suggesting that Australia is purposely trying to make the JSF look bad? That would be very odd since Australia is funded a major part of the JSF program.

I think my country will definitely go for the JSF, since we put money in to fund it, otherwise i think we would go for the new Russian jet fighter.

May be I am wrong, but out of all the articles I have read against F35, 80% cited Aussie analysts!
The theory I heard behind it is to coerce US into selling F22 (lame, but what I read)
 
May be I am wrong, but out of all the articles I have read against F35, 80% cited Aussie analysts!
The theory I heard behind it is to coerce US into selling F22 (lame, but what I read)

Have you ever considered that there is no agenda behind this all? Have you considered that Australian experts are criticising the JSF because there is actual problems with it? :)
 

Back
Top Bottom