What's new

France To Challenge US F-35 Fighters’ Dominance With Stealthier & Hypersonic Missile-Enabled ‘Super Rafale’

Europeans love delta wings and canards. But delta wings creates drags.
Only in high G turns.
Delta offer higher instantaneous turn rate and lower sustained turn rates.
In a M2000 against F16 dog fight, M200 has to take the lead at the beginning (thanks to instantaneous turn rate) if not it is dead.
It's not without reasons that Dassault and SAAB decided to use that, despite classical wings experience (Mirage F1 for exemple).

What a wonderful response mon ami.
It gave a tour to you in order for you to understand how to make a great plane.
Just see the export track record of your marvellous EF2000 and compare it to the Rafale one : You will easily understand which is the greater plane of the two.
 
Only in high G turns.
Delta offer higher instantaneous turn rate and lower sustained turn rates.
In a M2000 against F16 dog fight, M200 has to take the lead at the beginning (thanks to instantaneous turn rate) if not it is dead.
It's not without reasons that Dassault and SAAB decided to use that, despite classical wings experience (Mirage F1 for exemple).


Just see the export track record of your marvellous EF2000 and compare it to the Rafale one : You will easily understand which is the greater plane of the two.

delta wings needs canards (a nice radar reflector) to turn and twist in a dogfight - or it is only good for straight line speed - canards are more like the elevators only they are in front. And , on the delta wings is very stable but lack of quick manoeuvre like turning close ratio!
 
delta wings needs canards (a nice radar reflector) to turn and twist in a dogfight - or it is only good for straight line speed - canards are more like the elevators only they are in front. And , on the delta wings is very stable but lack of quick manoeuvre like turning close ratio!
NO.
Mirage 2000 is not fitted with canards and is very agile.
Close canards are used to energize the air flow on top of the main wings, this is the explanation of the Rafale load capacity.
Mirage III was a stable platform. The same delta winged Mirage 2000 is unstable thanks to fly by wire.
If canards are nice radar reflector, it is the case of all classical tail of F16 or F18 or even F22/35 birds. Stop saying BS.

Why would it be dead if it doesn't?
Because after the first high G turns (thanks to its higher instantaneous turn rate), it loses its kinematic energy and they become the prey because its sustaneous turn rate became lower than a F16.
 
Frenchies..............always ..show me the money...
 
Because after the first high G turns (thanks to its higher instantaneous turn rate), it loses its kinematic energy and they become the prey because its sustaneous turn rate became lower than a F16.
Seems like very narrow milliseconds of opportunity gained for sacrificing all advantage the rest of the battle.
 
The main problem of Chinese weapons is that they all are not war proven.
war proven is a nonsense take.
No, it is not nonsense.

The all mechanical linkages flight control system is proven going back to WW I.

The hydraulic assisted flight control system is proven going back to WW II.

The computer assisted flight control system is proven going back to the Korean War.

The all computerized flight control system is proven going back to the Vietnam War.

If I replicate the Wright Flyer (1903), I can claim that my version is flight proven despite the century passed.

Do you see the point here?

It does not mean that if I use the combat proven quad redundant computerized FLCS established by the F-16, then all my fighters are 'combat proven'. In the overall schema, the final combat system, rifle or tank or ship or airplane, is judged by what rigors has it been thru. The quad redundant computerized FLCS is combat proven, but has the rest of the avionics package that includes sensors, nav, and comm? The issue is that no airplane design is COTS. Each design or platform or whatever word used is uniquely tuned to specs despite the fact that all airplanes operates in the same environment -- atmosphere. If I design an airplane that uses the quad redundant computerized FLCS and nothing else, then I can legitimately claim that my airplane is flight proven. But if my airplane is SUPPOSED to do more than just carry the pilot from A to B, then I cannot rest my airplane on just the FLCS because I am selling my airplane on ALL the features that are SUPPOSED to mesh and function as a single entity.

This is why with the F-15EX, while not yet been in combat, the US can legitimately claimed that the EX rests on a combat proven platform to the level that doubts of what it can do is usually secondary concern. Simply put, too many of its subsystems have been tested to failure, and the rigors of combat is that final stress point.
 
Seems like very narrow milliseconds of opportunity gained for sacrificing all advantage the rest of the battle.
Not milliseconds !
M2000 has the edge the first 2 or 3 initial turns. It has to win during these first turns, in a pure dog fight.

Frenchies..............always ..show me the money...
What is the link with the subject ?
 
Just see the export track record of your marvellous EF2000 and compare it to the Rafale one : You will easily understand which is the greater plane of the two.
@waz He's got a point there. Besides,the Mirage was a massive export success. Mirage III,Mirage IV,they have become legendary. Mirage F1 was pretty nice too. Mirage 2000 and 2000-5 were top quality. Now the Rafale has been selling like crazy.
Meanwhile the Eurofighter has been plagued by rumors of being too expensive to buy,fly and maintain.
 
No, it is not nonsense.

The all mechanical linkages flight control system is proven going back to WW I.

The hydraulic assisted flight control system is proven going back to WW II.

The computer assisted flight control system is proven going back to the Korean War.

The all computerized flight control system is proven going back to the Vietnam War.

If I replicate the Wright Flyer (1903), I can claim that my version is flight proven despite the century passed.

Do you see the point here?

It does not mean that if I use the combat proven quad redundant computerized FLCS established by the F-16, then all my fighters are 'combat proven'. In the overall schema, the final combat system, rifle or tank or ship or airplane, is judged by what rigors has it been thru. The quad redundant computerized FLCS is combat proven, but has the rest of the avionics package that includes sensors, nav, and comm? The issue is that no airplane design is COTS. Each design or platform or whatever word used is uniquely tuned to specs despite the fact that all airplanes operates in the same environment -- atmosphere. If I design an airplane that uses the quad redundant computerized FLCS and nothing else, then I can legitimately claim that my airplane is flight proven. But if my airplane is SUPPOSED to do more than just carry the pilot from A to B, then I cannot rest my airplane on just the FLCS because I am selling my airplane on ALL the features that are SUPPOSED to mesh and function as a single entity.

This is why with the F-15EX, while not yet been in combat, the US can legitimately claimed that the EX rests on a combat proven platform to the level that doubts of what it can do is usually secondary concern. Simply put, too many of its subsystems have been tested to failure, and the rigors of combat is that final stress point.


Battle proven title is like a marketing jargon; non battle proven is not necessarily worse than battle proven.

And the real battle proven for aircraft fighter should be winning in air combat with comparable fighter with the equal condition for the rest.

If F-16 win against Rafale with help AWACS while Rafale is alone the battle proven predicate is not commensurate.
 
Meanwhile the Eurofighter has been plagued by rumors of being too expensive to buy,fly and maintain.
With another 2 "shortcomings" : Low endurance in air to ground, and too specialized in air air (because it was studied to fly along the Tornado, so mainly in air to air cover. Unfortunately the fall of the iron wall delayed the program).

Battle proven title is like a marketing jargon; non battle proven is not necessarily worse than battle proven.

And the real battle proven for aircraft fighter should be winning in air combat with comparable fighter with the equal condition for the rest.

If F-16 win against Rafale with help AWACS while Rafale is alone the battle proven predicate is not commensurate.
AWACS will be the first rank air battle target !
Rafale Radar can track a F16 at a distance when the former can't fire an AMRAAM, even a last gen one. And then Meteor enter in the field.
 
Yet the France couldn't produce an engine which has similar thrust with F100.
Advanced air industry indeed ! 🤣
Btw even Turkey gets stealth fighter now.🤣
 
Yet the France couldn't produce an engine which has similar thrust with F100.
Advanced air industry indeed ! 🤣
Btw even Turkey gets stealth fighter now.🤣
And M53 is what ?
M53-P2 is a 9.7 tons engine, just 1 ton less than F100.

Turkey has stealth fighter? except an aero show fighter, even not air worthy I see absolutely nothing.
 

Pakistan Affairs Latest Posts

Back
Top Bottom