Dassault Rafale Combat Aircraft

[Alexej_nemov]

http://i2.tinypic.com/qoes77.png
Dassault Rafale Combat Aircraft

First Flight: 4 July 1986
Service Entry: 2002 (?)

http://i2.tinypic.com/qoef03.jpg

Rafale is a twin-jet combat aircraft capable of carrying out a wide range of short- and long-range missions, including ground and sea attack, air defence and air superiority, reconnaissance, and high-accuracy strike or nuclear strike deterrence

http://i2.tinypic.com/qoehhw.jpg

Instead of proceeding with the Eurofighter project, France decided to develop its own advanced next-generation fighter, the ACX, later to become the Rafale. The design incoporates canards and a fly-by-wire control system for exceptional maneuverability as well as radar-absorbant paint and more rounded surfaces to improve stealth. The Rafale C is a single seat attack fighter for the Air Force while the Rafale M is a navalized version designed to operate from French aircraft carriers. Current plans call for 94 one-seat and 140 two-seat aircraft to be built for the Air Force and 86 for the Navy. The Rafale is intended to replace the Air Force's Mirage III, Mirage 5, Mirage F.1, Jaguar, and Mirage IVP as well as the Navy's F-8 Crusader and Super Etendard.

Rafale C (Chasseur) Single-seat fighter for the Armée de l'Air
Rafale B (Biplace) Two-seat fighter for the AdA
Rafale M (Marine) Single-seat carrier fighter for the Aéronavale

http://i2.tinypic.com/qoei3c.jpg

The cockpit has hands-on throttle and stick control (HOTAS). The cockpit is equipped with a head-up, wide-angle holographic display from Thales Avionique, which provides aircraft control data, mission data and firing cues. A collimated, multi-image head-level display presents tactical situation and sensor data, and two touch-screen lateral displays show the aircraft system parameters and mission data. The pilot also has a helmet-mounted sight and display. A CCD camera and on-board recorder records the image of the head-up display throughout the mission.

http://i2.tinypic.com/qoeibr.jpg


The Engine:

http://i2.tinypic.com/qoeiqb.gif

Twin-shaft, bypass turbofan engine
3-stage LP compressor with inlet guide vane
6-stage HP compressor (3 stages with variable stator vanes)
Annular combustion chamber
Single-stage cooled HP turbine
Single-stage cooled LP turbine
Radial A/B chamber
Variable-section convergent flap-type nozzle
Full authority digital engine control (FADEC)
Modular on-condition maintenance (21 modules)
-
Length : 139 in (3,538 mm)
Inlet diameter : 27.5 in (696 mm)
Weight : 897 kg

Performance:
A/B thrust 75 kN (17 000 lb)
Dry engine thrust 50 kN (11 250 lb)
A/B specific fuel consumption 1,7 kg/daN.h
Dry engine thrust specific fuel consumption 0,8 kg/daN.h
Air flow rate 65 kg/s
TIT (Turbine Inlet Temperature) 1 850 K (1 577?C)
Pressure ratio 24,5
Bypass ratio 0,3

http://i2.tinypic.com/qoej3p.gif

Data:

Country: France
Type: Intercept
Crew: Single or twin seater
engine: 2 x SNECMA M88-2
BME: 20950 lb.
Max ramp weight: 49560 lb.
Ceiling: N/A
Take-off: landing < 1300 ft
Cruise range: 1000 nm
In-Flight Refueling: Yes
Internal Fuel: 4250 kg
External stores: 13215 lb. to 17620 lb.
Air version: 14 hard points
Navy version: 13 hard points
Sensors: RDX LD/SD radar, FLIR, LRMTS, RWR, Advanced bombsight

Weapons:

Armament Cannon: 1 30mm DEFA 554 Mica, R.550 Magic 2, BGL 400
8 x Matra Magic or Sidewinder or ASRAAM
12 x Matra Mica
7 x Hughes AMRAAM
5 x AM 39 Exocet (may not be qualified to cut costs) or Penguin 3 or Harpoon
4 x AS 30L (may not be qualified to cut costs)
5 x Apache
5 x ALARM or HARM
4 x Maverick
5 x 1000 kg bombs
22 x 250 kg bombs
10 x 400 kg bombs
16 x Durandal
4 x Rocket pods
1 x 3000 l. tank
3 x 2000 l. tank
5 x 1250 l. tank
FLIR-pods, offensive jammers (3), recce pods, gun-pod and budy-buddy-refuelling pod

More updates will come later..

Sources:
www.airforce-technology.com (http://www.airforce-technology.com/projects/rafale/)

[MerkavaMK4]

well, on one hand we all know about french military's great...defeats :lol:

but then again, french did design mirage; which is probably the oldest fighter still in service.

To be honest i am thoroughly impressed by inside avionic and computer systems. Cockpit looks clean, efficient and most important of all: user-friendly. I can say i love this damn cockpit!


But unfortunately my love ends there. Rafale as outside chassis doesn't scream to me as a revolutionary fighter that will outfly Typhoon, but appearances can be deceiving.

I'd love to see this fighter in exercising against american and russian craft, a battle speaks 1,000 words :wink:

[Alexej_nemov]

i wonder how those pilot gloves work on such small touch-screen :o

[MerkavaMK4]

i just love idea of touch-screen itself! 8)

[Pavel]

Yes, I think it's great :) A little bit better then 1000 switches :)
Someimes I'm looking at these two images... they represent for me the "Progress" concept.

Mi-24 Hind cockpit:
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/forum/mi-24p_pilot.jpg

Ka-50 Hokum (Black shark) cockpit:
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/forum/ka-50mod.jpg


Feel the difference :lol: :lol:

[MerkavaMK4]

I am getting dizzy just looking at hind cockpit. How the hell can anyone absorb all the info at once?

Hokum cockpit; is it single seat or two seat version? I remember back in 94/95 i saw hokum single seat version cockpit at janes. The cockpit was pretty much - hind style.


Piloting chopper is a very hard job, harder than flying a jet; single seat hokums have proven to shorten their pilots lives by 10 years from stress alone.

[Pavel]

Yes, Ka-50 is a single-seater. And I think this is its weakest spot - you are right, controlling heli is quite hard job. And even with all these computer help it's still hard to do the flying, firing, navigating etc. - for one person only.
I think it is main reason why Ka-52 is a two-seater (with fully doubled control, by the way, which is brilliant, I think!). Ka-52 can be used at night, in bad weather conditions - I think because one person can concentrate on flying.

[MerkavaMK4]

i think hokum design went along the lines of a single seat - warrior helo. Most fighters are single seaters, so what i think the same was envisioned for hokum.

I know shooting down tanks and ifvs in helo by yourself is alot of glamour, but its not feasible in any prolonged duration of combat operations. Russians, Americans, Brits, all three still have human weakness of stress and fatigue, granted though on different scale levels :wink:

[Pavel]

I just wonder why to increase this well-known issue? As was written in news about Su-34 (http://www.aviapedia.com/news/su-34-to-replace-su-24-and-tu-22m3-20060330) it's much more preferrable when pilots has good cockpit where they even can rest.

And in contrary we see Hokum design, where single pilot should suffer. Such a difference.

[MerkavaMK4]

well, comfort has never been a part of any russian military designs.

I agree, a tank, for example is not rolls-royce with all leather seats and wood trim. But human body, just be anatomy alone cannot axceed its physiological limits.

Well rested crew is better in combat than fatigued crew. That was proven in every conflict since the dawn of humanity.

I guess thats why they started engineering 2 seat hokum.

Question though, what advantages does seat-by-seat cockpit of hokum-2 and backfire offers over seat-behind-seat cockpit of Havoc?

[Pavel]

Well, I think I can answer this :)
Ka-52 is based on one-seater Ka-50, that is why Kamov design bureau didn't have big problems to put pilots together. They just doubled ALL the controls. So any pilot at any moment can be gunner or pilot, or both, if necessary. It is very usefull in terms of doubled control and pilots universality. If pilot is out, gunner can still take the controls and get back home.

What minuses I can see personally. First of all, it seems to me both pilot and gunner has limited visibility - they are closing filed of view of each other.
Second of all, as I already told, I don't beleive in universal solutions. Gunner never do pilot's work. For emegency cases it's great, but only for it. Still, need to say, gunner and pilot seats in Ka-52 are different and optimized for exact functions. So maybe I'm wrong.

Mi-28 Havoc born from Mi-24 Hind, famous father. So designers doesn't have much space left for their fantasies. It has standart seat-behind-seat scheme, with common gunner and pilot positions.

It's great in terms of view area. It's highly specialized, so I think both gunner and pilot has more usefull and effective working spaces.

Again, great minus - if pilot is out, gunner need to pray. (Ka-52 has full eject system, with rotor blades blow-off and eject seats. Mi-28 has only emergency low-level life-saving system, consist of chassis with duplex amortization and energy absorbing pilot seats. It allows to save crew lifes on 12 m/s ground impact velocity.) Still, because pilot's seat is behind gunner, so pilot is in more safe position.

[Pavel]

Ka-52 cockpit:
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/forum/inside_Ka-50_52.jpg

Mi-28 cockpit:
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/forum/mi28a4.jpg

Mi-28N cockpit:
http://www.aviapedia.com/files/forum/mi28n_004.jpg

[MerkavaMK4]

in the first pic of mi-24 cockpit:

is it just me or that screen looks like old time television tube? I think while waiting for combat, gunner would turn on morning news or something :lol:

[Pavel]

Yes, I've mentioned it too :) What makes me feel very curious is cockpit really looks very old for new-generation heli.
Besides, such a contrast between Mi-28 and Mi-28N... like two different helis.

[osuorsa]

To go back to the topic - Dassault Rafale I would like to add something of its abilities...It is one of the most modern combat platform flying today. It is arguably one of the most advanced jets! For some reason it hasn't enjoyed export sales yet which is quite strange considering its capabilities and price.

The Dassault's brain-child, the Rafale has remarkable variety of actions it can take care of! It can handle land-based and carrier operations, it can execute deep penetration with good wepon load, it can attack ground and sea targets from stand-off ranges, the Rafale handles precision strikes day and night. The Rafale may be used as forwar air controller and as a SIGINT/ELINT platform to gather intelligence by its inboard systems. It may also refuel other fighters. The Rafale excells in A/A combat from BVR to WVRs. In future it may lead UAVS or UCAVs in combat. It is fully (and actually designed to be) NATO capable and interoperable, so it is an extremely good choice for these countries (competing the Typhoon). It has an impressive bring-back ability which is essential during carrier operations...It is easy to maintain and repair. It has extremely advanced cockpit and pilot-plane interference. It is easy to fly and extremely reliable. Hope to see some export success for the fighter!

[Alexej_nemov]

The Rafale has 2 x SNECMA M88-2 and only 1 tail fin, look at the mig and sukhoi's 2 engines and 2 tailfins, after what i understood when you have 2 engines you need 2 tailfins to get better stability, how is the Rafale in the air compared to other fighters when it comes to stability and manuverbility?

[Buran-Pilot]

well MiG29/Su27 were designed to be aerodynamic stable - rafale took the way of instability, like F16. As far as i understand this....

[zb10948]

I don't see what's the big buzz about Rafale. Medium sized multirole aircraft. Not in class with Typhoon, Su30/35, and 5th gen aircraft. I would say - Grippen class.

But i love that cockpit!

[Alexej_nemov]

I don't see what's the big buzz about Rafale. Medium sized multirole aircraft. Not in class with Typhoon, Su30/35, and 5th gen aircraft. I would say - Grippen class.

But i love that cockpit!

i think it easly can beat the grippen

[Pavel]

well MiG29/Su27 were designed to be aerodynamic stable - rafale took the way of instability, like F16. As far as i understand this....

Is it? Su-27 was planned as pitch statically unstable plane, at least on subsonic speeds? Or am I missing something?

[bf-fly]

Maybe that's why it hasn't succeeded in exports, not enough capability over the Gripen to justify it's cost. Perhaps also what works against them is the perception that it just doesn't offer them that much over a late model Mirage 2000.

When you consider the liberalness of French military sales, it's even harder to account for. When you buy a US product as a non aligned nation, you run the risk later of falling out of favor later and being subject to support restrictions. Ask Venazeula or Pakistan about their F-16's, etc. The French rarely restrict their support after a sale. I would think it's capabilities and lack of restrictions, coupled with the French's burning desire to score even a single sale would prompt somebody to take them up on it. I would think they would trip over themselves just to get that first sale. ("OK, my final offer, 50 Rafales for 2 billion $'s, 1000 cases of wine, 1000 cases of champaign, a summer house on the Riveria, 25 free Leclercs, and this really nice watch my wife gave me for Christmas") Yet time and time again they lose. Their must be something there, some other reason why they keep losing. Maybe the whole doesn't equal the sum of it's parts.

(I wonder how those touch screens work under high G's, how are you going to lift your arm to program them?)

By the way, can somebody answer me a question on the Russian cockpits? Are those multi function displays they now have of completely indiginous design and manufacturer? Of do they buy some parts off the shelves from western manufacturers?

[Buran-Pilot]

Is it? Su-27 was planned as pitch statically unstable plane, at least on subsonic speeds? Or am I missing something?

there are different sources that say different stuff about the Su-27. But the MiG29 had to be stable, because the basic version (A or C) had hydo-mechanical controls with no fly by wire support.

[zb10948]

Su-27 is unstable in pitch, controlled by his FBW. Su-35 (Su-27M, from eighties, not the new one), is fully unstable integral triplane.


I wonder how those touch screens work under high G's, how are you going to lift your arm to program them?


Simple. They don't. High-G, and pilot gloves. I think they're merely for pre-mission computations and stuff like that. In any case, flight and combat should be fully controled by HOTAS.


By the way, can somebody answer me a question on the Russian cockpits? Are those multi function displays they now have of completely indiginous design and manufacturer? Of do they buy some parts off the shelves from western manufacturers?


There are several base models offered for export. Those include the :

- PS-2ZHK, PS-5ZHK, PS-7V; 480x640 resolution, ARINC 429 interface, only viewangle difference
- MFI 10-4/5/6/7 series, 21.1x16 centimeters, with both ARINC 429 interface, STANAG 3350B, NATO MIL-STD-1553B, and standard video RGB, SSI, KSI, PAL, plus communication, RS-232C serial ports and 10BaseT ethernet ports

Note that those models can be bought in any quantity, sold separable from any aircraft. Su37's MFD's were provided by Sextant/Thales, while Su-35BM's pit is whole Russian (check the pic out in the cockpits topic). So Russians probably have the full capacity for MFD design and production.

[osuorsa]

Yes, its not must to have two tail fins if two engines....With the bigger figters its because of the wide fuselage. In the case of the Rafale, it doesen't need two tail fins because of the vast size of the one on it...

I don't see why many of you disrespect the abilites of the Rafale? The plane is broudly in the same region with the Typhoon...There're no reason to say it's inferior to the Typhoon...

BTW, the Typhoon and Rafale also uses voise commands to handle the systems and it is tested and it works under high-G combat maneuvres...Russians have seen a different approach on this issue by testing an added control element for the MFD 'surfing' on HOTAS throttle control lever's side.

[zb10948]

Olli, the key to HOTAS is "context switching". Eg, buttons on throttle and stick have a number of functions, and a desired function is brought up in it's respected regime. In normal, navigation mode, those buttons are used for navigation. When you switch to combat mode, buttons get different functions, for combat.

So i don't see why anyone should use touch-screens. MFD's are great because they can show different info in regard of different situation. Since HOTAS does that also, they are great in conjuction. When you switch your HOTAS to combat mode, MFD's are to be switch to show combat information, too.

Also, Rafale's RBE2 radar is very weak, it's one of the first Western produced ESA radars. It cannot match the raw power of Russian ESA radars, or the functionality of in-service American AESA and new Russian AESA radars.

[Pavel]

BTW, the Typhoon and Rafale also uses voise commands to handle the systems and it is tested and it works under high-G combat maneuvres...

Wow.. on high-G it's quite hard even to breath.. so system should be quite good to recognize that 'sounds' going out of throat. I like idea of additional buttons on HOTAS much better...

[osuorsa]

Wow.. on high-G it's quite hard even to breath.. so system should be quite good to recognize that 'sounds' going out of throat. I like idea of additional buttons on HOTAS much better...

I really agree...

[zb10948]

I think that touchscreens and voice reckognition are used only for computers control in "cruising" mode, when pilots just fly in formation straight ahead.

Any kind of touchscreening and voice commanding in high-turn combat would be completely useless. Until physicists figure out the way to control zero-point energy field to counter the electromagnetic force of inertia, and at that time, we all will be six-feet-under.

[F-14blaze]

ooooooh a colour map! i'm impressed, lol (the 1st cockpit pic)

[sicsok]

The first two photoes are Rafales' ones. The third is Fulcrum-subtipe's and the last two are Gripens' offices. The man-machine interface systems are now the fastest developing technologies in flying, so: By the time one states a serious unrevocable opinion (delayed by publishing etc.)-it is not serious and fully revocable. At the moment the Karen Fuxia studies offer quite a quantum-leap on this field, and the rest (voice, etc. - be as impressive as they are to the average joes - seem to just patching up the old condoms...)