Interesting, i can definetely see it being the case but i imagine its still close enough a Eurofighter does have options available. Eurofighter, Would to my knowledge be the one thats superior in BVR fights, althought im unsure by how much as im unsure on how capable the Rafales Radar is but later model AMRAAM, which i can see eurofighter coming with (say a C model AMRAAM) would probably put it above ingame, then back to equal again once MICAIR/ASRAAM or Meteor are introduced (if they ever are were probably all doomed)
For me it really just depends on how or if the properly implement SPECTRA’s capabilities that would be one of the greatest assets, since pure range itself is the downside for Micas in comparison to the C model AMRAAM
2 Likes
In terms of BVR, that’s a bit tricky to figure out. It does seem like Rafale will have a BVR capability gap due to missile count and if later AIM-120Cs/AIM-120D are added. But we might also see MICA IR then. A full loadout of 6x MICA IR might help as these missiles would not provide any warning.
However though, the BVR capability will be handidly in favor of the Rafale later down the road when it comes to 8x Meteor + MICA NG EM/IR. MICA NG EM has a range of 130km with AESA seekers.
So a full loadout of 8x Meteor+MICA NG EM means that an aggressive Rafale will always leave the Eurofighter running away/defensive after the Eurofighters use up their Meteors.
5 Likes
Plane: Designed for an unstable configuration
Mig 23: Nope, this isn’t the case because I don’t want it to be.
You really are not worth the time of day. Especially when available information runs pretty counter to your claim. Though most information on a lot of things you talk about runs counter to your claims across the board, but I’m sure some people will believe you. Keep spouting nonsense.
Will be interesting to see the dynamic (i hope gaijin starts to either Cap outright or slow down advancement of missile tech) of say Typhoons with 120C/D versus MICA-EM Rafales as if we ever get to the point ingame of Meteor or Mica NG i think it will be safe to say its over before its even begun :p.
2 Likes
Eurofighter is pretty comparable on that front though as it also carries meteor so it would have just as much chance in a BVR engagement?
I prefer Rafale, but doesn’t seem you’re accounting for the armament on eurofighter. Unless I am missing something?
1 Like
Even nasa says this they do have static stability.
NASA says the Viggen is statically stable, makes no mention of the static stability of Gripen. Modern air superiority fighters (especially those marketed on aoa and agility) tend to have some degree of instability. This is facilitated by modern pilot interfaces to make these kinds of things far more controllable than they otherwise would be.
But I really haven’t the patience to argue this. People who don’t want to listen won’t, this is an m2k thread, if you want to bitch about the Gripen inaccurately, please feel free to go create a thread on it, and I’m sure we’ll have plenty of people telling you just how correct you aren’t. This is a thread for m2k, we are here to support cool French deltas instead of taking a hatchet to cool Swedish deltas (or argue with futility on topics we’ve poorly researched).
The Rafale carries more BVR missiles. On the Rafale F.4 which is pretty late, all 8 of its missiles will be above 100km+ in ranges. When the Rafale and Eurofighters use up their Meteors, they’re resorting to their shorter ranged weapons which would respectively be MICA NGs (100km+) and IRIS-T/ASRAAM (25km/50km).
1 Like
Forgot about that bit. I am quite tired.
1 Like
i just have a another question。Why no one talking about the movable canard on the mirage 4000 ? Its not show up in the game and everyone don’t care?
I’m actually referencing Saab but ok
They state the aircraft gains neutral stability when canards is free floating…
Therefore the canard requires some small AoA to produce sufficient lift to increase instability level. I.e. canard is deflecting slightly down and producing negative lift in normal maneuvering flight but when it wants to fly level it feathers in neutral setting.
This allows rapid instant turn rates but negatively affects sustained energy maneuverability performance compared to aft tail configurations such as F-16
Which btw, it’s funny because Mirage 2000 has natural relaxed / neutral static stability and requires negative trim but still produces positive lift from the wing. Technically speaking, the Mirage 2000 is better suited for sustained turns but worse in regards to high alpha or instant turn rate compared to the Gripen design.
1 Like
interesting
would make the typhoon 1.05 TWR with full fuel + 8 missiles (4 meteors, 4 short range) then
the difference 4700kg for Rafale, 5000kg for EF, would still not compensate for the EF’s higher consumption though but at least it’s closer
My math comes out at 1.06 - 1.07 in that scenario (depending on if you use 5,000 kg or 5,200 kg internal fuel), but essentially yes. A Rafale with full fuel and an 8 missile loadout (4 Meteor + 4 MICA IR) would be 0.96 though.
As you say though, I very much doubt either aircraft would need a full fuel load in game. If the EJ200 specific fuel consumption is 48 g/kNs (spec sheets says 47-49) and the afterburner thrust is 90 kN (obviously that will fluctuate with speed, but this is just a rough estimate), that gets you 4.32 kg/s of fuel consumption. So the full internal fuel load of Eurofighter would get you 19-20 minutes of afterburner operation. Top tier games rarely ever require you to last that long without returning to the airfield (in fact they rarely last that long at all!). And you are rarely using afterburner 100% of the time from when you take off to when you land, so actual endurance would be even longer.
2 Likes
Sorry I’ll have to correct you on that, as it’s more complex than that. The Rafale’s canards are mainly intended as vortex creators that influence the wings airflow, not as control surfaces. Note that the EF2000 also has M2K-like strakes on the fuselage to create vortexes.
On the other hand the EF2000’s canards don’t influence the wings as they are purposely placed far away from the center of mass to act as powerful control surfaces thanks to a big lever effect, even at lower speeds. In fact the intent behind this was to perform post-stall manoeuvres.
To put it very simply, EF2000’s canards behave closer to an elevator, while Rafale (and likely Gripen) canards could be compared to flaps.
1 Like
My understanding is that EF2000 canards primary purpose is to act as stabilisers due to the massively unstable nature of the airframe.
After the initial induction of AOA they direct the airflow in the opposite direction to prevent overshooting the desired angle.
Essentially, if the canards didn’t exist the pilot would be doing backflips.
2 Likes
Yeah I don’t know your source but that makes sense and is coherent with what I’ve said.
Sounds like a very inefficient way of doing things though?
The unstable nature of the aircraft allows for a highly agile aircraft at all speeds.
The canards don’t make large rapid movements, they make small micro adjustments 1000s of times per second.
It’s impossible to find any video with the canards fully deflected in flight, as they can turn almost 90 degrees, but due to their size and the very large distance to the center of mass, they have a huge impact with these small adjustments on any kind of pitch manuver, even during high angle of attack, low speed manuvers.
The FBW system is in complete controll and while it seems counter intuitive it does all this extremely efficiently.
I mean basically every 4th gen + aircraft is unstable and has FBW and it doesn’t need giant nose elevators to perform high AoA safely. That’s what I’m curious about, but I believe you lol.