Vortices representation

dassault rafale vortices AoA eurofighter typhoon vortices level flight eurofighter typhoon vortices AoA saab39_vortices_representation

24 thoughts on “Vortices representation

  1. The FLX design should have very similar vortices then to the Rafale design.

    The leading edge, close coupled canard design is very similar.


  2. Interesting is that Rafale uses both LERX for it’s wing and chines for the canard. Main function of chines on the Rafale though is not vortex generation but to shield the airflow in the intakes at high AoA. Basically they give lateral mounted intakes the same advantage as ventral mounted intakes.


  3. I’d say among these, it’s clear that the Rafale had the most thought that went into the airframe design. You can tell from well … the way the plane is designed. The leading edge, stakes, chines, canard configuration, and a few other body shape features, that it has the most aerodynamically refined design.

    I suppose a case could be made that the Su-27 too has a pretty refined design – many of the later variants anyways. I’ve always wondered what a true delta wing Su-27 with canards would look like – probably a better fighter than what they have.


      1. 1)Who shot that little home movie? F-22 has no IR imaging system nor the capacity to carry targeting pods?
        2) Where those SDBs?


    1. 3) Why use the F-22? As a publicity stunt? Rafale could have handle it the same way while carrying more weapons, with the same level off survivability, at one third the cost for hour spent in the air. I mean the pure techs that have to do maintenance on the stealth counting off the F-22 are probably still at it right now (on the 24th, the next day) and swearing the powers that be for having them work over time.


      1. I presume because it was an American operation, so they wanted to use American aircraft.

        But otherwise:

        To “prove” to people that F-22 is somehow useful, despite it’s cost, technical problems, and other issues.
        In an effort perhaps to build support for more aircraft, now that production has stopped and there’s only ~170 or so.
        Yes, as a publicity stunt. Probably to build up public support for a war on ISIS.

        Basically, we’re beyond the point of common sense at this point.

        Liked by 1 person

      2. “To make up for its absence in Libya”

        Well it’s in Libya were the Rafale proved that it’s SPECTRA suit’s “virtual stealth” is just as good as F-22 stealth. Rafale operated without support from SEAD aircraft, unlike the Typhoon and other coalition fighters. Basically it was operated as a stealth aircraft. More on the Rafale’s performance in Libya including it’s excellent availability and low maintenance requirements in this article, and more details on it’s Sensor Fusion (it even uses the seeker heads of the MICAs as extra IRSTs): http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/125860/rafale-in-combat:-%E2%80%9Cwar-for-dummies%E2%80%9D.html
        Also Bill Sweetman asks the same questions as me about F-22: http://aviationweek.com/blog/so-what-took-f-22-target-photo
        and he is not the only one at Aviation Week: http://aviationweek.com/blog/was-lackluster-f-22-debut
        Probably management is going to remind them who’s got half of the ads in Aviation Week (Cough Lockheed Cough Cough Martin Coug… There is something in my throat).


  4. In the context of a 4th generation war against Islamic fundamentalism, radar stealth is for the most part irrelevant. The end result is that the F-22 is an expensive and for the money, ineffective platform for waging the type of war that the US plans to fight.

    Another problem here seems to be the culture of the US military. They seem to think that they can win a war by strategic bombing ISIS into submission somehow. Never mind history. That’s how the F-22 is being used and that’s likely how the bulk of the campaign is going to be conducted, unless their goal is to escalate to a 2003 style repeat.


      1. They seem to be fighting to make the MICC rich, more so than anything else at this point.

        This whole war could have been avoided had they never invaded Iraq in 2003 under the falsified reason that Saddam had WMDs that he was about to imminently use against the US.

        Likewise, the US seems to learn little when it comes to foreign policy. Diplomacy seems to be viewed as weakness.


      2. As ironic as it may be, I actually agree with this article:

        Once US invaded Iraq, they automatically accepted responsibility for what will happen after they retreat. And as a matter of fact, invasion itself was not a problem: people were happy that Saddam was out of power.

        Problem was what followed. People of Iraq spontaneously organized local elections in a display of democracy that overshadows so-called “democracies” in the West. They also wanted to elect the government by themselves. Instead, US declared elections invalid, and installed a dictatorship via “Provisional Authority” in order to carry out privatization of Iraq. That is when problems began – it was privatization that sparked insurgency, privatization that destabilized the country, privatization that caused Iraqi military to be incapable of dealing with insurgency then and ISIL now (not that Saddam’s military was competent, mind you, but it wasn’t that bad).


  5. The issue here is that the US was never benevolent in its reason for invading Iraq.

    It was always about plundering Iraq for its natural resources and making a few special interests (most notably the defense and fossil fuel industries) very rich. The talk of building a Western style democracy was always a lie for the gullible. There never was a serious effort to try to attempt to implement a workable society after the war. I have no doubt in 2003, the advocates for war knew that Saddam did not have WMDs – in fact, they falsified the evidence as a rationale for invading.

    The other issue is that privatization seems to fail more often than not. Often it ends up with a few rich oligarchs and the population paying more for inferior service. So much for free market efficiency.

    Of course, what they did not anticipate was that people are not so submissive. They can figure out that you are not here for their benefit.


    1. True. Even current US help to Peshmerga is only on table because US oil corporations have interest in Kurdistan.

      “Often it ends up with a few rich oligarchs and the population paying more for inferior service.”

      That is actually the entire point of privatization… BTW, I’m currently listening to a quite fun song (in Croatian, but here’s a partial lyrics translation: “In the South, Pinguines eat people, in the West, people (eat) people, and East is trying to become like West”.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s