Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

"I like to add as some here are over-sensitive and read all kind of b*ll into claims."

Pot meet kettle. Of course, the oversensitivity about the Typhoon seems to have ended after India selected the other plane.

Totally unnecessary last sentence in the post.

The original point was unfortunately not clear to some and the contention that the Rafale held its own vs the F-22 came out of a controversial incident that should have been referenced in the original post.

The point that Rafale should stack up well vs Su seems to be very valid.

F-16.net Sponsor

Considering that a load of people pop up andcomment without having read the discussion, let alone wasted any effort to get the point, I sometimes feel it's necessary to point things out as many intentionally or unintentionally misunderstand/misinterpret what's being said.

Dunno where the Typhoon fits here, if you insist that I'm one of these oversensitive Typhoon fans now being silenced by the Indian selection you are mistaken.

They're not intentionally misunderstanding anything. The original post wasn't clear enough. All it would have taken was a link to the Rafale vs F-22 gun battle.

The second sentence is an assertion that I don't think anyone believes. If you want to attack posters here for being "oversensitive" then don't complain if you get the same.

I might differ there actually and think Scorp's 2nd para was a fair shot as a rebut. He seems to be merely implying that he's not oversensitive to discuss his favor and support the Rafale now as a highly credible and worthy platform accordingly. It's really not that big a point to be going off track on as I see it. The thread itself such as this, will no doubt be pretty lively and stir up some passionate back and forth.

shingen wrote:

They're not intentionally misunderstanding anything. The original post wasn't clear enough. All it would have taken was a link to the Rafale vs F-22 gun battle.

The second sentence is an assertion that I don't think anyone believes. If you want to attack posters here for being "oversensitive" then don't complain if you get the same.

I have no intention to attack anyone here at all, but if people want to participate in a discussion they better make sure that they know what the discussion is all about. My first post was clear enough, even more so when seen in the context of the overall discussion which was neither too long, nor too comprehensive at this point. The first reaction towards my first post was inappropriate and could have been avoided if the person would have read what has been stated, instead of reacting by reading stuff out of context and subsequent comments were to a certain extend unnecessary if the people had read the discussion as a whole and wouldn't nitpick on a single post taken out of context. It's annoying for me when people are too lazy or for whatever the reason don't read the discussion and comment without viewing the post in the context its written.

It's questionable what's your role here, as you haven't participated and simply pop up to criticise me and bring up unrelated and unfounded stuff. That's an inappropriate apples and oranges comparison.

Sometimes it's tough if someone doesn't get a reference that someone else thinks is common knowledge.

Anyway, any idea on what the Rafale's STR is? I saw 21 degrees quoted for the Su.

My guess is that the Rafale would just handle the Su in WVR despite the TV which isn't a big deal anyway.

Any ideas on when the Indians will have the first DACT?

Rafale's STR isn't published, but believed to be around 24-25°/sec. The original Su-27 achieved an STR of 22.5°/sec according to what I have seen, albeit the Su-30MKI is a different beast, heavier, draggier, but more unstable and with more lift, yet the same amount of thrust.

Last edited by wrightwing on May 17, 2012 - 09:34 PM; edited 1 time in total

Scorpion82 wrote:

60°? More like 60° overall (+/-30°).

Actually we're both wrong- it's in the 40-45 degree range.

Quote:

And two times at best out of six hardly qualifies as "several".

That was the French account. The USAF account was slightly different.

And what was the USAF accountant? Any source or details? Wrt the AIM-9M I suppose that some latter variants may Offer an extended FoV? Afaik the earlier versions had a more restricted FoV. I know about the AIM-9Li (modified variant license produced by BGT) offering a FoV of +/-40 deg.

Scorpion82 wrote:

And what was the USAF accountant?

http://www.arabianaerospace.aero/articl ... on=defence

Quote:

The USAF refused to comment directly about the French claims, though the 27th Fighter Squadron’s project officer for the F-22 deployment, Major John Rogers, told Arabian Aerospace: “I don’t remember the fights quite that way. In any case, we leave claims and counter-claims to the debrief.”

Lt Col Lansing Pilch, commander of the 27th, and of the F-22 deployment to Al Dhafra, was categoric in stating his view of the Raptor’s performance during the exercise. He confirmed that the six Raptors flew undefeated, against all opponents. Pilch said: “In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water.” He did praise the Rafale, however. “It is a good aircraft, combining avionics with manoeuvrability. I was impressed – it’s on a par with the USAF’s F-15s and F-16s, at least.”

Quote:

For these training missions, the F-22As flew only within visual range 1 vs 1 BFM (Basic Fighter Manoeuvring) sorties, and did so carrying under-wing fuel tanks, and with radar reflectors fitted, preventing opponents from seeing how ‘stealthy’ the F-22 is in operational configuration, or from experiencing the F-22’s AN/APG-77 radar and highly advanced AN/ALR-94 passive receiver system.

Even if the French account is accurate, what that means is that the Rafale was unable to score against a Raptor with external fuel tanks attached, and suffered several losses. If the USAF account is accurate, then the Rafale fared even worse.

It's pretty certain that Rafales were operating with drop tanks themselves. The "undefeated" claim isn't contradicted by the French at all, as they don't claim to have scored kills against the Raptor, though there is this story about a Mirage 2000-9 flown by a French pilot having scored a kill in BFM an associated patch exists. However it's worth noting that the ATLC exercise was just one part of the deployment. The DACT/BFM flights were made outside of the frame of the exercise. The remark about "blew the competition out of the water" was a general remark and isn't surprising for most observers.

The only point is the "I don't remember the fights quite that way", unfortunately the pilot isn't further commenting on it. They are at least admiring the aircraft's manoeuvrability which is certainly the most important factor in DACTs of that kind, next to pilot skills.

You'll also notice that the pilot clearly put the Rafale in the same class as the F-15 and F-16. We won't know for sure unless they actually attempt it, but an Eagle or a Viper would probably have a decent chance of escaping a gun kill most of the time against a Raptor if it were working with limited time. As pointed out earlier in the thread, AIM-9M can get 40-45 degree off boresight, that makes it a whole lot easier to get a kill compared to guns.

Of course, clean Su-30MKIs were said to have been beaten by F-15Cs with under wing fuel tanks and a full combat load out at Red Flag. The USAF pilot did however acknowledge that if the MKI was piloted by more experienced/better pilots, it was "better" than the F-15 and F-16. There are some tactics that can be employed to defeat thrust vectored aircraft, but TV is still better than no TV. I'm not sure the MKI's TV confers and advantage over the Rafale....it does improve the Flanker-H's maneuverability over what it would be otherwise, however.

Scorpion82 wrote:

It's pretty certain that Rafales were operating with drop tanks themselves.

Do we know this to be the case? The Raptor was carrying them, to increase its RCS.

Quote:

The "undefeated" claim isn't contradicted by the French at all, as they don't claim to have scored kills against the Raptor, though there is this story about a Mirage 2000-9 flown by a French pilot having scored a kill in BFM an associated patch exists. However it's worth noting that the ATLC exercise was just one part of the deployment. The DACT/BFM flights were made outside of the frame of the exercise. The remark about "blew the competition out of the water" was a general remark and isn't surprising for most observers.

The only point is the "I don't remember the fights quite that way", unfortunately the pilot isn't further commenting on it. They are at least admiring the aircraft's manoeuvrability which is certainly the most important factor in DACTs of that kind, next to pilot skills.

I think when you take "I don't remember the fights quite that way" and "the Raptor blew the competition out of the water" and "undefeated" together, it paints a different picture than 1 or 2 wins, and 4 or 5 ties.

@icemaverick
The USAF officer states "as good as F-15 or F-16 at least

From different occasions of DACT it's actually reported that the Rafale proved to be superior close in (1 vs 1 BFM) to F-16s. That's not really surprising considerig that the French fighter excels in almost all areas concerning manoeuvrabiliy from AoA, over g-onset to ITR and STR there is virtually no field where the F-16 can seriously compete, let alone the F-15. Of course it must be kept in mind that this isn't real combat where engagements aren't scripted, but highly dynamic. I agree with what you stated about TVC.

@wrightwing
The claims made were pretty much generalised and unspecific and thus not necessarily contradicting. They were talking about the whole exercise and the whole competition.

@Scorpion: I agree that the Rafale is probably better than the F-16 in WVR combat (and BVR too), but then so is the Su-30MKI. We don't really have a common benchmark for comparison (Rafale vs MKI)

Forum: Modern Military Aircraft

Su-30MKI vs Rafale