Forum: F-35 Lightning II

Well, sadly, it is absolutely true that France has a long habit of selling sophisticated weapons to states that should not get them. However, one can hardly say that the US sells weapons only to pure and innocent democratic countries.
Selling weapons to the wrong people is common among most of Western countries. Crying or Very sad

[/quote]

Well said Wildcat....

F-16.net Sponsor

Is this one example?

http://in.today.reuters.com/News/newsArticle.aspx?type=businessNews&storyID=2007-01-14T121944Z_01_NOOTR_RTRJONC_0_India-283524-3.xml

espenjoh

Well, that article is somewhat misleading. Lybia has expressed interest about the Rafale, but France has not officially accepted to sell anything so far. Maybe it might change (I hope it will not), but now there is actually no sale.

boff180 wrote:

France though will continue Rafale.

Their government have a habbit of supporting their industry even past the point of liquidation and at the expense of other nations economies (see: peugeot citroen, closing their most efficient profit making factory as the overall company made a loss on the orders of the government. That factory happens to be 5 miles from me!)

Rafale will definately get some sales in the future, most likely from M2000 operators that are heavily reliant on France. Basically all the nations that want the best they can buy within their political spectrum (either F-35 or Typhoon) will no purchase Rafale as it is poor compared to them. But countries with no other choice will get Rafale.

They market Omni-role as they claim it can operate 2-3 missions at the same time by just flicking a switch; its a PR stunt though, the F/A-18E, latest block F-16s, F-35, Typhoon and Gripen (plus probably a few others) also have this capability.

Andy

So, what countries do you see as likely Rafale Operators?

I don't know how you can say that the Rafale jet is obsolete. The Rafale brings to market 21st century agility and afterburner-free speed with stealth-y transparency. As such, the jet occupies a unique niche in the market -- it offers buyers the option of incorporating stealth deafens at an affordable price unheard before its launch.

Why hasn't the jet sold? Well, it's expensive for a Dassault jet -- expensive relative to the Mirage family that preceded it as well as Rafale's current direct competitors: the non-stealth Gripen and Eurofighter. The key to better sales? Dassault and the French government need to more strongly emphasize the added value of Rafale's stealth technology -- technology never before offered non-superpower customers at any price. Putting a stop to the US government's back room strong-arm tactics such as those so clumsily exhibited in the Poland case wouldn't hurt as well.

Delayed? The Rafale could only be considered delayed if you use Dassault's own aggressive timetable as a guide. Again you're blowing F-35s out your butt., dude. The Rafale beat the Eurofighter into active service despite that jet having a TWO YEAR head start! Besides, show me a new jet that wasn't delayed at some point in its development.

I wonder why so many of my fellow Americans become so irrationally rabid, underhanded and downright nasty when it comes down to France and the products this nation sells around the world? Shown in varying degrees since WWII, it seems to me the only explanation can be that most unattractive of emotions -- pure, ugly, undignified jealousy.

And haven't you heard? Fighter jets sell best when this kind of negativity is stripped out!

Quote:

I don't know how you can say that the Rafale jet is obsolete. The Rafale brings to market 21st century agility and afterburner-free speed with stealth-y transparency. As such, the jet occupies a unique niche in the market -- it offers buyers the option of incorporating stealth deafens at an affordable price unheard before its launch.

The Rafale is not obsolete compared to all the other fighters out there. But it is one generation behind the F-35 and will fare significantly worse in both A2A and A2G missions.

Stealth -- There is a whole magnitude of a difference between F-35 Stealth and Rafale RCS reduction measures. The Rafale airframe is not designed as an LO airframe even though certain features incidental of its design appears to be more compatible with LO reduction than say the EF. With some applique LO coatings and measures the it is estimated that the Rafale may be able to get its frontal RCS down to ~0.1 sq-m. This is probably slightly better than the Super Hornet or the Typhoon which also has similar afterthought treatments. But it is nowhere near the ~0.0014 sq-m estimated for the F-35.

Agility -- the relegation of extreme agility to something that is not particularly useful has nothing to do with stealth really. It has something to do with the development of AAMs. You cannot dodge today's AAMs which are capable of maneuvering at 3x ~ 7x the maixmum G loading of a fighter. You also will not have the opportunity to fly WWII style dogfights where you try to get up close and personal onto the tail of your opponent. With very lethal BVR AAMs that are reliable and WVR AAMs that fires way off boresight you won't be getting very close and you won't be turning very hard. Nobody is saying that you don't need to be reasonably agile and not fly like a an A380, but F-16 level agility is more than enough in fact even F-4 level would suffice. In exercises involving the F-22 Raptor only 3 kills out of 144 were close WVR range kills and even with these its about seeking up from behind without the enemy knowing and no hard tuning was ever performed. In otherwords, with its emphasis on super agility the Rafale (and the Typhoon for that matter) went out of the way to acquire an advantage that is no longer relevant.

Speed -- The Rafale is not a particularly fast aircraft, both in a dash or in cruise. It's maximum speed is officially M 1.8 although some say that M2 is possible under certain conditions in emergencies. That is not any better than say an F-16. Even though it markets itself as a supercruiser, the Rafale is a marginal supercruiser at best. It get nowhere near the M1.7 performance of the Raptor and it really is SPEED that matters not whether you meet the technical definition of supercruise. An aircraft which is capable of supercrusing at M1.05 is insignifantly faster than one which cruises at M0.95 and offers practically no operational advantage. The Rafale's supercruise capability is spotty at best. Completely clean and with light fuel load it'll probably do ~M1.3. Dassault claims that it can still supercruise with a single tank and 4 AAMs (two on the tips and two conformal). But, in the Singapore competition it failed to demonstrate this. Even if it did, an ~M1.1 cruise performance with a warload is not much if at all better than an PW-129 or GE-129 engined F-16C which, BTW, is also capable of supercruising at ~M1.2 with nothing but a pair of wing tip missiles on. The problem with 4th generation types is that with a typical warload on that capabilty goes away and even if it didn't it is so marginal that it doesn't matter operationally.

Sensors -- part of the reason the Rafale is practically the equal of the Typhoon in many performance parameters, especially agility, and has better range to boot, is that it is a smaller and lighter aircraft (~9,700kg vs ~11,000 kg empty). And in getting it small and light, Dassault also incurred a bunch on inherent disadvantages. The most significant of which is the small randome size. The Rafale's radar will ALWAYS be about 73% the size of the Typhoon or F-35 or F-18's. All else being equal it will be outperformed by any of these aircraft's radars. And all else is not equal. With the PESA RBE/RBE2 the Rafale has added to its radar defficiencies by using a passsive steering element which reduces the sensitivity of its antenna. The result was an unsatisfactory radar performance which is inferior to the better MSAs out there like the AN/APG-73 and the CAPTOR.

In recent competitions, the Rafale proved to be only marginally better than older contestants like the F-15 in the areas it specializes in and significantly inferior in other areas -- like payload, outright speed and radar range. Dassault's response was that they'll fix the inability to supercruise with a warload problem with a future engine (M88-3) and they'll eventually have an AESA which they promise will be really good. Well, it isn't good enough for the clients.

Compared to the F-35, the Rafale is unlikely to be significantly, if at all, faster with a useful warload. Its thrust to weight ratio isn't significantly better as well so it is also unlikely to be significantly, if at all, better in acceleration. It'll have less range and it'll have significantly inferior sensors. It'll be somewhat more agile, but that is no longer particularly important other than for woeing crowds at airshows. It will be significantly easier to detect and kill due to its lack of 5th generation class LO, and that practically shuts it out of the running as far as most advanced fighter shoppers go. And it doesn't even have a price advantage.

Hi, please allow me to put in my 2 cents worth. There seems to be a lot of sympathy for the Rafale. Poor thing, it deserves at least one buyer!

But, the Rafale airframe design is essentialy 1960's Mirage III (circa. F-102 & F-106 delta wing Dart / Dagger). The Mirage 2000 and the Rafale are just modifications to the basic delta wing and if the Israelis had not come up with the canard wings (Nesher / Kfir) the Rafale would still need extended runways and could not have made it on the Charles DeGaul.

I suppose the B-52 is proof that you do not need a new plane if the old one does its job. But, the rest of the world is not France. The French Armee de l'Aire does not need a 21st century plane, they just keep updating the Cheez Wiz delta wing with newer engines and avionics because they will always weasel out of a major frie fight. The South Koreans need a fire fighter jet (vis: F-15K). There is mad Kim Jong Il with his Mig 29s, there are the Red Chinese with their Sukhoi 27s, and the Japs with their F-15s. Ditto Singapore. The Aussies, the Dutch and the Norwegians all perceive need for a multi-role JSF. They do not need to grovel to the froggies.

In the end, if the Rafale was superior to the F-16 and F-15, they would have been purchased. The fact is that it is not. You present some examples where a Dassault test pilot scores digital kills, but those are opinions of surprise. The Rafale is a match for the F-16 (if driven by a Dassault test pilot with strict rules of engagement, operating altitudes etc. etc.). But, the major procurement officers are air force generals, former fighter jocks. They were not potted plants. Admit it, if you are given the choice as a layman between the Rafale and the F-15 / JSF, would you really choose the aging French whore with beuacoup cosmetic surgery or a feisty F-15 or virgin JSF ?

I think the KC-X deal is a code word for France to go ahead with a level 1 partnership in JSF. I blogged on this... at :

http://manoffewwords.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/boeing-flies-on-fumes-as-northrop-grumman-eads-tops-it-up-more-to-kc-x-kc-45-deal-than-meets-the-eye/
====================================

skrip00 wrote:

The Rafale is suffering from very extensive delays and extreme cost overruns. Its been in perpetual obsolesence since its inception.

Because of this, per unit cost of the aircraft increases immensly as the French put their efforts in the next Fx variant. However these efforts fail to bring the aircraft out of the "obsolete" category.

With the debut of the F-35 around the corner (in 2009) signaling a proverbial final nail in the coffin, and the Rafale failing to secure any export orders, the French gov't decides the unthinkable:

Kill the Rafale program. Focus on UAV efforts. And purchase the F-35A for its Armée de l'Air. The F-35C and the F/A-18E/F compete for the Aviation Navale.

Frankly... if the Rafale cannot secure export sales and finally become competitive, then this may be an eventuality. Well, maybe in a cold day in hell... I mean... Paris.

dwightlooi wrote:

Stealth -- There is a whole magnitude of a difference between F-35 Stealth and Rafale RCS reduction measures. The Rafale airframe is not designed as an LO airframe even though certain features incidental of its design appears to be more compatible with LO reduction than say the EF. With some applique LO coatings and measures the it is estimated that the Rafale may be able to get its frontal RCS down to ~0.1 sq-m. This is probably slightly better than the Super Hornet or the Typhoon which also has similar afterthought treatments. But it is nowhere near the ~0.0014 sq-m estimated for the F-35.

Agility -- the relegation of extreme agility to something that is not particularly useful has nothing to do with stealth really. It has something to do with the development of AAMs. You cannot dodge today's AAMs which are capable of maneuvering at 3x ~ 7x the maixmum G loading of a fighter. You also will not have the opportunity to fly WWII style dogfights where you try to get up close and personal onto the tail of your opponent.

You make very interesting posts with your data about the airframe and engines but Im afraid where it concerns to actual tactics a missile perfomence I find them lacking.

G loading of a missile decreases steadily after burnout. I have to insist yet again that Engine burn out time is much faster than you always beleived. You once said that it wouldnt be too farfetched for an AMRAAM to catch a speeding F-22 from rear quadrant at a range of 40KM wich, with the data I have ever got sounds like start trek technology.

There always be a place for agility. Any missiles today still have relatively small NEZ zones compared to their RMAX. That is why fighters have always been designed to be agile, lately they have been designed like this even with warload on them wich seems to be a further insistence in that doctrine.

You fire any current AA missile beyond 20 miles and if the target turns to one side it will always fall short. (hence the concept of F poling wich is taught to pilots to this day)
As you get closer the target will be required to manuever harder and harder too keep itself alive but there will be a point where a fighter that is faster and more manueverable will be more survivable than one that is fast but only designed to be a weapons platform (no design in mind when making this comment exept perhaps your concept of what a fighter should be). The first will be able to turn back into the fight, the other will run or be shot down.

I had not wandered in that part of the forum for months, and I am very surprised that the subject of France buying JSF is still discussed.

Quote:

But, the Rafale airframe design is essentialy 1960's Mirage III (circa. F-102 & F-106 delta wing Dart / Dagger).

Well, to put it as simple as I can: no. Else, following that way of thinking, we could say that the B-2 is only a evolved version of the YB-49 Wink

.

Quote:

In the end, if the Rafale was superior to the F-16 and F-15, they would have been purchased.

If only the aircraft itself is considered, the Rafale is superior to the F-16 indeed (about same payload, but more range and better agility). However, as a whole weapon-system, the F-16 has been better so far: it is combat-proven ; all major conception troubles were cleared a long time ago ; and it is fully operationnal with many more weapons and systems than the Rafale. To sum it up: if you buy a F-16, you clearly know what you will get, and that you will get it, whereas the Rafale has only been used by the French air force so far (in small number: about 40 in service now).
Moreover, the F-16 is cheaper than the Rafale, and it is easy to understand that governments (generals do not pay bills, and sometimes they do not even choose the plane they will get) may think the advantages brought by the Rafale over the F-16 are not worth the money they would have to add.
Not forgetting that the F-16 is all the more cheaper as the United States can often promise bigger offsets than the French.

Quote:

I think the KC-X deal is a code word for France to go ahead with a level 1 partnership in JSF.

I understand that someone may think that way, far away from France. Nevertheless, I can assure you there is absolutely no chance that France might buy JSF instead of Rafale.
Three main reasons:
***France still possesses a strong national combat aircraft builder. The situation has nothing to see with most other European countries.
***Acquiring the JSF would not even save French money. Too much has already been used for the Rafale. By the way, the Rafale is not more expensive than the Typhoon, for example. Prices are in the same range (100 ME per unit if all program costs are included).
***National pride. Something that is often under-estimated elsewhere (not to say that foreigners do not think that the French are proud: only to state that French are actually even prouder than what they think Laughing

)

Please give us all a break when putting the words "stealth" and 4th gen aircraft together.

B-1 bomber nose on around 1m2RCS @ 0dB, Ditto for a clean Super Hornet. Laughing

Both were tuned up with RCS appliance reduction so the jamming gear had a solid baseline of predicted exposure and in-turn so that the jamming gear in some cases has less work to do.

Lets look at the Raf. which is a nice jet ... however...

photo-
http://www.acig.org/artman/uploads/rafale.jpg

Are you going to take the refueling probe off any time soon? No? How about all the various appliances around the nose? No?

A MiG-21 probably has a head on RCS of 4m2, An F-15 not much improvement...

So yeah a Raf offers a slight improvement and so does a Super Hornet, but you do want to hang stores don't you? Or are you going in clean with the gun only?

Modern radar won't have too much trouble picking out those aircraft.

The hype on 4th gen aircraft "stealth" is annoying on it's best day... if you please, on the chart below....point to where the RCS on the Rafale is when carrying stores. The chart is dumbed down quite a bit but still illustrates a point.

well, if Legacy represents a clean legacy, and we are hanging stores on an enhanced legacy, I would think it would end up somewhat further to the right than the clean legacy. I dont imagine stores are very clean.

Pilotasso wrote:

You make very interesting posts with your data about the airframe and engines but Im afraid where it concerns to actual tactics a missile perfomence I find them lacking.

G loading of a missile decreases steadily after burnout. I have to insist yet again that Engine burn out time is much faster than you always beleived. You once said that it wouldnt be too farfetched for an AMRAAM to catch a speeding F-22 from rear quadrant at a range of 40KM wich, with the data I have ever got sounds like start trek technology.

There always be a place for agility. Any missiles today still have relatively small NEZ zones compared to their RMAX. That is why fighters have always been designed to be agile, lately they have been designed like this even with warload on them wich seems to be a further insistence in that doctrine.

You fire any current AA missile beyond 20 miles and if the target turns to one side it will always fall short. (hence the concept of F poling wich is taught to pilots to this day)
As you get closer the target will be required to manuever harder and harder too keep itself alive but there will be a point where a fighter that is faster and more manueverable will be more survivable than one that is fast but only designed to be a weapons platform (no design in mind when making this comment exept perhaps your concept of what a fighter should be). The first will be able to turn back into the fight, the other will run or be shot down.

Two things...

(1) As far as burn times go, I'll like you to consider this. An SR71 has a thrust to weight ratio of about 0.54:1 at 50% fuel load and full burners. That is a Mach 3.2+ vehicle. I highly doubt that a pencil thin AAM like the AMRAAM is draggier. At 0.5:1 thrust to weight ratio, an AAM with a 40% fuel fraction will need a thrust of about 40% of its launch weight to sustain Mach 3+ speeds (0.4/0.8=0.5). With a specific impulse of say 240 seconds (typical of HTPB solid motors). There is enough fuel to provide this level of thrust for 96 seconds (0.4 x 240). Assuming that you used half or two third of the fuel to accelerate rapidly to Mach 4, you still have between 32~48 seconds of burn time left at the thrust level we KNOW sustain an SR71 at Mach 3+. A 40% fuel fraction BTW is not particularly impressive -- thats about the same as an F-35A and a heck of a lot lower than a typical space launch rocket's 90+ %.

(2) If you have doubts that solid fuel can somehow not be grained to burn slowly, consider the fact that the GEM60 solid booster used with the Delta IV rocket burns for 90 seconds. The Shuttle SRB burns for 126 seconds. You can grain solid propellant to burn out in one second or 10 minutes really. It depends on the thrust profile you want and any burn rate within reason is attainable.

(3) The AMRAAM's motor appears to have a star shaped boost grain ONLY on about 1/4 of its propellant fill.

(4) There will be some point at which a fighter -- having air breathing propulsion -- will kinematically defeat an medium range or longer range AAM. But I highly doubt that it is 20 miles.

You present a strange set of mathematical estimations here, including a comparison between SRB's and real missiles. The bigger a booster is the longer it burns (also due to thermodynamical reasons), if the fuel is the same. SRB's are Huge, and considering that all its internal space (safe for the recovery shutes) is completely filled with propellant I would say 126 seconds is not that much. Real missiles share space between guidance, wharhead, steering and datalink systems along with the propellant.

AIM-9 sidweinder has burn time of 4-5 seconds from the avaiable videos on the internet. A HUMRAAM burns for 7-8s (also avaiable on the net, AIM--120B's I think), considering latest variants it might reach 10 seconds, after that its a supersonic glider.

Missiles might be pencil thin but they have laminar wings, 8 of them. When they get slower their frontal ogival drag profile gets more and more similar to a cylinder from the body (infact aerodynamics are often calculated with transformations of cylindrical flow into other forms). Also you have to consider the interference of multiple boundary layers from the body to wings. Missiles have tipicaly much longer bodies compared to wingspan and while this is good for the boost phase in a tsraight line its bad for the endgame.

About the post I mentioned on my last message, it was deleted because I mentioned classified NEZ ranges and a moderator has erased it. Lets just say it is MUCH shorter than those 20 miles.

dwightlooi wrote:

(1) As far as burn times go, [...] A 40% fuel fraction BTW is not particularly impressive -- thats about the same as an F-35A and a heck of a lot lower than a typical space launch rocket's 90+ %.

I will not try to fight about numbers (everybody knows they are classified, concerning modern missiles), but it seems to me that there is at least one logical flaw in your comparison between a missile and a SR-71: you do not consider how much fuel the SR-71 must have burnt before actually sustaining its maximum speed.
My point is that even if you know how much thrust is needed for an object to sustain its maximum speed, it seems to me that it can give you no clue about how much fuel the object will actually have to burn during its whole flight if you do not know how much fuel the acceleration itself demands.

Forum: F-35 Lightning II

What if... France dumps the Rafale for the F-35?