Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Off topic. There are a few more advantages the F22 has:

Clean config for better fuel economy. The F-22 will take a conventional jet hanging draggy stores and just bingo fuel it to death.
High speed numbers for positioning, entering, exiting the scene of a crime.

Two years ago public consumption info on the AF website had a newer Block F-16 running chase maxing out in its present altitude grouping at mach 1.6 . The F-22 started pulling away from it , without using burner. Cool

Quote:

The kinematic range of an AIM-120 AMRAAM, for example, increases by fifty percent as aircraft speed increases from 0.9 to 1.5 Mach (this assumes an altitude advantage for the shooter). That is, the missile can reach targets fifty percent farther away because its initial speed coming off an F-22 flying 1.5 Mach is much faster. The Raptor easily supercruises in this speed regime. This missile range advantage intensifies the F-22?s sensor advantage?the radar on a Raptor can see a bandit long before a bandit?s radar detects a Raptor.

http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archives ... f22_1.html

As for it's maneuver abiltiy

http://www.af.mil/stories/story.asp?storyID=82702177

Having said that, new high-off-boresight heaters put into question the need to turn to the nth degree. The F-22s advantage lies in its ability to kill at distance and not be detected / locked up. Unless it is desperation, moving into an envelope with an F-22 where your opponent now has a shot at you, is gross stupidity.

Having to fight the F22 (at night) with a conventional jet that has draggy combat stores hanging off of it and little or no guarantee of finding it or locking it up for a BVR shot would make you instantly aware of how a baby seal getting clubbed to death feels. Twisted Evil

F-16.net Sponsor

OK... it's not only what their training facts and figures read, it's what the plane does in combat. The falcon has over 60 dogfight kills,
is still the bread and butter of the USAF and this plane's never been shot down by another. Thats 60:0... it's more like Muhammad Ali's boxing record. Does any other modern fighter jet come close?

Another testiment to the awesomeness of the falcon: Washington D.C. is protected in the air by falcons... ppl this jet rocks.

Uhm... the F-15 has the record, not the F-16. The eagle has 101:0.... That sounds better than muhammad or F-16 kill ratio Wink

A little more info on France's AASM by Sagem. A GPS/INS JDAM like weapon.

Quote:

Development of the AASM successfully reached several important milestones, and its technical definition was approved by the French defence procurement agency (DGA). Initial test launches with missile mock-ups ( I thought this was a kit for dumb iron??? Typo? Guess not ELP ) including catapult launches and deck landings on the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier. The AASM is fitted on Rafale and Mirage 2000D aircraft.

Large glitzy PDF file. Sagem annual report. Shows mock ups of the weapons on a Rafale. Also mentioned in passing is some kind of product support related to the SU-30.

"right click" save as....

http://www.sagem.com/en/groupe-en/ra2002-11-bds-en.pdf

They are starting with the 500lb weight and working their way up. Using triple ejector racks the Rafale could carry up to 6 GBU-12 LGBs ( 500lb Laser Guided Bombs) or up to 6 GPS/INS Sagems. And drop tanks and A2A missiles. Not bad.

Rafale PDF file (small )
http://www.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/s ... fox3_5.pdf

If AASM is a missile, I would like to know unit cost. I would think a dual use Enhanced Paveway ( both GPS/INS terminal and LGB ) would be cheaper when you have to lay down a lot of PGMs ???

This thing also has the option of an IR seaker for man in the loop terminal. Again though that along with the propulsion unit is going to keep the cost up. This unit sounds like it has the same capabilty as SPICE but appears smaller in physical size ?

This is good for the Rafale ( finally ) without the abiltiy to do (inexpensive) GPS/INS weapons, it's all weather abiltiy is last century.

Well, it's been a while, but I'm back, and some things about this site will never change, but that's ok, Wink

Anyways, onto this thread. Ok, it is fact that the F-22 > Rafale, overall at least. Pretty much everyone knows that. Now, the quetsion is whether or not the Rafale is better than our beloved F-16 in a dogfight, I presume.

Long - range combat: Who's missiles do you like more, French medium - range AA missiles or American medium - range AA missiles? That truly is the question, lol, lol, lol, Very Happy

Close - range combat: Without a helmet - mounted sight, the Falcon is at a disadvantage. Not too serious a handicap, but with IR missiles becoming more & more lethal & maneuverable, that could become a very serious problem. With a helmet - mounted sight, it really will come down to the skills of the pilots flying their respective planes. I mean, obviously pilot skill always matters, but in the context of this thread, we're dealing mainly with the capabilities of the fighters, not their pilots, right?

Now, what does everyone think about what I just said?

Stunning. Simply Brilliant. You'll get into the Air War College on that alone Very Happy

New information coming from a French admirer of F-16.net:

Firstly, sorry but French never use "letter and number designation" about fighters. If you want to complain, write to Dassault Aviation! There are only 4 versions of the Rafale today (divided in "standards", like American Blocks): Rafale C ( meaning "Chasse" -> fight, Air Force one-seater ), Rafale B ( "Biplace" -> two-seater, Air Force multirole two-seater), Rafale M ( "Marine" -> navy, naval one-seater ), and Rafale N ( "Naval" -> guess?, naval multirole two-seater, still to be built).

Secondly, the Rafale is now only operationnal in the French Navy, one squadron ( 8-10 aircraft) being carried by the Charles-de-Gaulle nuclear aircraft-carrier. The first Air Force squadron is to be operationnal in 2005.

Thirdly, F-16 vs Rafale in BVR engagement:
Even the Armée de l'Air (French Air Force) admits that AMRAAMs (even AIM-120As, not to speak about clipped-wing Hammers) can fly further than MICAs (they fly about 50 kilometers), but they pretend that this advantage is denied by the impossibility to get clear ID at the longest ranges allowed by such missiles. This is quite paradoxical, as the French Air Force plans to buy Meteor missiles, which will have very long range (about 100km), in the AA-10C class.

Nevertheless, Rafales have some real advantages in BVR over most of F-16s: they can fire eight missiles and guide them toward eight different targets at the same time by radio links, they have better radar coverage ( thanks to electronically-steered technology aloowing 140°horizontal, 120° vertical and 110° sweeping rate), MICAs are more agile than AMRAAMS and may be fully used in close dogfight, and, above all, French electronic countermeasures technology is world-famous for being very effective and competitive, which is a true adavantage. Belgian F-16 pilots admit that they often get big troubles coping with Mirage 2000 ECMs, though these are far less sophisticated than Rafale ECMs.

To put it simply, F-16s have longer teeth while French fighters are usually better protected against electronic threats than their American couterparts (note that Belgian F-16s use French-built ECMs).

Fourthly, dogfight:
I think that F-16s and Rafales are fairly comparable in visual engagements, since they quite belong to the same class (same weight, same roles, same markets...ugh!), and have comparable weapons (Magic IIs equal to AIM-9Ms, and about-to-enter-service infrared-seeker MICA (dubbed MICA IR) equal to AIM-9X). According to French Navy pilots, the differences are: F-16s are a bit more powerful, but Rafales have slightly better instant and sustained turn rates, and Rafales fly better at low speeds and high Angles of Attack ( like Hornets, but with easier control at low and very low speed ).

To conclude, I think that much would depend on pilots'ability in a combat between a F-16 and a Rafale. Moreover, remembering that a Rafale is about once-and-a-half as expensive as a last-generation F-16, draw your own conclusions.

To elp: Thanx for the compliments, Wink

To Wildcat: I agree with virtually everything you've said. Pretty much all of it is right on point, Very Happy

, but I'm a little doubtful as to the Rafale have a better sustained turn rate than the F-16. I mean dang, the only planes that instantly come to mind that can hold a turn better than the F-16 are the Su-27, Su-35, & Su-37. A Rafale being able to turn longer than a Falcon, Shocked

, are you sure?

The Rafale is a new aircraft and probably will become better in the future. It is definitely a headache not for the F-16 but for the other fighters even the Flanker family, F-15 and F-22.

OK, F-22 might have higher RCS than Rafale or Eurofighter. However Rafale and Eurofigher have high enough RCS for F-22 to lock on and fire AMRAAM no matter what....

To NormSta3, I am pleased to be said that my first words on F-16.net were not too stupid, thanks a lot! Very Happy

I am pretty sure about Rafale having a better sustained rate than F-16C (clean Rafale). However: the advantage is very slight, I mean really tight, according to French pilots, which actually means that the pilot who better controls his speed in a visual engagement will probably outturn his opponent and get the edge, whether he pilots a Rafale or a F-16 (after all, this is even more glory for the F-16 that the two aircraft are comparable, as it was designed 15 years earlier).

About instant turn rate, I am definitely sure that a Rafale is better, as a Mirage 2000 is (the latter is only better than a F-16 in dash speed and instant rate).

Then, to Ysslah: if everything the DoD says about F-22 is true, then 1° : F-22 has a much lower RCS than Rafale (even Dassault Aviation's commercials make a difference between a "discret" (discreet) Rafale and a "furtif" (stealthy) F-22), and 2° : F-22 is the best superiority fighter ever built, and nothing may defeat it, except by being pretty lucky!

And last, do not worry: I am too Frenchy not to think that the Rafale is incredible and a really beautiful jet, but the F-16 keeps on being the best in my heart anyway! (too many hours in Facon 4, maybe?) Wink

Blame Falcon 4.0 why don't ya? Lol, Wink

Anyways, the Mirage has a better instantaneous turn rate than the F-16 because it's a delta - wing fighter, right? As for the F-22, we all know it is a god in the air - superiority role, though I question it's abilities when compared to say a Su-37 in close - range combat (negating the ever - advanced IR missiles either out, or coming out). True the F-22 is agile, but I don't know if it's THAT agile.

Thats OK. No one is racing out to buy Su-37s or even Su-35s for that matter. The "threat" if it is one would be all of the SU-30s. I doubt the F-22 will ever see a Rafael in real combat. ( never say never, but I doubt it ).

Would be a neat fight to see though...

No doubt about that, though it might not be a very fair match - up, just cuz the F-22 should hold a noticeable advantage in agility. Of course, this is based on the assumption on they didn't spend billions of dollars on a plane that can't manuever, Wink

Yeah, the F-16 vs. Rafale, would be a much more even fight, but I still give it to the F-16 in the end, Very Happy

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Rafale