Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Normsta3 wrote:

Of course, this is based on the assumption on they didn't spend billions of dollars on a plane that can't manuever

Why not? They did that with the SR-71 and U-2... but then I guess I'm not being fair towards the Blackbird guys... I mean, how many planes can say that

"Walking through the valley of death, I shall not fear, For I am at 80,000 feet and climbing..." Cool

(this little poem was supposedly set up at the entrance of an SR-71 base)

And make SAMS and the fastest of fighters look like nothing more than a bunch of snails? Rolling Eyes

Maybe, I should put it this way, the SR-71 can only maneuver in two dimensions... height (y-axis) and speed (x-axis) Wink

As for the F-22, well from what I've heard it was one of the planes that brought about the concepts of post-stall maneuverability and super-maneuverability.

The one thing I'm quite suspicious about as far as the Rafale is concerned are its payload numbers (I can't remember them off the back of my head, but I do remember that when I saw them I wasn't too impressed).

F-16.net Sponsor

Phoenix & everyone else, I apologize. Let me modify what I said earlier and express what I REALLY meant.

Original Quote: "Of course, this is based on the assumption on they didn't spend billions of dollars on a plane that can't manuever"

New Quote: "Of course, this is based on the assumption on they didn't spend billions of dollars on an air - superiority aircraft that can't maneuver"

Happy now Phoenix, lol, lol, j/k, Wink

. As for the Rafale, I think I understand what you mean, because I also remember not being too impressed with the payload of the Rafale. But let's confirm, so does anyone have any data? Stefaan, Lieven, Bjorn, anyone?

Well, I've looked up some info on the Rafale. It's a year and a half old, so take it for what it's worth.

The avionics suite looks fine, quite similar to that of the EF2000, so I guess that things should be fine there.

However, normal external payload is about 6000 kg. I read this as: "max payload a bit more than 6000 kg, definitely no more than 7000 kg". That's more than the F-16 C block 50/52, but I expect the block 60 to carry quite the same payload if not more than the Rafale.

Not to mention that the Rafale is said to have 2 engines that generate 48.7 kN dry and 75 kN in afterburner... while the F-16 block 60 can generate 142.3 kN with only one engine, but whether dry or in afterburner, I don't know.

However, the Rafale has like 14 stations for weapons and fuel tanks so I expect it can pack quite a lot of missiles. So it shouldn't underestimated.

I thought Rafale had F404 engines from the F/A-18? or was that just the prototype?

Lem'me shed a little light into what I've siad earlier, coz re-reading the post I realized there might be some confusion on the engines. All I know is that the Rafale has 2 engines and those 2 numbers. I can't tell you whether EACH produces that much thrust or both of them (although I seriously suspect that each produces that amount of thrust). Either way, it's still less than the EF2000 for example.

Quote:

"Walking through the valley of death, I shall not fear, For I am at 80,000 feet and climbing..." Cool

(this little poem was supposedly set up at the entrance of an SR-71 base)

And don't you forget it!
Dunno if that was posted at Beale, or Det 1.

And then we look at DeepSpace's F-16I and say, "Well, the Rafale DID have a chance" lol, lol, lol, j/k, j/k, Wink

But the F-16I and later versions of the F-16 do look nice, and also offer more hardpoints for increased payloads, Smile

<b>Habu2</b>, The Rafale A prototype did have two F404 because the planned engines were not ready, but all subsequent Rafales use two M88-2, built by SNECMA and rated at 11,000lbs dry each, and 16,500 with afterburning.

Wildcat, ah yes, I remember now. Somewhere I have pics of the Rafale A flying with one of each engine installed.

I checked: you're absolutely right, Rafale A used both engines during first tests of M88s.

Wildcat

To Wildcat :
According to you, French pilots say that the Rafale's sutained turn rate is slighty better than the F-16's one... Where have you red this ? I can find no sources about that. I'm quite surprised because French pilots usually say that the Mirage2000 is better than the F-16 in dogfight, and that the Rafale is better than the F-16, but you report that the Rafale isn't that good against the F-16...

In a recent number of the Dutch airfore magazine "Onze Luchtmacht" there was a mention of a study before the JSF was selected. In this study the result was that the JSF ended up first with a close finish with the updated Rafale F-4. Also concerning stealth and avionics etc. However The French government is not going to produce the F-4 variant!! This makes the Rafale whay ahead of the Viper although I don't know how it will compare to the block 60. It seems they have same kind of electronics. The Rafal F-1 is a very much downgraded version of the Rafale. It only has an air to air capability and was introduced because the Aeronavale had no air defence fighter at all after the Crusader.
I'm wondering is the European nations opted for the JSF will turn to the Rafale if the JSF will not be ready in time!
Its sure a better looking airplane than the JSF!
Dick

If I had to chose between an F-16D 52+ or an Rafale B to go to war with, I would definitly go for the Rafale B. First reason: very good man / machine interface. Second: good radar / IRST / LLTV and other EW equipment. Third: two engine's for better survival. Forth and final: the canards make a real difference..

I think the Rafale is a good match for the block 60 F-16. But that one still lacks infrared scanner and tracking system.

The Viper wil mop the floor with anything french any day of the week

In your dreams!!! Twisted Evil

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 versus Rafale