F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

[zero-one]

If we're having a conversation about dogfights, then I know the conversation is in the wrong place."

There are several reasons why the F-35 could end up in a dogfight. After all, when all the missiles are gone the gun is the only option that we are left with. Or what if we meet an opponent with an even smaller radar signature? Or an opponent that is able to evade all our missiles, in one way or another? My focus in this post is therefore the factors that help determine the outcome of a dogfight.

got to love the difference in their philosophies. Personally I like Hanche's answer better. Chip seems like he's avoiding the question for some reason. Detractors can easily twist this as some have.

[Corsair1963]

I think that article sums it up very well. F-22 is totally overwhelming in overall air combat capabilities due to dictating and dominating the fight from the start mainly due to VLO stealth and SA advantages. However EF Typhoon is definitely formidable in close combat due to having similar T/W ratio to F-22 and good aerodynamics while also having had HMS, HOBS missiles and IRST system while F-22 doesn't have those (except AIM-9X very recently). Dassault Rafale is roughly similar to EF Typhoon with some advantages and some disadvantages. I think it's actually pretty remarkable that F-22 has done so well even in close combat without HMS and HOBS missiles. I think that's because it has incredible aerodynamics, stealth, its sensors and sensor fusion likely help even there. Receiving HMS and HOBS missiles will make it even more dangerous close in.

I think it's great that F-22, EF Typhoon and Dassault Rafale have and do train with and against each other. F-22 is clearly the king in air combat, but both Eurocanards have capabilties that make them great opponents (and sidekicks) for F-22 and vice versa.

Yet, the above article about the Typhoon is when the aircraft is "clean". Very big difference in performance between a clean Typhoon or Rafale or whatever. As it compares to a combat loaded one......So, even close in the Typhoon isn't as good as the story would like us to believe.

[hornetfinn]

Yet, the above article about the Typhoon is when the aircraft is "clean". Very big difference in performance between a clean Typhoon or Rafale or whatever. As it compares to a combat loaded one......So, even close in the Typhoon isn't as good as the story would like us to believe.

Definitely agree. This is also something most people don't understand about F-22 and especially F-35. They have almost equal performance in combat configuration as they have in air show configuration. Not so in any previous generation jet, including Typhoon.

[zero-one]

So, even close in the Typhoon isn't as good as the story would like us to believe.

I would have to disagree with this bit. The Typhoon is impressive clean or configured for Air to air. Its just not as impressive as the F-22 and 35 which are clean while configured for air to air.

[SpudmanWP]

Have you seen the "Out of the Shadows" article that came out of Edwards AFB?

Out of the SHADOWS [SIX Page PDF linked]
May 2018 Frank Crébas
...Dogfighting in the F-35...
...‘The F-35 is a very different aircraft, and it took pilots a while to adjust and figure out how to max-perform it. What didn’t help is that until about 18 months ago we were restricted in envelope, which meant we couldn’t pull as much g as we wanted to, nor fly with high-alpha. It was an eye-opener for all of us when those restrictions were lifted and we finally got to see the full potential. Actually, it was an eye-opener for a lot of adversary pilots as well.’

The F-35 is far larger than the F-16, and it carries twice as much fuel and three times the payload. ‘Consequently, the F-35 loses energy a bit faster than the F-16 at higher speeds,’ continues Knight. ‘But the slow-speed handling is amazing. The F-35 pilot has the option to continuously point the nose at the adversary, even at ridiculously slow speeds, which is a great capability to have in combination with high off-boresight missiles and a helmet-mounted sight. You need to be careful maneuvering the aircraft at higher speeds, because if you keep pulling back on the stick the aircraft will give you as much alpha as it can, but it will bleed a lot of energy in the process. It’s up to the pilot to recognize when to try to maintain airspeed and energy and when to give that away to prosecute with missiles or guns. I typically tell new pilots that the F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and F/A-18 when it comes to within visual range maneuvering.’

Knight divulged a little more information about flying basic fighter maneuvers (BFM) in an F-35. ‘When our envelope was cleared to practise BFM we got the opportunity to fight some fourth-generation fighters. Remember, back then the rumors were that the F-35 was a pig. The first time the opponents showed up [in the training area] they had wing tanks along with a bunch of missiles. I guess they figured that being in a dirty configuration wouldn’t really matter and that they would still easily outmaneuver us. By the end of the week, though, they had dropped their wing tanks, transitioned to a single centerline fuel tank and were still doing everything they could not to get gunned by us. A week later they stripped the jets clean of all external stores, which made the BFM fights interesting, to say the least…

‘High-g maneuvering is fun, but having high fuel capacity and the ability to carry lots of stores is great too. During the weeks when we were flying BFM we also needed to drop a GBU-12 [laser-guided bomb] on the China Lake weapons range. Back in our F-16 days we’d have had to choose, since there is no way you can BFM with a bomb on your wing, let alone having the fuel to fly both missions in a single sortie. With the F-35, however, this isn’t much of an issue. On one of the sorties, my colleague, Maj Pascal ‘Smiley’ Smaal, decided he would fly BFM and still have enough fuel to go to the range afterwards and drop his weapon. During the debrief, the adversary pilot told us he was confused as to why we went to the range after the fight. When ‘Smiley’ told him that he was carrying an inert GBU-12 the entire time and that he then dropped it afterwards during a test event, the silence on the other end of the line was 'golden’..."

Source: http://bit.ly/2GBa80a

[Corsair1963]

So, even close in the Typhoon isn't as good as the story would like us to believe.

I would have to disagree with this bit. The Typhoon is impressive clean or configured for Air to air. Its just not as impressive as the F-22 and 35 which are clean while configured for air to air.

I can agree with that....

[hornetfinn]

That's also what the Swiss evaluation report stated. It's clearly well designed and well made aircraft with some rather advanced systems (for 4th gen fighter). Eurofighter might have more potential in many ways (more power, bigger nose for bigger radar antenna) but they seems to be lagging behind in some technologies like AESA or sensor fusion system.

I'd be rather more interested in latest F-15C, SH or F-16 Block 70 vs. Rafale as those are all pretty advanced 4th gen jets. Of course Su-27 or MiG-29 derivatives might be more likely adversaries in real life. I'd say that Su-35 vs Rafale might be interesting as they have very different capabilities. Rafale is clearly the better as multi-role fighter though.

[f4u7_corsair]

they cost way more than F-35As

That's not factually supported, and will remain to be proven in the future.

Other than that, yes. Before the F-35, only two fighters featured true sensor fusion: Rafale and F-22;

[wrightwing]

they cost way more than F-35As

That's not factually supported, and will remain to be proven in the future.

Other than that, yes. Before the F-35, only two fighters featured true sensor fusion: Rafale and F-22;

Actually, it is factually supported. The last lot of F-35As cost ~$94 million. FRP F-35As should cost ~$80 million. Rafales cost >$103 million.

[f4u7_corsair]

Figures out of the blue don't cut it. It's like comparing CPFH without knowing what calculation basis you consider for both programmes (and there are a lot of different calculation methods).

So if I can take numbers out of the blue too, then here are the 2014 unitary production costs for Rafale C/B/M respectively: 78/84/89 M$. Source is the French Senate.

..cost way more, you said?

You'll note that they are lower than the current F-35 cost, and the Rafale C is cheaper than the FRP F-35 cost. You'll also note that it's a 2014 figure, with the figure probably decreasing since then. Finally, if we take quoted costs for export contracts (and namely the LM proposal for the Belgian RfGP), the F-35 is far from being cheaper on an unitary basis.

But then we don't really know the calculation methods for these figures. Saying the Rafale costs way more than the F-35 is probably a fallacy though.

[wrightwing]

Figures out of the blue don't cut it. It's like comparing CPFH without knowing what calculation basis you consider for both programmes (and there are a lot of different calculation methods).

So if I can take numbers out of the blue too, then here are the 2014 unitary production costs for Rafale C/B/M respectively: 78/84/89 M$. Source is the French Senate.

..cost way more, you said?

You'll note that they are lower than the current F-35 cost, and the Rafale C is cheaper than the FRP F-35 cost. You'll also note that it's a 2014 figure, with the figure probably decreasing since then. Finally, if we take quoted costs for export contracts (and namely the LM proposal for the Belgian RfGP), the F-35 is far from being cheaper on an unitary basis.

But then we don't really know the calculation methods for these figures. Saying the Rafale costs way more than the F-35 is probably a fallacy though.

You forgot to convert to Euros, and add inflation.

[f4u7_corsair]

That's right, I converted to USD straight at today's exchange rate, mea culpa.

2014 € cost was 68/73/78 M€ (resp. Rafale C/B/M).
Inflation for 2014-18 is 70/76/81 M€.
Convertion to USD is 80/87/93 M$.

Yep, still cheaper 4 years ago vs. F-35 today...

[hornetfinn]

Of course if you converted first to USD and then added inflation, then the costs would be rather different as conversion rate in 2014 was something like 1.35 vs. 1.15 today. Then the cost would be something like 94/101/108. Of course F-35 also gives more for the money (VLO platform, more powerful sensors, better networking and superior range/payload).

Just to show that these comparisons are rather difficult and can lead to very different end results.

[f4u7_corsair]

Just to show that these comparisons are rather difficult and can lead to very different end results.

Yes that's the point i tried to make earlier with the CPFH example. It wasn't my intention to dive in meaningless comparisons.

[SpudmanWP]

Don't forget subsidies.

The Indian reported > $110 mil "bare fighter" cost did not even include the $50 mil "customization" fee. What the hell does India need customized that costs $50 mil per fighter?

While FMS is not a complete apples-to-apples comparison, it is telling that every Rafale, Eurofighter, F-15E+, F-18E, etc contract announcement is always more than any FMS F-35 announcement.