F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 05:56
by armedupdate
Can someone tell me what happened between the Rafale-F-22 dogfight that resulted in 1-0 victory for the F-22? However the F-22 was shot down by a Mirage, plus the French showed a video where the F-22 was in a disadvantageous position....what happened? Did the French fire the MICA and miss?

How does the F-22 compare to the Rafale in agility?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 10:26
by zero-one
Ah yes the famous Rafale HUD footage that fan boys are touting as "proof" that the Rafale is superior to the F-22.

You will notice that in that video, the Rafale managed to gain a simulated lock on the F-22 twice if I remember correctly.
Question is, how many times did the F-22 lock on the Rafale in that video.

There was also a part in that video that when the Rafale saw the Raptor, the F-22's nose was pointed straight at her already, that could have been a simulated lock for the F-22 right there.

When it comes to Agility, the British claim that the Rafale performs very similar to the EF Typhoon. It's not a far fetched claim as the 2 fighters share very similar aerodynamic layouts.

But according to the British themselves, the Raptor is superior on most maneuvering metrics

Read more here:
https://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 10:45
by popcorn
Context is everything...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 14:09
by wil59
zero-one wrote:Ah yes the famous Rafale HUD footage that fan boys are touting as "proof" that the Rafale is superior to the F-22.

You will notice that in that video, the Rafale managed to gain a simulated lock on the F-22 twice if I remember correctly.
Question is, how many times did the F-22 lock on the Rafale in that video.

There was also a part in that video that when the Rafale saw the Raptor, the F-22's nose was pointed straight at her already, that could have been a simulated lock for the F-22 right there.

When it comes to Agility, the British claim that the Rafale performs very similar to the EF Typhoon. It's not a far fetched claim as the 2 fighters share very similar aerodynamic layouts.

But according to the British themselves, the Raptor is superior on most maneuvering metrics

Read more here:
https://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
the reality of the last confrontations are 7 to 1 in favor of the rafale, and the rafale was limp when eurofigter scored 1 time, f-22 vs rafale is equal seen the video have burst advantage from start to finish.which is stange f-22 1 victory no vidéo 5 Equality and 1 loss .For me the video of the fight f-22 vs rafale must be a victory rafale .French army or air made this video for a reason,proves a victory for rafale that has not been validated by us Air Force. Why British driver did not want to face the rafale! you should ask yourself ? The rafale is as good as the f-22, you will not have to say otherwise!The frenzy on the generations of aircraft as for me it is just of anything...
And at what the French technology would be less good ques the others? Equivalent OK, but less good forgiveness but there it is you who do not like France.

Anything else, you saw the results(profits) of the exercises led between Gusts(Bursts) and Typhoon? For information the English people do not any more want to reattempt these exercises, and Gust(Burst) widely dominated him(it), I invent nothing, visits on the clear(net) all the sources(springs) which I was able to see say the same thing.

Furthermore, the evaluations of the countries which one tried this plane places him(it) in all the domains above the typhoon, look at those of Switzerland, Brazil, South Korea, they are all all right top.

Thus we shall go back so that Typhoon is better even there dog fight ^^

Attention I do not say that it is the best plane, but when we look at the difference between both programs, that of Eurofighter was much more expensive for a device which in put three years more being born, nevertheless developed and built with the cooperation of 4 countries!

And there is as well a fact as to deal with a country to manage a contract as this one is already very complicated, then if we add three countries more... That has to be a nameless horror at the level of the agreements and of the transfers of technology.

You have the right to prefer Typhoon, no worries, but inquire about the notices of the other countries which were able to test it, it is not that a valuable story.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 16:37
by checksixx
LoL...the video in which the Rafale pilot is pre or post stall the entire time? Yeah, a good watch, but in reality another jet would have had him while he tried to maneuver against the other. This was training specifically to teach. You have to teach with what you have. Its not always about watching a 5th gen jet destroy everything. Its about using your asset to teach defeat tactics to 4th gen pilots as there are non-friendly countries developing these capabilities.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 17:36
by basher54321
checksixx wrote:LoL...the video in which the Rafale pilot is pre or post stall the entire time? Yeah, a good watch, but in reality another jet would have had him while he tried to maneuver against the other. This was training specifically to teach. You have to teach with what you have. Its not always about watching a 5th gen jet destroy everything. Its about using your asset to teach defeat tactics to 4th gen pilots as there are non-friendly countries developing these capabilities.


What!! you mean T-38 is not bestest plane eva?? :lmao:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 17:42
by eloise
I actually believe Rafale is very agile :shock:
If what pilot said are to believed , Typhoon and F-22 are quite evenly matched in dogfight ,and IIRC Rafale beat Typhoon in dogfight so there is a possibility that it could be more agile than F-22 , who know ? :wink:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 18:50
by SnakeHandler
Checksixx and I know, but we're not tellin'...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Nov 2015, 18:52
by SnakeHandler
What!! you mean T-38 is not bestest plane eva?? :lmao:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ[/quote]

Lose sight, lose fight...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2015, 14:00
by mixelflick
SnakeHandler wrote:What!! you mean T-38 is not bestest plane eva?? :lmao:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UXmDj3mFrXQ


Lose sight, lose fight...[/quote]

Right on.

We should be buying T-38's by the squadron full...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 14 Nov 2015, 14:41
by deadseal
i dont think i ever saw anything out the back of the 38 in IFF.....all i know is:
ready, ready, fights on!
break..1 potato 2 potato....jink!
1 potato 2 potato...jink!

never saw squat

debrief:
"Hey bud your jinks were a little late but not bad overall... we'll call it a sat"

just smile and wave boys, smile and wave


the funny thing about all this is that the US has learned to not show the french sh*t.....you can rest assured that the raptor was holding back. I know a guy who fought rafales at Luke and he said it was a good jet, but a light Viper did pretty well against it. A raptor can run circles around anything but a light 50/52 and even then he can cash in for first launch with his nose anytime he wants using thrust vectoring.

this is propoganda plain and simple...taken out of context

also his AGSM sucks donkey nuts

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2015, 04:53
by armedupdate
From what I know the Rafale's 7-1 victory against the Typhoon was at BVR not dogfight.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2015, 14:56
by geforcerfx
armedupdate wrote:From what I know the Rafale's 7-1 victory against the Typhoon was at BVR not dogfight.


I've seen all sorts of crazy claims on the dact, BVR doesn't make sense unless it was like traunch 1 typhoons vs the latest rafales with Aesa, who knows. I still love all these guys being so proud of WVR combat training kill ratios like they actually mean something.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2015, 18:03
by sferrin
geforcerfx wrote:
armedupdate wrote:From what I know the Rafale's 7-1 victory against the Typhoon was at BVR not dogfight.


I've seen all sorts of crazy claims on the dact, BVR doesn't make sense unless it was like traunch 1 typhoons vs the latest rafales with Aesa, who knows. I still love all these guys being so proud of WVR combat training kill ratios like they actually mean something.



Still isn't as bad as that other crowd being so proud of airshows as if THAT actually means something. :wink:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 15 Nov 2015, 21:26
by tritonprime
The video


Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 10:11
by wil59
deadseal wrote:i dont think i ever saw anything out the back of the 38 in IFF.....all i know is:
ready, ready, fights on!
break..1 potato 2 potato....jink!
1 potato 2 potato...jink!

never saw squat

debrief:
"Hey bud your jinks were a little late but not bad overall... we'll call it a sat"

just smile and wave boys, smile and wave


the funny thing about all this is that the US has learned to not show the french sh*t.....you can rest assured that the raptor was holding back. I know a guy who fought rafales at Luke and he said it was a good jet, but a light Viper did pretty well against it. A raptor can run circles around anything but a light 50/52 and even then he can cash in for first launch with his nose anytime he wants using thrust vectoring.

this is propoganda plain and simple...taken out of context

also his AGSM sucks donkey nuts

I disagree, the f22 driver operate the aircraft with full capacity if you are dead, the f-22 turned around the rafale lol; smoke stopped my boy! the fight're dogfight ok; the bvr fight do you think eurofighter is better than I burst does not believe more burst is much better for different mission with its versatility it does not need to be reconfigured for it or need another plane to light a target lol

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 15:03
by sferrin
wil59 wrote:
deadseal wrote:i dont think i ever saw anything out the back of the 38 in IFF.....all i know is:
ready, ready, fights on!
break..1 potato 2 potato....jink!
1 potato 2 potato...jink!

never saw squat

debrief:
"Hey bud your jinks were a little late but not bad overall... we'll call it a sat"

just smile and wave boys, smile and wave


the funny thing about all this is that the US has learned to not show the french sh*t.....you can rest assured that the raptor was holding back. I know a guy who fought rafales at Luke and he said it was a good jet, but a light Viper did pretty well against it. A raptor can run circles around anything but a light 50/52 and even then he can cash in for first launch with his nose anytime he wants using thrust vectoring.

this is propoganda plain and simple...taken out of context

also his AGSM sucks donkey nuts

I disagree, the f22 driver operate the aircraft with full capacity if you are dead, the f-22 turned around the rafale lol; smoke stopped my boy! the fight're dogfight ok; the bvr fight do you think eurofighter is better than I burst does not believe more burst is much better for different mission with its versatility it does not need to be reconfigured for it or need another plane to light a target lol



You sound like a barely literate COD warrior. :roll:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 20:16
by eloise
Look at what a T-38 can do :mrgreen:
Image
Image
Image
Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 20:33
by basher54321
Clearly had a harder time against F-16s :P

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Nov 2015, 21:07
by eloise
basher54321 wrote:Clearly had a harder time against F-16s :P

:mrgreen: can you imagine what will happened if these were F-35 rather than F-22 marking :lol: all newspaper will be flooded with how F-35 is 10 times worse than F-16 :mrgreen:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 12:18
by wil59
sferrin wrote:
wil59 wrote:
deadseal wrote:i dont think i ever saw anything out the back of the 38 in IFF.....all i know is:
ready, ready, fights on!
break..1 potato 2 potato....jink!
1 potato 2 potato...jink!

never saw squat

debrief:
"Hey bud your jinks were a little late but not bad overall... we'll call it a sat"

just smile and wave boys, smile and wave


the funny thing about all this is that the US has learned to not show the french sh*t.....you can rest assured that the raptor was holding back. I know a guy who fought rafales at Luke and he said it was a good jet, but a light Viper did pretty well against it. A raptor can run circles around anything but a light 50/52 and even then he can cash in for first launch with his nose anytime he wants using thrust vectoring.

this is propoganda plain and simple...taken out of context

also his AGSM sucks donkey nuts

I disagree, the f22 driver operate the aircraft with full capacity if you are dead, the f-22 turned around the rafale lol; smoke stopped my boy! the fight're dogfight ok; the bvr fight do you think eurofighter is better than I burst does not believe more burst is much better for different mission with its versatility it does not need to be reconfigured for it or need another plane to light a target lol



You sound like a barely literate COD warrior. :roll:
yes I play call of a "ghost" on xbox one, lol ;more seriously a thought for all the people murdered in paris by these son of a bitch!129 dead and wounded 300+ and this 230 kilometer from home!we really live in a world of sh*t! RIP

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 13:11
by zero-one
Well for all you fan boys out there, heres a semi-educated list of the Top 10 best WVR fighters as of 2015.

To be fair, the writer does have his merits. any pilot will tell you, his plane is the best, but if you've talked to so many of them, you can probably make a subjective hypothesis that isn't too far fetched

http://hushkit.net/2014/01/09/the-top-t ... ssessment/

Tactics, training and luck are the determining factors in who survives within visual range aerial combat. Despite the modern emphasis on beyond-visual range combat, the vast majority of fighter versus fighter engagements have taken place at close ranges. The following ten are the best fighters for this mission. The order is more or less arbitrary, with different aircraft having the advantage at different altitudes and air speeds. By its nature, any top ten is simplistic and should serve as the basis for discussion rather than as a conclusion.



10. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F-15 Eagle

Aggressor at Red Flag Alaska

Once considered top dog, the F-15 is now making room for younger aircraft. In exercises, the type still does well, but this says more about the pilot quality than any inherent advantage of this platform in the WVR arena. Well-armed, well-equipped and powerful, it is still an aircraft to be respected. In later exercises against India it is reported to have been able to use superior tactics to defeat Su-30s, despite the Russian aircraft enjoying greater manoeuvrability at low speeds. Powerful and reliable, and flown by some of the best fighter pilots in the world (in USAF service), it remains an adversary worthy of great respect, especially at medium altitudes.

HMD/S: Yes

Advanced SRAAMs: Yes, AIM-9X, Python 4/5

Visual stealth: Poor

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Very good

High alpha performance: Poor

Sustained turn rates: Good (16 degree/sec)

Instantaneous turn rates: Good (21 deg/sec)

9. Chengdu J-10

5075650551sep27
Rumours from China describe the J-10 performing well in DACT exercises against the far bigger Su-27/J-11. With a maximum G-rating of +9 / -3 and a maximum sustained turn load of 8.9g, the type has demonstrated impressive performance at several public airshows. It scores highly on turn radius, low visual signature, low-speed capabilities and also has excellent pilot vision.
HMD/S: Yes

Advanced SRAAMs: No, at present only PL-8

Visual stealth: Excellent

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Good

High alpha performance: Good

Sustained turn rates: Good

Instantaneous turn rates: Good

8. General Dynamics/Lockheed Martin F-16

IDF Israeli Air Force American F-16

The Viper remains potent at the mission it was designed for: the close-in dogfight. The Viper has grown fatter with age, so the early Block aircraft are the most spritely, this combined with JHMCS and modern missiles, like the AIM-9X, Python 5 and IRIS-T keep it a foe to respect. It is small and hard for its opponents to keep visual tabs on, it has an impressive turn rate and has better retention of energy than larger-winged peers like the Mirage 2000. Below 10K feet the F-16 is similar in performance to the Typhoon. Most F-16 models have a better thrust to weight ratio than the Super Hornet (when similarly equipped). The Python 5 is regarded as one of the best air-to-air missiles, it has a very large weapon engagement zone (WEZ) and a high resistance to countermeasures. According to one defence writer close to the UK Typhoon force, RAF pilots had greater respect for the F-16s than the Gripens that they have encountered in wargames.

HMD/S: Yes, JHMCS

Advanced SRAAMs: AIM-9X, Python 4/5 and IRIS-T

Visual stealth: Excellent.

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Good

High alpha performance: Good

Sustained turn rates: Good

Instantaneous turn rates: Very good (26deg/sec)

(If all this is too modern for you, have a look at the Top Ten World II fighters)



7. RAC MiG MiG-29

Image

Despite its age the MiG-29 remains a fiercely capable dogfighter, sharing many of the weapon systems of the ‘Flanker’. The Indian Indian MiG-29K/KUB with the TopOwl helmet-mounted and R-73E is the best-equipped variant in the WVR scenario, but is normally limited to 7G, whereas land-based ’29s are 9G capable. When the MiG-35 enters service it will be the most agile fighter in the world in the low speed regime, as anyone who has witnessed the physics defying antics of the MiG-29OVT will testify. Though thrust-vectoring, post-stall manoeuvring must be used very carefully to be effective, the MiG-35’s unsurpassed power -to-weight ratio should ensure it recover lost energy states quickly. The tough structure offers a degree of battlefield protection according to MiG who have assessed the type’s performance in actual wars. According to at least one MiG-29 pilot, the type enjoys a small, but significant advantage over the F-16 in the merge. One USAF F-16C pilot (Mike McCoy of the 510th) who flew BFM against MiG-29s noted “In a low-speed fight, fighting the ‘Fulcrum’ is similar to fighting an F-18 Hornet…But the ‘Fulcrum’ has a thrust advantage over the Hornet. An F-18 can really crank its nose around if you get into a slow-speed fight, but it has to lose altitude to regain the energy, which allows us to get on top of them. The MiG has about the same nose authority at slow speeds, but it can regain energy much faster. Plus the MiG pilots have that forty-five-degree cone in front of them into which they can fire an Archer and eat you up.” Luftwaffe MiG-29 Oberstleutenant Johann Koeck who flew against F-15s, F/A-18s and F-16s in extensive training exercises noted,” Inside ten nautical miles I’m hard to defeat, and with the IRST, helmet sight and ‘Archer’ I can’t be beaten. Period.”

Follow my vapour trail on Twitter: @Hush_kit

HMD/S: Yes

Advanced SRAAMs: No, but R-73 is still highly regarded. R-74 in the pipeline.

Visual stealth: Medium (poor in early versions due to smoky engines)

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Excellent

High alpha performance: Excellent

Sustained turn rates: Good

Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent (28deg/sec)

6. Saab Gripen

????????????

‘Lose sight, lose the fight‘ is an old dogfighting adage and it is very easy to lose sight of the tiny Gripen. Though not the most powerful fighter, it is agile, well-armed and gives its pilot good situational awareness. Some Gripen operators employ an advanced helmet-mounted sight in conjunction with IRIS-T missiles, a sobering prospect for potential adversaries. The IRIS-T is a highly regraded weapon, with excellent agility and target discrimination. The helmet-sight, is an adaptation of the Typhoon helmet, the most advanced helmet in operational service. The Gripen preserves energy very well, is hard to spot and has the smallest IR signature of the fighters on this list.

(Top Ten Swedish aeroplanes here)

Helmet Mounted Display/Sight: Yes: Cobra

Advanced SRAAMs: IRIS-T

Visual stealth: Excellent

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Good

High Alpha performance: Good

Sustained turn rates: Excellent

Instantaeous turn rates: Very good

5. Dassault Rafale

Image

The Rafale can maintain higher Alpha manoeuvres than the Typhoon. It is very agile, with an excellent man machine interface and the most advanced aircraft cannon. Like most carrier fighters it is docile in the low speed ranges that most within-visual-range fights take place at. Whereas The Typhoon excels at high speed. high altitude manourvreability, the Rafale excels at low speed and low altitude, though its high altitude performance has also impressed French pilots. At sea level the Rafale is reported to have a superior instantaneous turn rate to Typhoon. One pilot who has flown Rafale, and is knowledgeable of the Typhoon’s performance, claims that below 10,000 ft it would ‘eat Typhoon’. The Rafale lacks a helmet-mounted sight and its high alpha performance is inferior to that of the Hornet family. The Rafale has reportedly done well in DACT exercises against the F-22. The Rafale is an extremely tough opponent in the WVR regime. MICA has a LOAL capability allowing targets in the ‘six’o’clock to be engaged.

HMD/S: No

Advanced SRAAMs: Yes, MICA

Visual stealth: Medium

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Very good

High alpha performance: Very good

Sustained turn rates: Very good

Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent (especially at low level)

4. McDonnell Douglas/Boeing F/A-18 Hornet/Super Hornet

aircraft-planes_hdwallpaper_f-18-hornet_83825

The Bug family have excellent nose authority, JHMCS and good missiles in the form of AIM-9X (or ASRAAM for RAAF legacy birds). At low level they are the equal of any operational fighter, but at higher altitudes they at disadvantage against more modern aircraft like the Typhoon, Rafale and F-22. The legacy Hornet is 9G rated as opposed to the larger Super Hornet which is stressed up to 7G for normal operations (it is really the legacy F/A-18 that deserves this high ranking but the Super Hornet is also highly regarded in the ‘merge’). It has been noted by F-16 pilots that Super Hornets lose energy quicker than Vipers at higher altitudes. In a slow fight, no Western fighters can match either the Bug or the Rhino. One pilot who has flown the Super Hornet recommended that I mention the ‘Turbo Nose down’, a manoeuvre which utilises the aircraft’s excess power to rapidly push the aircraft out of high alpha flight. Australian Hornets have demonstrated a 180° missile shot with the AIM-132, firing the missile at a target in the firing aircraft’s 6’o’ clock in the lock-on after launch mode. The so-called ‘Parthian Shot‘ is a defensive boon, but demands a wingman with nerves of steel and faith in the technology!

Read more about flying the Super Hornet here and here.

(For the sake of brevity the two F/A-18 family members share one entry.)

HMD/S: Yes

Advanced SRAAMs: ASRAAM, AIM-9X

Visual stealth: Medium

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Good

High alpha performance: Excellent

Sustained turn rates: Good

Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent

3. Eurofighter Typhoon

Eurofighter Typhoon performing during the Airpower in Zeltweg, Austria

Wild turn rates, a true 9G performance and enormous excess power make the Typhoon a hell of a dogfighter; the highly regarded G-suits worn by Typhoon pilots increase tolerance to the high forces generated by the energetic Typhoon. It also features the most advanced helmet mounted sight in service (and the newer Striker 2 is, according to one independent tester, ‘superb’), a powerful cannon and the excellent IRIS-T and ASRAAM missiles. The combination of advanced missile and helmet imbue the Typhoon with a terrifying off-boresight missile shot capability. Testing of the Aerodynamic Modification Kit, which includes modified strakes, extended flaperons and mini-leading edge root extensions may go some way to rectify Typhoon’s main limitation – a pedestrian high alpha performance. But the Typhoon is not an ‘angles fighter’ like the F/A-18 which relies on risky (as they drain energy quickly) but startling attacks in the merge; the Typhoon is an ‘energy fighter’ using its phenomenal ability to preserve energy in a dogfight to wear its opponents out. In short, if an opponent doesn’t get a Typhoon on his first attack he is in a very dangerous position as the large amount of excess thrust makes the aircraft a very energetic adversary.

In exercises against Indian Air Force, RAF Typhoons used their superior energy and acceleration to ‘reliably’ trounce Su-30MKIs.

F-22 pilots who ‘fought’ the Typhoon in DACT were impressed by its energy levels (especially in the first turn) and several Luftwaffe aircraft proudly displayed Raptor ‘kill’ silhouettes beneath their cockpits. Like the Raptor, the Typhoon has such a formidable reputation that any ‘victories’ against it in training exercises make excellent boasts. At medium to high altitudes the type is generally superior to the teen fighters in the WVR regime. According to one Typhoon pilot, its dog-fighting abilities are a close match to the Raptor’s, but Typhoon benefits from being smaller and better armed.

HMD/S: Yes

Advanced SRAAMs: ASRAAM, IRIS-T

Visual stealth: Medium

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Excellent

High alpha performance: Poor

Sustained turn rates: Excellent

Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent

2. Lockheed Martin F-22A Raptor

Image

The Raptor’s excellent power-to-weight ratio, low wing-loading and 2D thrust-vectoring make it a fierce opponent in the visual range dogfight. It is let down by its elderly short range air-to-air missiles, lack of helmet-mounted sight and its large size. The internal carriage of its AIM-9M limits the way they can be used, and it only carries two. According to Typhoon pilots who ‘fought’ against it, the Raptor loses energy very quickly when employing thrust vectoring. The Raptor pilot likes to keep the fight high and fast. The F-22 has never been seriously challenged in wargames or DACT exercises- though the WVR regime is not its strongest card it is still extremely hard to beat, to the point that any ‘kills’ scored by pilots against the Raptor become newsworthy. Its pilots are, outside of adversary units, probably the best in the world.

HMD/S: No

Advanced SRAAMs: No

Visual stealth: Poor

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Excellent

High Alpha performance: Excellent

Sustained turn rates: Excellent (28 deg/sec at 20K ft)

Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent

1. Sukhoi Su-35

13_11_08_27_sm

The Sukhoi Su-27 is no slouch in the dogfight, and this advanced derivative is even more potent; the fighter, which is now in service with the Russian air force in small numbers, benefits from an additional 7,000Ibs of thrust combined with a variety of refinements. The Su-35’s engines, at maximum reheat, generate a staggering 62,000Ibs of thrust, which when combined with the ‘Flanker’ series superb aerodynamic configuration and vectored thrust nozzles, create an aircraft unparalleled in low-speed manoeuvrability. Whereas the F-22 relies on two dimensional thrust vectoring, the Su-35 utilises 3D nozzles that have perfected over the last thirty years. A Su-35 (ably demonstrated by Sergei Bogdan) held the crowds of Paris 2013 spellbound with its demonstration of dramatic post-stall manoeuvring.

The biggest question mark with the Su-35s within-range combat effectiveness is the degree to which the enormous thrust and robust engines aid energy preservation. The Su-35 unique abilities will require unique tactics – if flown by well-trained pilots, the Su-35 will prove a worthy adversary to any in-service fighter in the vicious world of the low-speed furball.

HMD/S: Yes

Advanced SRAAMs: R-73E/M

Visual stealth: Poor

Thrust-to-weight ratio: Excellent

High alpha performance: Excellent

Sustained turn rates: Excellent

Instantaneous turn rates: Excellent



So there we have it, or do we?

I asked a fighter pilot (with experience of flying most of the ‘4.5 generation’ fighter aircraft) his opinion on my top ten selection; he was keen to dismiss such a crude approach:

“It is complicated to discuss this issue in just a few words, but in order to produce a new look analysis on WVR, you should think about gyroscopic vs needle ‘driving styles’ (and the capabilities needed to play this or that, of course). So, you will pass through power-to-weight ratio, rudder surfaces, flying characteristics across different flight levels, etc. Until you get to the crucial area of energy management (that sifts the ace from the targets). It is all a question of control of the part of the egg you want to keep the fight, and well-trained pilots with good tactics will always try to keep the fight in a corner where they have some advantage. We’re not talking about an UFC card! It is team work.

The tactical egg is an imaginary bubble that represents all possible motions of an aircraft in a dogfight, showing the effects of gravity on the aircraft’s manoeuvring. Of course, new weapons (with the ability to lock-on after launch), helmet mounted sight, etc. are making the job much more complex.

Conclusion: This question requests hours of conversation and a dozen beers! ;)


What do you guys think of his list?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 13:46
by basher54321
Tactics, training and luck are the determining factors in who survives within visual range aerial combat.


Yes but true for all aerial combat.

Despite the modern emphasis on beyond-visual range combat, the vast majority of fighter versus fighter engagements have taken place at close ranges.


The "vast majority" of fighter v fighter engagements took place between 1915 and 1980



The following ten are the best fighters for this mission. The order is more or less arbitrary, with different aircraft having the advantage at different altitudes and air speeds. By its nature, any top ten is simplistic and should serve as the basis for discussion rather than as a conclusion.


He is right there - it is extremely simplistic and limited in understanding.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Nov 2015, 23:12
by eloise
zero-one wrote:
What do you guys think of his list?

I havent read all of it , but there a few thing wrong in my opinion

For example : F-22 sustain 28 degree/sec at 20K ft , that sound pretty unbelievable to be

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2015, 07:21
by zero-one
eloise wrote:
zero-one wrote:
What do you guys think of his list?

I havent read all of it , but there a few thing wrong in my opinion

For example : F-22 sustain 28 degree/sec at 20K ft , that sound pretty unbelievable to be


We have heared of the 28 degree/sec sustained turn many times already, and honestly its not too far fetched.
Here are a few possibilities.

1. The F-22 always flies in a clean profile with enormous thrust and extreamly low wing loading, body lift optimization and lets not forget, thrust vectoring. In a light configuration, the Raptor may be able to pull off this amazing feat.

2. Speed was never mentioned, at extremely slow speeds, aided by thrust vectoring, a 28 deg/sec sustained turn is possible.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2015, 09:33
by eloise
zero-one wrote:
We have heared of the 28 degree/sec sustained turn many times already, and honestly its not too far fetched.
Here are a few possibilities.

1. The F-22 always flies in a clean profile with enormous thrust and extreamly low wing loading, body lift optimization and lets not forget, thrust vectoring. In a light configuration, the Raptor may be able to pull off this amazing feat.

2. Speed was never mentioned, at extremely slow speeds, aided by thrust vectoring, a 28 deg/sec sustained turn is possible.

You know he talking about sustained turn and not even instantaneous turn right ? :? and not at sea level either , he said it happened at 20K ft
Lower speed there will be less lift , which make it even worse
air at sea level is 1.8 times thicker than at 20K ft , so if Raptor can sustained 28 degree/sec , it will be able to sustain something like 51 degree/sec at sea level :shock: that just sound very wrong :?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2015, 17:47
by johnwill
:roll: :lmao: :bang:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2015, 17:51
by zero-one
eloise wrote:
zero-one wrote:
We have heared of the 28 degree/sec sustained turn many times already, and honestly its not too far fetched.
Here are a few possibilities.

1. The F-22 always flies in a clean profile with enormous thrust and extreamly low wing loading, body lift optimization and lets not forget, thrust vectoring. In a light configuration, the Raptor may be able to pull off this amazing feat.

2. Speed was never mentioned, at extremely slow speeds, aided by thrust vectoring, a 28 deg/sec sustained turn is possible.

You know he talking about sustained turn and not even instantaneous turn right ? :? and not at sea level either , he said it happened at 20K ft
Lower speed there will be less lift , which make it even worse
air at sea level is 1.8 times thicker than at 20K ft , so if Raptor can sustained 28 degree/sec , it will be able to sustain something like 51 degree/sec at sea level :shock: that just sound very wrong :?


Well its one thing to look at it and say "hey that doesn't sound right" and another thing to actually fly it and see that it can.

Even F-15 drivers claim that the Raptor can do the 28 deg/sec turn. We are in no position to dispute their claims

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2015, 20:53
by eloise
johnwill wrote::roll: :lmao: :bang:

:? :( did i say something inaccurate john? :?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Nov 2015, 21:32
by count_to_10
eloise wrote:
johnwill wrote::roll: :lmao: :bang:

:? :( did i say something inaccurate john? :?

Actually, I'm kind of curious which comment John was responding to.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2015, 00:24
by johnwill
Extending 28 deg/sec at 20k to 51 deg/sec at sea level based only on air density is hilarious. I usually try not to make comments belittling others, but I just could not help myself this time. Apologies to eloise. Altitude or air density is only one of many factors which determine sustained turn rate capability, so it is not possible to make such a simple comparison.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2015, 00:43
by eloise
johnwill wrote:Extending 28 deg/sec at 20k to 51 deg/sec at sea level based only on air density is hilarious. I usually try not to make comments belittling others, but I just could not help myself this time. Apologies to eloise. Altitude or air density is only one of many factors which determine sustained turn rate capability, so it is not possible to make such a simple comparison.

:mrgreen: It alright , i dont mind at all , i do agree that my estimation is over simplify .
Still i have really hard time to believe that F-22 can sustained 28 degree/second at 20K ft , i haven't heard of others fighter pull off that feat even at sea level :roll: so what is your opinion on the matter ? could that be possible ? If it possible what would be the likely hypothetical situation ?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 22 Nov 2015, 00:48
by eloise
zero-one wrote:
Well its one thing to look at it and say "hey that doesn't sound right" and another thing to actually fly it and see that it can.

Even F-15 drivers claim that the Raptor can do the 28 deg/sec turn. We are in no position to dispute their claims

I was thinking may be the pilot it a little bit may be ? ?
I mean we heard Dassault engineer claim Rafale have RCS of a sparrow , Russian claim their aircraft will have plasma stealth , ..etc and we know they exaggerated , so why cant the same thing happened with F-15 pilot ?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2015, 10:24
by zero-one
eloise wrote:I was thinking may be the pilot it a little bit may be ? ?
I mean we heard Dassault engineer claim Rafale have RCS of a sparrow , Russian claim their aircraft will have plasma stealth , ..etc and we know they exaggerated , so why cant the same thing happened with F-15 pilot ?


Well the Rafale has a reduced RCS and from a certain angle, with nothing attached, thats a possibility. A sparrow is still much bigger than the Golf ball sized RCS of the F-35 or the small metal marble sized RCS of the F-22.

Still with attachments, that Sparrow sized RCS will balloon exponentially

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 23 Nov 2015, 12:23
by eloise
zero-one wrote:Well the Rafale has a reduced RCS and from a certain angle, with nothing attached, thats a possibility. A sparrow is still much bigger than the Golf ball sized RCS of the F-35 or the small metal marble sized RCS of the F-22.

Still with attachments, that Sparrow sized RCS will balloon exponentially

no a sparrow and a metal gold ball would have similar RCS
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=UIH ... m2&f=false

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 25 Nov 2015, 14:50
by eloise
How the heck does the guy advertising pp doesn't get banned?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 09:44
by degrasse
checksixx wrote:LoL...the video in which the Rafale pilot is pre or post stall the entire time? Yeah, a good watch, but in reality another jet would have had him while he tried to maneuver against the other. This was training specifically to teach. You have to teach with what you have. Its not always about watching a 5th gen jet destroy everything. Its about using your asset to teach defeat tactics to 4th gen pilots as there are non-friendly countries developing these capabilities.

I wonder how much more than those fact you guys have missed so far:

A) The 1/7 at the time was composed of mud movers (Green), coming ether from the Jaguar or the Mirage 2000D community, meaning they spent most of their time doing their ground attack thing and probably flying less hours/year than the Raptor pilots who trained almost exclusively in A2A (Blue).

B) For a group of forum of enthusiats, you're completely beside the point: Both aircrafts were engaged in vertical yo-yo in which theorically, the F-22 would have been superior thanks to a superior TWR and use of TVC and yet, the Rafale managed to outfly it. Did you ever asked yourself the question; how come? It was a drag race and the Rafale won it.

Somethig else, there still arent ANY specialised A2A squaron in operation if the AdlA today, says a lot about what the French are training to do with their Rafale, energy management is not their primary training mission.

C) Where the anglo-American community shows a sheer ignorance of the Rafale, (and a tendency to swallow all the British Typhoon mafia nationalistic manure on Both A-C debunked a thousand times since), you completly fail to take notice of one clear FACT: The Rafale pilot doesn't hesitate to roll at speeds as low as 80kt, which a Typhoon can only dream of and clearly the F-22 canot counter even using TVC, (and this was not to put the Raptor in the IR lock designator but the gun piper on it, which he managed to before calling the kill, "Request terminate").

The explaination to that is known, looking at both F-22 and Rafale wing plans, very similar if you havent noticed: 48* leading edge sweep angle and <> 70* LEX sweep angle, but there is a fundamental difference between the two and it's called vortexes lift, 3 sources on F-22, 4 on Rafale plus a few refinements for increasing airflow at the canard roots as well, just have a look at the design then think airflow compression and expension and what they do.

Those technical bits have been very well documented by Dryden in both their flight test results and recommendation for the YF-22 (cranked wing trailing edge due to aerodynamic bashing of the ailerons), and the benefits of close-coupled canards (effects of canard tip vortexes on the outer parts of the wings energising the airflow at high AoA) several times over, i wonder how you managed to miss those studies, since you in the US of A had X-29 and X-31 programs to help understanding those basics.

If you have had any interrest on the subject you would also know the importance of optimising the position of the canard (not the case of box X A-Cs btw), meaning a Rafale can spiral at max AoA faster than a X-31 turns with TVC and managed a higher AoA by 35%+ during testing.
A mention of Gripen stalling at 90% AoA, then starting and stoping a yaw rotation with ailerons. How about that?

In short, only looking at the Rafale HUD should have been enough to the true enthusiast, it demonstrates the aerodynamic capabilities and the way the aircraft can compensate for a lower TWR and absense of TVC.

Yes, a Rafale generates vortex lift at lower AOA than both F-22 and Typhoon, therefore drag less for the same AoA, looses less energy and can accelerate comparatively faster with less thrust instaled out of a turn, until the equation drag vs thrust kicks in and it's some way from 9.0g or 110kt in most cases.

Yes, it retains a high level of control authority where a Typhoon will not only be AoA limited but also have a much lover roll rate, already lower at 1g, as for the Raptor, well, there is only so much thrust and TVC can do for you.

NO F-22 TVC doesn't allow for a full compensation of its deliberate (stealth obliges) design choices which limits it aerodynamically, it is a compromise, and everyone must recognise it, the Raptor is awesome, just not the best dogfighter by design.

F-22 wing airflow around the ailerons brakes up at high AoA and it looses roll control authority where a Rafale still can roll as demonstrated by this video, but of course it never happened since you've been told so by the Brits which btw, didn't design a single front line fighter on their own since the Harrier, oh, i forgot, a firmly subsonic A-C.

Now if you believe that a Typhoon can compete with that thinks again:

It is firmly limited to 9.0g, Rafale is stressed for 11.0g and will pull those at every airshow where MTO allows it, in any case it will out-turn both F-22 and Typhoon in instantaneous and sustained turn rates from low speed to high subsonic.

So "pre or post stall the entire time", you're way beside the design point of one if not two of those A-C, a Rafale or a Gripen are FCS limited but what you see is WAY off their aerodynamic capabilities, and you better get over this fact, they both were designed with post-stall maneuvers in mind (very much like X-29 only more developed aerodynamically, especially in the case of Rafale), only limited in FCS for operational purposes, not aerodymically, which is the opposite in the case of both F-22 and Typhoon.

Now that's a good subject for further studies and it would be even better to get into a debate where forum legends are not the basis of claims which have little to do with reality.

"Its about using your asset to teach defeat tactics to 4th gen pilot" Really? The 1/7 pilots had a hard time understanding WHY those "superior scores" claims were made and for them it was about testing the capabilities of their Rafales, which in any case are not 4th gen fighters, that would be the Mirage 2000 for you.

As it happens the video was not to be made public but some of us got their hands on it and we hold it until the 1/7 commander gave his clearence to post it, just to put a few dots on some Typhoon fanboys Is. The score was EQUAL vs F-22 and vs Typhonn, well it was mostly a bashing in WVR, and not in favour of the Eurofighter product, there again aerodynamics excellence doesn't lie, not in the real world anyway.

Have a good day gentlemen.

:mrgreen:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 13:11
by eloise
degrasse wrote:A) The 1/7 at the time was composed of mud movers (Green), coming ether from the Jaguar or the Mirage 2000D community

Source?

degrasse wrote:B) For a group of forum of enthusiats, you're completely beside the point: Both aircrafts were engaged in vertical yo-yo in which theorically, the F-22 would have been superior thanks to a superior TWR and use of TVC and yet, the Rafale managed to outfly it. Did you ever asked yourself the question; how come

Not all pilot have equal skill, and the skill of pilot are of great important, even F-4 with good pilot managed to out fly Rafale in dogfight
Image
Image
Before you claim that a drawing of Eurofighter, there was no Eurofighter in Frisian flag, but there were many Rafale

degrasse wrote:you completly fail to take notice of one clear FACT: The Rafale pilot doesn't hesitate to roll at speeds as low as 80kt, which a Typhoon can only dream of and clearly the F-22 canot counter even using TVC

Rafale has no TVC, and so torque to roll will have to depend on its aerodynamic force, slower speed result in smaller aerodynamic force, so it is impossible for Rafale to roll at speed slower than a F-22 with TVC

degrasse wrote:The explaination to that is known, looking at both F-22 and Rafale wing plans, very similar if you havent noticed: 48* leading edge sweep angle and <> 70* LEX sweep angle

So what are their respective wing thickness?

degrasse wrote:but there is a fundamental difference between the two and it's called vortexes lift, 3 sources on F-22, 4 on Rafale

Rafale has LERX and canard to generate vortex, F-22 uses strake and LERX, no more. Even if one aircraft has more vortex generating devices that doesn't automatically mean it can create stronger vortex. Not all LERX are created equal.
F-16 and F-18 only uses LERX for vortex generation but their vortex are stronger than most if not all others
Image



degrasse wrote:plus a few refinements for increasing airflow at the canard roots as well

So?

degrasse wrote:just have a look at the design then think airflow compression and expension and what they do.

Throw some terminologies here and there doesn't make you an expert. If you want to demonstrate Rafale is better than F-22 in dogfight, give exact number.

degrasse wrote:effects of canard tip vortexes on the outer parts of the wings energising the airflow at high AoA

Vortex generated by LERX will also energies airflow at high AoA


degrasse wrote:meaning a Rafale can spiral at max AoA faster than a X-31 turns with TVC

No it cannot. Unless you can give number that is utter nonsense.

degrasse wrote: and managed a higher AoA by 35%+ during testing.

Firstly, Rafale doesn't have higher AoA by 35% than an X-31 with TVC
Secondly, able to pull high AoA and able to have high control authority at high AoA are entirely different thing.
Rafale at high AoA cannot point its nose around like an airplane with TVC can. In fact, it will not even have the level of control authority at high AoA like any aircraft with twin V tails. Because at high AoA the control surfaces on the tail are blocked from airflow by the fuselage. Modern fighters have leading edge devices that can generate strong vortices. Twin tail aircraft can still maintain control at very high AoA even without TVC due to the tails. Single vertical stabilizer aircraft lose yaw control when the tail does not interact with the vortices. That why F-18 and F-35 have much better high AoA capabilities than F-16 eventhough neither have TVC. Same is true with the stabilator though many modern fighter use large horizontal stabs so they they do not lose pitch authority at higher AoA.
You see the F-18 at high alpha with vortex coming of leading edge hitting the vertical stabs:
Image
Here is an F-16 at high alpha (notice the tail and vortex coming of leading edge):
Image
Rafale with its massive delta wing and single vertical tail will be at deep stall at high AoA, that why the maximum AoA was limited to 35° despite the higher AoA it reached in testing, because it cannot make use of high AoA capability (no nose pointing)
Image

degrasse wrote:A mention of Gripen stalling at 90% AoA, then starting and stoping a yaw rotation with ailerons. How about that?

That something that even F-35 can do
https://youtu.be/aWji8AcOYGA

degrasse wrote:Yes, a Rafale generates vortex lift at lower AOA than both F-22 and Typhoon

Do you have any numbers to back that up, because that sounds like nonsense.

degrasse wrote:Yes, it retains a high level of control authority where a Typhoon will not only be AoA limited but also have a much lover roll rate, already lower at 1g, as for the Raptor, well, there is only so much thrust and TVC can do for you

It is physically impossible for a Rafale with single vertical tail and no TVC to have higher level of control authority at high AoA than any aircraft with TVC and twin vertical stabs that includes Su-35, PAK-FA and F-22. In fact, it will not even have better control authority at high AoA than F-35 and F-18



degrasse wrote:F-22 wing airflow around the ailerons brakes up at high AoA and it looses roll control authority where a Rafale still can roll as demonstrated by this video

Find me a single video of Rafale performing the pedal turn like F-35, F-22, PAK-FA then we talk about control authority at high AoA


degrasse wrote:It is firmly limited to 9.0g, Rafale is stressed for 11.0g and will pull those at every airshow where MTO allows it in any case it will out-turn both F-22 and Typhoon in instantaneous and sustained turn rates from low speed to subsonic.

You are so full of sh*t, absolute structure G limits doesn't have anything to do with instantaneous or sustain G at high altitude where aircraft are limited by lift rather than structure. To claim Rafale can always out turn F-22 and Typhoon based on structure G limit is simply ignorance. Without knowing their Cd/Cl and dynamic thrust, there is no way you can determine their sustain G.
While we are discussing this, there are video of F-35 doing 180° loop in 6 seconds, do you have anything better coming from Rafale with its 11G structure G limit?
Image

degrasse wrote:Rafale, Gripen they both were designed with post-stall maneuvers in mind

No they aren't, given that both have single vertical tail and no TVC, they are domed to have inferior post stall capabilities

degrasse wrote:As it happens the video was not to be made public but some of us got their hands on it and we hold it until the 1/7 commander gave his clearence to post it, just to put a few dots on some Typhoon fanboys Is. The score was EQUAL vs F-22 and vs Typhonn, well it was mostly a bashing in WVR, and not in favour of the Eurofighter product, there again aerodynamics excellence doesn't lie, not in the real world anyway.

Stop trying to appear to authorities, you are not fooling anyone here by throwing some terminologies around

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 20:21
by degrasse
Source?


AdlA and Ministere of Defense. Do your home work, i did mine, which explains the difference between us.

Not all pilot have equal skill, and the skill of pilot are of great important, even F-4 with good pilot managed to out fly Rafale in dogfight


Is that right? Funny i started by mentioning the origins and roles of the 1/7, which never was an Air Defense Squadron but transformation and gound attack. It's on the AdlA defense site together with the role of ALL AdlA squadrons.

The primary role of the 1/7 was pilot transformation on the type and to implement integration of the first operational weapons at Squadron levels and at the time, it's NOT Meteor but bombs, cruise missiles and assotiated systems.

Before you claim that a drawing of Eurofighter, there was no Eurofighter in Frisian flag, but there were many Rafale


This picture was taken at the F-4 arrival to Frisian Flag, BEFORE any encounter had taken place, and NO it is NOT a Rafale but an E-F, if your A-C recognition skills are so low, you shouldn't be writing on a forum but learning your basics fist.

Rafale has no TVC, and so torque to roll will have to depend on its aerodynamic force, slower speed result in smaller aerodynamic force, so it is impossible for Rafale to roll at speed slower than a F-22 with TVC


Really? So you're the aerodynamics specialist here and are going to explain to us how the Rafale pilote manage to do it repeatedly at every altitude pick during his yo-yo maneuvers, reality denial doesnt' work...


So what are their respective wing thickness?


Very similar as well in the neighbouring of 5% chord, what is more and more appearent is that you have NO CLUE what you are writing about, posting pretty pictures doesnt cut it.

What matters here are the interactions bewteen a forward vortex and a wing root wortex, and more importantly the fact that F-22 like Rafale generates vortex lift because they are both Delta plans, so to energise both LEX and wing root vortex you need a properly positioned vortex source, meaning longitudinal AND vertical separation to the wing plans.

De facto, you missed the most important factor and comparing the other A-Cs to them proves my points.

Rafale has LERX and canard to generate vortex, F-22 uses strake and LERX, no more.


WRONG. Vortex sources are 3 in the case of F-22, strakes vortexes mostly covers the boundary layer on the fuselage and energises LEX-root vortexes, other main votex sources are LEX and wing root, as it is a delta wing plan even if you don't like the idea.

Rafale has the same number of surface root vortexes plus that of its canard tips, those are called primary vortexes, the difference being that F-22 is NOT designed with aerodynamics optimacy in mind but stealth, while the Rafale has its canard surfaces rooted where its vortexes are the most efficient and provide other surfaces, including the fuselage and fin, with the most energy, making your point below yet another topic you have no knowledge of.

There was a real good european Study on NATO website on the subject, which validated Rafale aerodynamic formula, but before it, that of the IAI Kfir and Mirage IIIS, in short you need to have canard slightly forward of the main wing and about 3/4th og the canard length in vertical separation.

DRYDEN study validates this too, they tested the efficiency of low, mid, and high canard position, that's valid for the canard tips when they have any degree of ANHEDRAL or DIHEDRAL or not.

In short; if your forward vortexes are too close to the wing chord, you suffer from wingwash and/or downwash, because part of the airflow deflected by the canard surfaces will go on the LOWER SURFACE, the opposite of what you want to achieve in order to increase vortex lift.

Results, you cannot use the canard full range of deflection, which is the case of all non-coupled canard.

Coupled means aerodynamically optimised in this case, NOT their exact position on the airframe, it means how they interact aerodynamically with the rest of the airframe: In the case of Rafale they used a more forward canard position interacting with that of the LEX with two advantages compared to KFIR and Mirage IIIS.

First forward canards plus LEX increases the efficiency of the root vortex over the fuselage, important for yaw stability at high AoA, second, it has the same effect on the wing and ailerons, having more room to expend outward, which is NOT the case of F-22 strakes vortexes.


Even if one aircraft has more vortex generating devices that doesn't automatically mean it can create stronger vortex.


First of all it doesn't depends on what you see but mostly what you do not see, when you see a vortex it can often mean that they loosed their efficiency, other than that MTO conditions can help seeing them too but it matters little since it is their interaction with the rest of the airframe which matters, reason why they use pressure measurments and not little pictures or Youtube videos to figure them out.


Not all LERX are created equal.


Sure thing, that of F-18 were the cause of much trouble, excessive drag and aerodynamic bashing of the vertical fins, they departed (stalled) from the aiframe boundary layer at high AoA and that's NOT a sign of efficiency, quiet the opposite. READ Dryden conclusion on the subject, the fix were the two dorsal strakes added later, another topic you missed. https://www.nasa.gov/centers/armstrong/ ... -DFRC.html

Image

On the F-22, the strake vortexes barealy interact with that of the LEX, they are not vertically separated from the main wing plan chord, so their efficiency is limited when it comes to interacting with the wing vortexes, their primary role is Yaw stability, NOT increased roll control auythority, that's the job of adequately positions canard tip vortexes. Image

Then it is pretty obvious that the F-22 strakes do not prevent wing tip airflow stall at high AoA simply because there are NOT vortexes there to help.


F-16 and F-18 only uses LERX for vortex generation but their vortex are stronger than most if not all others


If "Vortexes strength" and how they look in pictures is all you know about it, no wonder you keep getting it wrong on all topics.


Throw some terminologies here and there doesn't make you an expert. If you want to demonstrate Rafale is better than F-22 in dogfight, give exact number.


At least i know what i am talking about, me not being an expert makes you what exactly? :mrgreen:

Vortex generated by LERX will also energies airflow at high AoA


Yes but only on a limited part of the wing, as demonstrated by the Dryden studies on F-18/22 and F-35, AND the only relevant picture here, that of F-22 pressure tests at high AoA that proves it.


No it cannot. Unless you can give number that is utter nonsense.


Yes it CAN, not only i saw it do so at Franborough at the hands of Yve Kerherve and timed it, but i also had the pleasure to read some leaked report on early flight testing, not your literature since everything remotely complex seems to elude you, let me explain; 100* AoA and negative speed, control flight during mock combat vs Mirage 2000 down to 18 kt (by memory). In fact ALL good design should be able to rotate on the YAW axis using ailerons at extreme high AoA in departed flight, if you flew anything else than a surf in your bathroom you'd know it.

Then, you not being aware or not knowing about things doesn't make them impossible, it just make you waste forum space, being unaware and lacking basic knowledge.

Firstly, Rafale doesn't have higher AoA by 35% than an X-31 with TVC


Yes it does, being FCS limited to 100 kt and <> 32* for operational reaons doesn't mean it is its aerodynamics envelop limits, you obviously do not comprehend the difference between the two.

Secondly, able to pull high AoA and able to have high control authority at high AoA are entirely different thing.


And how so? When you learn to stall an A-C the first tyhing you know is that you loose aileron control authority and MUST use rudder to compensate, but obviously you dont know about this topic ether, even less that in a stall at extreme AoA, the yaw axis can be controled by the use of ailerons.

Rafale at high AoA cannot point its nose around like an airplane with TVC can.


SAY WHO? The guy who got it wrong from A up to now?

A thigh AoA your control in the YAW axis will depend on much more than the number of fins you have, Dryden studies on F-18 and following A-C demonstrated this vividely.

It will mostly rely on the quality of the airflow over the fuselage, hence the importance of vortex position relative to those surfaces.

It appears that bar looking at photos, you do not comprehend what vortexes are in the first place, for your info they are pressure zones, and seing them is not necessarily the sign of their efficiency, often the opposite as they become more visible AFTER departure.

To obtain a higher degree of yaw control at high AoA, IAI and the Swiss used small strakes on the nose, at the pitot tube root, you dont see the resulting vortexes but they certainly work just fine, all they need to do is generate the right amount of energy at the right place.
Image

Here are the results of the Swiss Defense Dpt flight test on the effects of MirageIIIS canards and nose strakes. In short, the typcal delta wing vortex lift appears ealier in the AoA scale, you got lower drag for the same AoA, more ailerons authority AND the strakes increases YAW control and stability.

Only they are NOT causing the same issues than on the US A-C since the pressure zones are properly situated and there is no departure from boundary layer or aerodynamic bashing because those vortex have departed.

It's btw also an issue US designers encountered with both F-22 and F-35 and for the same reasons, on F-22 they had to change the forward fin beam to a more radar reflective one to keep airframe structural integrity within the required limits.

On F-35 they lost the benefit of the vortex expension due to a very basic design fault, since they did not foresee the interaction between the strakes vortexes and the zone of lower pressure behind the cockpit, the vortexes does NOT expend outward and does NOT energise that of the wing, but they cause the SAME structural issues than both F-18 and F-22 before it.

This provesd my point again, you don't need "stronger" vortexes, or "larger" LEX, you need the right vortez at the right spot in the first place.


Err, this mate, is a little arrogant, you not only proved that you did not comprehend what vortex does and how they work you also managed to bring more points against yourself, for a start you demonstrated how little you know about those A-Cs.


In fact, it will not even have the level of control authority at high AoA like any aircraft with twin V tails. Because at high AoA the control surfaces on the tail are blocked from airflow by the fuselage.
etc etc etc.

What a genius. I'll let you rewrite the book for beginers, and demonstrate how little you know your subject.

Image

So F-35 vortexes helps do they? So far, they only were caused of a similar structural issue to that of F-18 and F-22 before it, certainly not helping lower drag or increasing lift or Yaw control authority, in fact, they did not what they were supposed to do at all.

Modern fighters have leading edge devices that can generate strong vortices.



Rafale with its massive delta wing and single vertical tail will be at deep stall at high AoA, that why the maximum AoA was limited to 35° despite the higher AoA it reached in testing, because it cannot make use of high AoA capability (no nose pointing)


What a bag of bulls, especially when talking about low speed and/or post stall capabilities. Do your home worke befopre posting.


That something that even F-35 can do


Certainly not, "move the nose around from side to side" at high AoA is not the the same thing, but eh, considering that you managed to mix up literally every single point here i'll forgive you.


Do you have any numbers to back that up, because that sounds like nonsense.


To ignorants everything sounds like nonsense, especially reality.


It is physically impossible for a Rafale with single vertical tail and no TVC to have higher level of control authority at high AoA than any aircraft with TVC and twin vertical stabs that includes Su-35, PAK-FA and F-22. In fact, it will not even have better control authority at high AoA than F-35 and F-18


No it is not, quiet the opposite, you do not need a twin tail you need good airflow around the aiframe, and none of those A-Cs are optimised comparatively.



Find me a single video of Rafale performing the pedal turn like F-35, F-22, PAK-FA then we talk about control authority at high AoA


You don't need a video, all you need is a proper aerodynamic knowledge and comprehension of what does what, this way you'll be able to figure and sort out forum legends like those you propagate and reality, best example is comparing post stall control of F-35 with that of a close-coupled canard.


You are so full of sh*t, absolute structure G limits doesn't have anything to do with instantaneous or sustain G at high altitude where aircraft are limited by lift rather than structure.


Am I? What were the speed brackets during those mock up fights? And it's NOT lift which is going to make a difference at high altitude but thrust, plus, in BOTH case, Rafale have a higher lift/drag ration than those, another moot point.


To claim Rafale can always out turn F-22 and Typhoon based on structure G limit is simply ignorance.


Speak for yourself, i just remind you that maximum turn rates INCLUDES maximum g loads in the equation, plus you need to twist my words since i didn't use the word "always" but instead specified a particular part of its flight envelop.

So within it, Air Density and payload allowing, by virtue of a higher Lift coefiscient, lower wing load, lower drag resulting from its canard-delta formula, what do you expect?

Image

For sustain turn rates, just add thrust vs drag and you have pretty much the same results until the performances of the engines makes the difference, that means Rafale would eat a Typhoon alive below 35.00 ft on the basis of lift/drag ratio, and comfortably live with F-22 at up to a lower altitude for this very reason.

Rafale is not designed for operations at the same altitudes but it will manage very well inside its own flight envelop, as i said, it was a drag race, it won and its pilot is certainly not THE specialist of drag management a F-22 pilot is supposed to be.


Without knowing their Cd/Cl and dynamic thrust, there is no way you can determine their sustain G.


What we know for sure is what i wrote, Rafale aerodynamic optmisation allows for a higher lift/drag ratio, and its boundary layer and vortex control is way more developed, we know how and why, we also know why it is not the case for the A-C you compared it with = end of debate.


While we are discussing this, there are video of F-35 doing 180° loop in 6 seconds, do you have anything better coming from Rafale with its 11G structure G limit?


While you're showing photos and posting little videos you forget the most important thing here, energy management, in real life, this fanboyz favourite airshow stunts doesn't work, and more to the point they are the reasons why both SAAB and Dassault aviation did NOT relax the operational limitation of their airframe to reach the aerodynamic limits.

Instead they focused on what is useable in combat, lower drag at high AoA, higher surfaces control at high AoA, instantaneous turn rates, low speed capabilities etc.

The opposite of what F-35 is doing at airshows, it is more limited in ALL aspects but the two others demonstrates REAL combat capabilities, not airshow stunts with relaxed FCS, write this page and go over it.


No they aren't, given that both have single vertical tail and no TVC, they are domed to have inferior post stall capabilities


You really do not comprehend the simplest thing about high AoA do you? Again, you do NOT need a twin fin, you need good roll and YAW control which are both reliants on airflow, and fuselage boundary layer control, which is better than that of the A-C you quoted in the case of Rafale. We just demonstrated that the US aircrafts were not top on this topic, Dryden studies as evidences but eh, i doubt very much that reality is your friend on this one, better forum legends and aerodynamics for beginers.

Those F-18/F-22 and F-35 aerodynamic issues, ALL related to boundary layer departure and vortex bashing the fins are well documented, i would advise you to do your home work, this way i will not need to rub your nose with
MORE of the original Dryden documentation and perhap, with a lot of luck you might actually learn something.

Stop trying to appear to authorities, you are not fooling anyone here by throwing some terminologies around


You know what? It would not take too much to fool you, just writing B.S about Typhoon or F-22 saying the opposite of reality and i'm sure it works wonder, that's the price you pay for not knowing your ABC on the subject.

So let's see which topic you need to study before coming back at me with the same amount of errr, how should i put it?..

About basic aerodynamics first? How LIFT is created? Vortex Lift? Wing plans? Before we start talking LEX and canard, and see you rewriting the books in the most simplistyic maneer, there is nothing simple about it.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 20:59
by fbw
And for your Entertainment, Picard..... enough said.

One question, what control surface is the Rafale using to control yaw rate above 35 degrees AoA?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 21:10
by degrasse
fbw wrote:And for your Entertainment, Picard..... enough said.

One question, what control surface is the Rafael using to control yaw rate above 35 degrees AoA?


I'm not Picard, i'm much less popular, especially within the Anglo-American forum communities, since i managed to debunk all those B-S about how superior their favourite A-C were.

I can see the same old tricks are used today, it's a pitty to see someone coming up with that stuff and not knowing the elementary basics or anything remotely technical about the A-C they write about, reason why i didn't visit such a forum for ages.

About your question; it would still be the ailerons, but 35* AoA is not that high for such a design, by virtue of its natural tendency to keep its boundary layer and wing airflow from departing, they never managed to stall it, it's more when you reach 50* that it can start to be an issue and then i do not have any figure on that specific obviously, so when ailerosn takes over rudder, i do not know.

What we know for sure is that those A-C (Gripen and Rafale) stay fully controlabe in post departure flight with relaxed FCS, it was proven during flight testing and it is the result of the design being developed for the purpose, which is logical, the more of it you have, the more efficient the airframe within its FCS limited flight envelop.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 21:17
by fbw
degrasse wrote:
fbw wrote:And for your Entertainment, Picard..... enough said.

One question, what control surface is the Rafael using to control yaw rate above 35 degrees AoA?


I'm not Picard, i'm much less popular, especially within the Anglo-American forum communities, since i managed to debunk all those B-S about how superior their favourite A-C were.

I can see the same old tricks are used today, it's a pitty to see someone coming up with that stuff and not knowing the elementary bbasics or anything remotely technical about the A-C they write about, reason why i didn't visit such a forum for ages.

About your question; it would still be the ailerons, 35* AoA is not that high for such a design, by virtue of its natural tendency to keep its boundary layer and wing airflow from departing, they never managed to stall it, it's more when you reach 50* that it can start to be an issue and then i do not have any figure on that specific obviously.

What we know for sure is that those A-C (Gripen and Rafale) stay fully controlabe in post departure flight with relaxed FCS, it was proven during flight testing and it is the result of the design being developed for the purpose, which is logical, the more of it you have, the more efficient the airframe within its FCS limited flight envelop.




Wrong, differential deflection of the canards. The problem with that is in a canard-single vertical stab configuration there are three issues:
Vortex coming off the deflected canards interact with the vertical stab.(edit- on one side, which is an issue.)
The yaw rate is insufficient to control directional instability as AoA increases
The use of the canards to control yaw limits pitch rate- ironically the very thing you were bragging was superior on the Rafale.

No Picard I'm not visiting your blog to drive up revenue. I think the previous posters suggestion of YouTube should be your target audience.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 22:45
by viper12
Ah yes, it's Picard...

There's a wonderful thing called "image reverse search", and guess who's the only guy who used that water tunnel picture hosted on that exact URL on Photobucket :

http://imgur.com/a/LbrCi

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Aug 2017, 23:32
by sferrin
degrasse wrote:I'm not Picard, i'm much less popular, especially within the Anglo-American forum communities, since i managed to debunk all those B-S about how superior their favourite A-C were.


LOL, quite the crusader you are.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2017, 07:13
by eloise
degrasse wrote:AdlA and Ministere of Defense. Do your home work, i did mine, which explains the difference between us.

You dont seem to understand, i asked for a source, if you actually have the source then post the link here :wink: let me guess : the source is some super secret document that only you have access to ? or did it came from some "expert" on forum ? how convenient :slap:
Sorry mate but this is not Indiadefence where almost everyone are retarded and just believes every single word you say without demanding evidence. The different between us is: you are a fanboy with limited knowledge but like to appeal to authority, and iam not




degrasse wrote:Is that right? Funny i started by mentioning the origins and roles of the 1/7, which never was an Air Defense Squadron but transformation and gound attack. It's on the AdlA defense site together with the role of ALL AdlA squadrons.

So that mean all pilots from 1/7 are of equal skill ? and there are no amateur F-22 pilot ?what a joke


degrasse wrote:This picture was taken at the F-4 arrival to Frisian Flag, BEFORE any encounter had taken place, and NO it is NOT a Rafale but an E-F, if your A-C recognition skills are so low, you shouldn't be writing on a forum but learning your basics fist.

Nice try, but as usual you are so full of sh*t
This is the F-4 in exercise before any engagement take place
Image
Image

This is the same F-4 after the exercise (look at the number on body)
Image
Image

They even go as far as writing Frisian flag 2008 and Rafale eater on it LOL. The truth must be so hard for a fanboy like you to swallow, and no there wasn't any Eurofighter in Frisian flag 2008



degrasse wrote:
Really? So you're the aerodynamics specialist here and are going to explain to us how the Rafale pilote manage to do it repeatedly at every altitude pick during his yo-yo maneuvers, reality denial doesnt' work...

How do you know if F-22 pilot also want to roll ? or do you think the counter to one maneuver is to do exactly the same ? :doh:


degrasse wrote:Very similar as well in the neighbouring of 5% chord

Oh really? mind giving me the exact name of their airfoil ?

degrasse wrote:more appearent is that you have NO CLUE what you are writing about, posting pretty pictures doesnt cut it.

you are the one without any clues here but of course you don't want me to post any picture because it will just destroy your argument



degrasse wrote:WRONG. Vortex sources are 3 in the case of F-22, strakes vortexes mostly covers the boundary layer on the fuselage and energises LEX-root vortexes, other main votex sources are LEX and wing root, as it is a delta wing plan even if you don't like the idea.
Rafale has the same number of surface root vortexes plus that of its canard tips, those are called primary vortexes

You group the characteristics of the main wing with vortex generating devices?
so you don't even understand why they put LERX on F-16, F-18 in the first place
follow your logic all aircraft should have delta wing and LERX and Canard since more vortex creating devices = better.
Nope, delta wing can generate vortex at high AoA, that what give them higher max AoA than a normal straight or low swept wing.Because the vortex stops flow separation. But that does not mean delta can generate higher total lift/unit area than a straight or low swept wing at similar AoA, its lift curve is far less steep.
Image

Higher the sweep angle, the less steep the lift curve would be.
Image
Image
Many aircraft have LERX, yet retain their low swept wing because that help them combine the benefit of both delta and low swept
Delta = higher AoA
Low swept = higher lift at the same AoA
Image



degrasse wrote:the difference being that F-22 is NOT designed with aerodynamics optimacy in mind but stealth, while the Rafale has its canard surfaces rooted where its vortexes are the most efficient and provide other surfaces, including the fuselage and fin, with the most energy

So where are the actual numbers to back up this point? or is this another a$$ pull of your?
degrasse wrote:making your point below yet another topic you have no knowledge of

said the troll who pull everything out of his a$$ without any sources or number

degrasse wrote:There was a real good european Study on NATO website on the subject, which validated Rafale aerodynamic formula, but before it, that of the IAI Kfir and Mirage IIIS, in short you need to have canard slightly forward of the main wing and about 3/4th og the canard length in vertical separation.
DRYDEN study validates this too, they tested the efficiency of low, mid, and high canard position, that's valid for the canard tips when they have any degree of ANHEDRAL or DIHEDRAL or not.

In short; if your forward vortexes are too close to the wing chord, you suffer from wingwash and/or downwash, because part of the airflow deflected by the canard surfaces will go on the LOWER SURFACE, the opposite of what you want to achieve in order to increase vortex lift.

Results, you cannot use the canard full range of deflection, which is the case of all non-coupled canard.

Coupled means aerodynamically optimised in this case, NOT their exact position on the airframe, it means how they interact aerodynamically with the rest of the airframe: In the case of Rafale they used a more forward canard position interacting with that of the LEX with two advantages compared to KFIR and Mirage IIIS.

First forward canards plus LEX increases the efficiency of the root vortex over the fuselage, important for yaw stability at high AoA, second, it has the same effect on the wing and ailerons, having more room to expend outward, which is NOT the case of F-22 strakes vortexes.

All talk but not a single source or actual number for comparison between Rafale and F-22 and Btw, wing tail configuration with negative stability will have their horizontal tail add up to the total lift, something canard cannot achieve

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2017, 07:17
by eloise
degrasse wrote: when you see a vortex it can often mean that they loosed their efficiency

Wow, so invisible vortex that can't be seen have the highest efficiency ?


degrasse wrote: reason why they use pressure measurments and not little pictures or Youtube videos to figure them out

So what pressure measurement between Rafale Eurofighter, F-35 and F-22 that you have posted? and i mean CFD of all 4 not just a single one of them and you try to extend it with your fanboy nonsense

degrasse wrote:Sure thing, that of F-18 were the cause of much trouble, excessive drag and aerodynamic bashing of the vertical fins, they departed (stalled) from the aiframe boundary layer at high AoA and that's NOT a sign of efficiency, quiet the opposite. READ Dryden conclusion on the subject, the fix were the two dorsal strakes added later, another topic you missed.

Nice try, but no. The same thing that caused F-18 vertical fins to crack also gives F-18 better control authority at high AoA than Rafale or F-16. The vertical fin crack because vortex hit it with very strong force but if the vortex doesn't hit the vertical fin at AoA, then you will not have the same level of yaw authority


degrasse wrote:On the F-22, the strake vortexes barealy interact with that of the LEX, they are not vertically separated from the main wing plan chord, so their efficiency is limited when it comes to interacting with the wing vortexes, their primary role is Yaw stability, NOT increased roll control auythority
Then it is pretty obvious that the F-22 strakes do not prevent wing tip airflow stall at high AoA simply because there are NOT vortexes there to help.

In your own photo, the vortex still help decrease pressure at the ailerons when it start to burst. So it does help with roll authority. More importantly, what is the speed and AoA of the F-22 in the photo? where is the Rafale, Eurofighter contour in same situation?
I can find contour of F-35 with much wider affected area with its LERX vortex, and the wing tip has low pressure as well.


degrasse wrote:that's the job of adequately positions canard tip vortexes

Yet , you gave no contour of Rafale in the same situation to show the advantages? :drool:



degrasse wrote:If "Vortexes strength" and how they look in pictures is all you know about it

and vortex strength play a vital role. Like it or not, stronger vortex, more notifiable vortex mean lower pressure, that means higher lift.

degrasse wrote: no wonder you keep getting it wrong on all topics

Said the guy who talks so much nonsense on all aviation forum and so well known for his stupidity that he don't dare to admit who he is. :wink: Yes Picard you are not fooling anyone


degrasse wrote:At least i know what i am talking about

No you don't, you just know to throw a bunch of terminologies together, pushing some of your opinions and petend it is fact, too bad but this is not Indiandefense so your fanboy opinion doesn't flew well here. Either you give exact number and their respective CFD contour or GTFO

degrasse wrote: me not being an expert makes you what exactly? :mrgreen:

It makes me a smart guy that doesn't buy into your BS and don't talk so much nonsense that he became a running joke in all aviation forum :wink:



degrasse wrote:Yes but only on a limited part of the wing, as demonstrated by the Dryden studies on F-18/22 and F-35, AND the only relevant picture here, that of F-22 pressure tests at high AoA that proves it.

So where is the study ? where is the contour of Rafale at the same AoA and speed where its vortex cover the whole wing ?
Btw, how about this cotour of F-35 ?
Image



degrasse wrote:Yes it CAN, not only i saw it do so at Franborough at the hands of Yve Kerherve and timed it, but i also had the pleasure to read some leaked report on early flight testing, not your literature since everything remotely complex seems to elude you, let me explain; 100* AoA and negative speed, control flight during mock combat vs Mirage 2000 down to 18 kt (by memory). In fact ALL good design should be able to rotate on the YAW axis using ailerons at extreme high AoA in departed flight, if you flew anything else than a surf in your bathroom you'd know it.

:lol: How typical of you Picard
First made an outrageous claim then when people demanded evidence, you start with " oh i talked to that pilot", " i read super secret report". If you indeed see it at an airshow then there must be loads of videos of that airshow, all over youtube, go find it and the video of X-31 turning with TVC, then we timed it. How about that ? Or you cann't find the video of either since they demonstrate super extreme secret capability of Rafale?



degrasse wrote:Then, you not being aware or not knowing about things doesn't make them impossible, it just make you waste forum space, being unaware and lacking basic knowledge.

:slap: So now iam unaware because iam not buying your BS ? nice try but not gonna work here mate. It is ironic how you talk a lot with so little sources and number and try to push your agenda in as if they are fact.


degrasse wrote:Yes it does, being FCS limited to 100 kt and <> 32* for operational reaons doesn't mean it is its aerodynamics envelop limits, you obviously do not comprehend the difference between the two.

:doh: and you think they just randomly limit Rafale operational AoA to 32*, nope, its because unlike aircraft with twin tails or TVC, Rafale cannot take advantages of post stall maneuver.Sarcasm on Isn't it such a coincident that all single vertical stab aircraft are limited to such low AoA in operational even though they can reach higher value in testing.
Hmm I wonder why :roll:

Sarcasm off

degrasse wrote:And how so?

How so?
*Sarcasm on Hey look F-16 with fuel tank reaching 90* in test and recover :mrgreen: OMFG *Sarcasm off

:doh: if that was Rafale, i bet you would think it has a supreme high AoA fighting capabilities

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2017, 07:19
by eloise
degrasse wrote:SAY WHO?

Anyone who understand physics

degrasse wrote:The guy who got it wrong from A up to now?

Don't be so harsh on yourself, atleast you get the plane name correct


degrasse wrote:A thigh AoA your control in the YAW axis will depend on much more than the number of fins you have

Tell me again, how does the Rafale have more fins than F-35 or F-18 :wink: me think you mixed it up with Su-30

degrasse wrote:It will mostly rely on the quality of the airflow over the fuselage, hence the importance of vortex position relative to those surfaces.

Yet you haven't give a single contour of Rafale

degrasse wrote:It appears that bar looking at photos, you do not comprehend what vortexes are in the first place

speak for yourself


degrasse wrote: for your info they are pressure zones, and seing them is not necessarily the sign of their efficiency, often the opposite as they become more visible AFTER departure.

Number Picard, we need actual number and source, not your BS babbling

degrasse wrote: To obtain a higher degree of yaw control at high AoA, IAI and the Swiss used small strakes on the nose, at the pitot tube root, you dont see the resulting vortexes but they certainly work just fine, all they need to do is generate the right amount of energy at the right place.
Image

and you know the vortex of F-35 and F-22 not at right place how ? do you have a similar chart for them with and without vortex? no you don't , Do you have the vortex contour of Rafale ? no you dont.
and LERX will also help to generate vortex so your point about vortex lift is moot.


degrasse wrote:
In short, the typcal delta wing vortex lift appears ealier in the AoA scale

still less efficient than low swept wing with LERX

degrasse wrote: you got lower drag for the same AoA

Where in your graph that it shows you can have lower drag for the same AoA with strakes and canard?

degrasse wrote: more ailerons authority AND the strakes increases YAW control and stability.

And how would you know F-22, F-35 LERX doesn't help with Yaw authority? where is the contour of Rafale at high AoA ?


degrasse wrote: Only they are NOT causing the same issues than on the US A-C since the pressure zones are properly situated and there is no departure from boundary layer or aerodynamic bashing because those vortex have departed.

More babbling BS, no side by side contour but you concluded that pressure zone of delta are properly situated, how the heck do you know if there are departure from boundary layer or not ?


degrasse wrote:
On F-35 they lost the benefit of the vortex expension
due to a very basic design fault, since they did not foresee the interaction between the strakes vortexes and the zone of lower pressure behind the cockpit, the vortexes does NOT expend outward and does NOT energise that of the wing,

Opps CFD say otherwise, contour at AoA of 10*
Image
Image
Is this expanding enough ?
Image
Or do you prefer this ?
Image

degrasse wrote:
What a genius. I'll let you rewrite the book for beginers, and demonstrate how little you know your subject.
Image
So F-35 vortexes helps do they? So far, they only were caused of a similar structural issue to that of F-18 and F-22 before it, certainly not helping lower drag or increasing lift or Yaw control authority, in fact, they did not what they were supposed to do at all.

Oh, so there is vortex on F-35 but they don't help increase lift? So the low-pressure area just magically disappears and not have any interaction with the airframe at all, and the vortex hitting the vertical tail but magically not affect yaw authority :doh: What a complete moron


degrasse wrote:
What a bag of bulls, especially when talking about low speed and/or post stall capabilities. Do your home worke befopre posting.

Funny how, despite your talk about having right amount of vortex at the right place, Rafale never demonstrate anything close to a pedal turn that F-35, F-22 , PAK-FA, Su-35 all done? and it is limited to 32* AoA in combat what a coincident :roll:

degrasse wrote: Certainly not, "move the nose around from side to side" at high AoA is not the the same thing,

watch the whole video, how do you think the put it in a spin and recover ?


degrasse wrote:
To ignorants everything sounds like nonsense, especially reality

As expected of fanboy, a lot of talk without source, without number and getting angry when others not buying their BS. Such a coincident that you can't give any numbers or video to prove your point. I wonder why :roll:




degrasse wrote: No it is not, quiet the opposite, you do not need a twin tail you need good airflow around the aiframe, and none of those A-Cs are optimised comparatively.

Yet nothing to demonstrate the super magical awesome airflow of Rafale compared to Su-35, PAK-FA , F-22 , F-35



degrasse wrote:You don't need a video, all you need is a proper aerodynamic knowledge and comprehension of what does what, this way you'll be able to figure and sort out forum legends like those you propagate and reality, best example is comparing post stall control of F-35 with that of a close-coupled canard.

So there isn't any video of Rafale performing post stall maneuver such as the pedal turn
In operational it's AoA is limited to 32*
Rafale doesn't have twin tail to catch the vortex from LERX
Rafale doesn't have TVC to provide torque at very low airspeed
yet our friend Picard here keep insisting that Rafale has better post stall capabilities with his theories of optimum airflow :doh:


degrasse wrote: And it's NOT lift which is going to make a difference at high altitude but thrust

:roll: all aircraft pull less than their maximum G limit at high altitude but according to you lift isn't going to make a different :roll:


degrasse wrote:in BOTH case, Rafale have a higher lift/drag ration than those, another moot point.

*Sarcasm on Wow you must have possessed the Cl, Cd curve of all 3 aircraft to speak with such high confident, please do share with us :drool: *Sarcasm off.


degrasse wrote:Speak for yourself, i just remind you that maximum turn rates INCLUDES maximum g loads in the equation

yes, but higher maximum structure G does not equal higher maximum turn rate. Nvm that you have nothing to show the ultimate structure G limit of either Typhoon or F-22

degrasse wrote: plus you need to twist my words since i didn't use the word "always" but instead specified a particular part of its flight envelop.

alright, you said
in any case it will out-turn both F-22 and Typhoon in instantaneous and sustained turn rates from low speed to subsonic.

i believe that you must possess EM charts of all 3 aircraft to say with such confident? . Opps let me guess, it is theory again and you have no number? or the charts are super extremely secret that you cannot share with anyone ?


degrasse wrote:
So within it, Air Density and payload allowing, by virtue of a higher Lift coefiscient, lower wing load, lower drag resulting from its canard-delta formula, what do you expect?

Not so quick mate, where are the lift coefficient-AoA charts of Typhoon , F-22 and Rafale?
Where are the Drag coefficient - AoA chart for Typhoon , F-22 and Rafale?
where is the stability vs speed chart for F-22?
Or do your fan boy brain automatically assume close coupled canard+ delta is better?

degrasse wrote:
For sustain turn rates, just add thrust vs drag and you have pretty much the same results until the performances of the engines makes the difference, that means Rafale would eat a Typhoon alive below 35.00 ft on the basis of lift/drag ratio, and comfortably live with F-22 at up to a lower altitude for this very reason.

Yet another confident fanboy assessment with zero number

degrasse wrote: it was a drag race, it won and its pilot is certainly not THE specialist of drag management a F-22 pilot is supposed to be.

what drag race? what speed and what was the time?

degrasse wrote:What we know for sure is what i wrote

Yes, we do know most of what you wrote are BS, that why your name became so infamous in the first place

degrasse wrote: Rafale aerodynamic optmisation allows for a higher lift/drag ratio, and its boundary layer and vortex control is way more developed, we know how and why, we also know why it is not the case for the A-C you compared it with = end of debate.

:mrgreen: yep, no charts or number comparison but you so sure that Rafale is better and more developed. That based on what ? your fanboy opinion?

degrasse wrote:While you're showing photos and posting little videos you forget the most important thing here, energy management, in real life, this fanboyz favourite airshow stunts doesn't work, and more to the point they are the reasons why both SAAB and Dassault aviation did NOT relax the operational limitation of their airframe to reach the aerodynamic limits.

It is a loop not a high post stall maneuver so your point is moot.
In real life, nothing beat a good HOBS missiles

degrasse wrote:You really do not comprehend the simplest thing about high AoA do you? Again, you do NOT need a twin fin, you need good roll and YAW control which are both reliants on airflow, and fuselage boundary layer control, which is better than that of the A-C you quoted in the case of Rafale. We just demonstrated that the US aircrafts were not top on this topic

Yep, behold the supreme optimum airflow of Rafale aerodynamic where you don't even need the air to hit the control surface for it to works
What more? it allows the Rafale to have extremely strong torque at stall speed even stronger than TVC breaking aerodynamic laws


degrasse wrote:Dryden studies as evidences but eh, i doubt very much that reality is your friend on this one, better forum legends and aerodynamics for beginers.

Funny how you keep reapet Dryden study yet doesn't understand why the stab has crack

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2017, 11:43
by degrasse
Wrong, differential deflection of the canards. The problem with that is in a canard-single vertical stab configuration there are three issues:
Vortex coming off the deflected canards interact with the vertical stab.(edit- on one side, which is an issue.)
The yaw rate is insufficient to control directional instability as AoA increases
The use of the canards to control yaw limits pitch rate- ironically the very thing you were bragging was superior on the Rafale.

No Picard I'm not visiting your blog to drive up revenue. I think the previous posters suggestion of YouTube should be your target audience.


Talk about entertainment and Youtube culture...

Then... You base your "conclusion" on that of a decoupled canard configuration, namely the X-31, while neither Rafale nor Gripen uses differential deflection because it induces tortional structural stress they do not want to compensate for with extra weight.
Plus they do not need it, since the formula provide with the necessary levels of control in all axis, did you read ANY of Dryden studies on the subject of this A-C?
I think not.

If you had known the difference between coupled and decoupled or anything about X-31, Gripen and Rafale for that matter, you wouldn't have posted this in the first place. I frankly prefer to post "i do not have any figure on that specific obviously" than the B.S you just wrote.

Differential deflection was used on the X-31 to create yawing moments in a view of getting rid of the fin for stealth purpose, but in departed flight, ANY good design can achieve this by using simple ailerons deflection, you simply need to be at an AoA where all airflow departed from the upper surface of the wing, in a flat spin, and obviously flying a sound aerodynamic design if you don't use TVC.

Point: The long moment arm canard is notorious for not having the good low speed/departure resistant and recovery characteristics of the close-coupled configuration, in particular, it CAN enter a superstall due to the longitudinal separation of its surfaces, just like a conventional design, and lacks the control authority to get out of it.

Saab demonstration yaw rate was about 90*/sec, the French always were more discreet about the results of their test having given (leaked) only max AoA and controled flight minimum speed achieved during testing. And oh i was wrong, it was not 18 kt minimum controled flight during a mock combat vs a 2000 but 15 kt. Source; Rafale flight test manager himself.

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... en-vol.pdf

The real interesting bit is what you missed about boundary layer control (among other things) while your pal brought up the subject of fuselage lift, so let me give you the scoop:

1) At this sort of AoA, > from 45 to 100*, ANY vortex coming from the canard tips will depart away from the rest of the airframe, the fin of X-31 is totally immersed in its wings wake at 50* aoA, so ANY extra level of control of the fuselage boundary layer is welcome. Here is a Dryden demonstrative photo of this:
Image

2) So here comes the little matter of fuselage boundary layer control features: At which AoA does your fuselage boudary layer depart? What are the design features allowing to keep it steadily energised at higher AoA? Did you notice that i mentioned airflow compression and extension and where on the aiframe could this apply to Rafale design? How would this help controling the fuselage's boundary layer and energise its Canards root vortexes + fin? I know the answers to that but i am 100% positive you do not.

You concluded that i was wrong (while i did NOT reply) and managed to mix up every single points here, good going...

Picard is more of a system guy and was not about when i first started uploading such stuff and later digged this video, as you havent figured it yet, i know the story behind this ATLC encounter from those who participated and got the video from an active member of the French Armed forces.

Under a "for your eyes only" agreement, i emailed it to Craig Hoyle, Flight Global military Editor at the time, WAY before it went public, to demonstrate the extend of the B.S posted by some self-proclamed specialist/journalist, i dont need a forum gurus to tell me results he invented, i knew them before he even posted his fairytales.

Here is a real AdlA 1/7 Squadron culture thing, when i said EQUAL: Out of 6 encounter, each side managed ONE kill, the rest were 0 scores within the allocated time for the fights.
Image

My field are aerodynamics and researche, and i always make sure i checked what i post and can prove it with proper sources as i just did several time over, forum legends does reality no good and are easily debunked, so i equally can easily see how you managed to get your wires so badly crossed and are unable to comprehend how a Rafale can beat a F-22 in a drag race.

Which brings us back to the topic's subject, how? Simple, more lift, less drag, low speed, now study the provided doc, it's not here for bashing but educational purposes...

Are NASA/Dryden documentation on the A-C (you do not know and) keep writing about not good enough? There are TONS more on those subject out there, F-16, F-18, F-22, F-35, ALL: X- aicraft programs, how did you manage to miss THIS?


About the X-31; they tested this mainly from 40 to 70* AoA which is the maximum they never reached, same figure for the E-F btw, both with a long moment arm, decoupled canard configuration offering a set of totally different and more AoA restricted aerodynamic capabilities.

Gripen post-stall maneuvers were achieved from 70 to 80* AoA, its max being 90*, 10* lower than the disclosed maximum reached by Rafale, and we have little detail so far of what those tests results really were but here is a clue about Gripen, originally from a Swedish website Mach Flyg.
http://www.mach-flyg.com/utg80/80jas_uc.html.

Quoting U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

"In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha.

When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded".

That's post-stall maneuver for you and 90*/sec yaw rotation is FASTER than what X-31 reached with TVC, as for Rafale we know that ONERA simulated J and HERBST turns before high AoA flight testing with exploring their combat usefulness in mind.

The Gripen document also mentions the clear advantages enjoyed by the close-coupled configuration over the long moment arm.
http://raf-fly.blogspot.co.uk/p/aerodyn ... ourth.html

When it comes to X-31 here is a little Dryden document you missed too which further proves these points.
Image


This is why on the issue of pitch rate (LOL!) in this flight regime you managed to make me laugh A LOT, as if Rafale's canard surfaces sole purpose were to be used in pitch anyway (on top of the "diferencial" thing)...


They're not only used as pitch attitude or control surface, they also actively participate to the Lift/Drag ratio management, and delta wing response to close coupled canard change of incidence is way better than conventional or long moment arm designs.

This goes for the ailerons and elevons alike. Gripen and Rafale do not have this X-31 issue of slugish/marginal pitch control authority at all, Rafale configuration was developed and optmised with 3 prototypes, namely Mirage 4000, IIING and Rafale A.

Now, as i do not have any figure on that specific obviously, i can only speculate based on KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED FACTS on what does what at which AoA passed the FCS 32* AoA limit:

So here goes: Close coupled canards are MORE efficients than long arm/decoupled ones or conventional designs at every levels, not mentioning fuselage boundary layer control features coupled with canard root vortexes on Rafale, changed for strakes on Gripen for lac of vertical space on the fuselage, which also explains its canards DIHEDRAL.

So the point on the AoA scale where ailerons MUST be used to compensate for the lack of rudder authority on Rafale MUST be higher than that of X-31 which fin is totally immersed in the wings wake at 50* AoA and doesn't posseses such feature.

This was demonstrated by the maximum AoA reached by both those A-C during testing. Period and simple logic, learn your stuff.
Image

Of interrest are the conclusions of Dr. Wolfgang Herbst, designer of the X-31 and TFK-30 aka Eurofighter Typhoon:
Image
Image

Savvy?

Obviously, you guys needs to spend much less time on Youtube and/or antagonising people in forums, freaking out about this Picard guy every time someone post any positive stuf on Rafale, and a lot more studying your subjects in a more down-to-hearth, scientific way with proper sourced documentation, you dont know your basics, you dont know your aircrafts, your lot.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2017, 14:31
by wil59
eloise wrote:
degrasse wrote:SAY WHO?

Anyone who understand physics

degrasse wrote:The guy who got it wrong from A up to now?

Don't be so harsh on yourself, atleast you get the plane name correct


degrasse wrote:A thigh AoA your control in the YAW axis will depend on much more than the number of fins you have

Tell me again, how does the Rafale have more fins than F-35 or F-18 :wink: me think you mixed it up with Su-30

degrasse wrote:It will mostly rely on the quality of the airflow over the fuselage, hence the importance of vortex position relative to those surfaces.

Yet you haven't give a single contour of Rafale

degrasse wrote:It appears that bar looking at photos, you do not comprehend what vortexes are in the first place

speak for yourself


degrasse wrote: for your info they are pressure zones, and seing them is not necessarily the sign of their efficiency, often the opposite as they become more visible AFTER departure.

Number Picard, we need actual number and source, not your BS babbling

degrasse wrote: To obtain a higher degree of yaw control at high AoA, IAI and the Swiss used small strakes on the nose, at the pitot tube root, you dont see the resulting vortexes but they certainly work just fine, all they need to do is generate the right amount of energy at the right place.
Image

and you know the vortex of F-35 and F-22 not at right place how ? do you have a similar chart for them with and without vortex? no you don't , Do you have the vortex contour of Rafale ? no you dont.
and LERX will also help to generate vortex so your point about vortex lift is moot.


degrasse wrote:
In short, the typcal delta wing vortex lift appears ealier in the AoA scale

still less efficient than low swept wing with LERX

degrasse wrote: you got lower drag for the same AoA

Where in your graph that it shows you can have lower drag for the same AoA with strakes and canard?

degrasse wrote: more ailerons authority AND the strakes increases YAW control and stability.

And how would you know F-22, F-35 LERX doesn't help with Yaw authority? where is the contour of Rafale at high AoA ?


degrasse wrote: Only they are NOT causing the same issues than on the US A-C since the pressure zones are properly situated and there is no departure from boundary layer or aerodynamic bashing because those vortex have departed.

More babbling BS, no side by side contour but you concluded that pressure zone of delta are properly situated, how the heck do you know if there are departure from boundary layer or not ?


degrasse wrote:
On F-35 they lost the benefit of the vortex expension
due to a very basic design fault, since they did not foresee the interaction between the strakes vortexes and the zone of lower pressure behind the cockpit, the vortexes does NOT expend outward and does NOT energise that of the wing,

Opps CFD say otherwise, contour at AoA of 10*
Image
Image
Is this expanding enough ?
Image
Or do you prefer this ?
Image

degrasse wrote:
What a genius. I'll let you rewrite the book for beginers, and demonstrate how little you know your subject.
Image
So F-35 vortexes helps do they? So far, they only were caused of a similar structural issue to that of F-18 and F-22 before it, certainly not helping lower drag or increasing lift or Yaw control authority, in fact, they did not what they were supposed to do at all.

Oh, so there is vortex on F-35 but they don't help increase lift? So the low-pressure area just magically disappears and not have any interaction with the airframe at all, and the vortex hitting the vertical tail but magically not affect yaw authority :doh: What a complete moron


degrasse wrote:
What a bag of bulls, especially when talking about low speed and/or post stall capabilities. Do your home worke befopre posting.

Funny how, despite your talk about having right amount of vortex at the right place, Rafale never demonstrate anything close to a pedal turn that F-35, F-22 , PAK-FA, Su-35 all done? and it is limited to 32* AoA in combat what a coincident :roll:

degrasse wrote: Certainly not, "move the nose around from side to side" at high AoA is not the the same thing,

watch the whole video, how do you think the put it in a spin and recover ?


degrasse wrote:
To ignorants everything sounds like nonsense, especially reality

As expected of fanboy, a lot of talk without source, without number and getting angry when others not buying their BS. Such a coincident that you can't give any numbers or video to prove your point. I wonder why :roll:




degrasse wrote: No it is not, quiet the opposite, you do not need a twin tail you need good airflow around the aiframe, and none of those A-Cs are optimised comparatively.

Yet nothing to demonstrate the super magical awesome airflow of Rafale compared to Su-35, PAK-FA , F-22 , F-35



degrasse wrote:You don't need a video, all you need is a proper aerodynamic knowledge and comprehension of what does what, this way you'll be able to figure and sort out forum legends like those you propagate and reality, best example is comparing post stall control of F-35 with that of a close-coupled canard.

So there isn't any video of Rafale performing post stall maneuver such as the pedal turn
In operational it's AoA is limited to 32*
Rafale doesn't have twin tail to catch the vortex from LERX
Rafale doesn't have TVC to provide torque at very low airspeed
yet our friend Picard here keep insisting that Rafale has better post stall capabilities with his theories of optimum airflow :doh:


degrasse wrote: And it's NOT lift which is going to make a difference at high altitude but thrust

:roll: all aircraft pull less than their maximum G limit at high altitude but according to you lift isn't going to make a different :roll:


degrasse wrote:in BOTH case, Rafale have a higher lift/drag ration than those, another moot point.

*Sarcasm on Wow you must have possessed the Cl, Cd curve of all 3 aircraft to speak with such high confident, please do share with us :drool: *Sarcasm off.


degrasse wrote:Speak for yourself, i just remind you that maximum turn rates INCLUDES maximum g loads in the equation

yes, but higher maximum structure G does not equal higher maximum turn rate. Nvm that you have nothing to show the ultimate structure G limit of either Typhoon or F-22

degrasse wrote: plus you need to twist my words since i didn't use the word "always" but instead specified a particular part of its flight envelop.

alright, you said
in any case it will out-turn both F-22 and Typhoon in instantaneous and sustained turn rates from low speed to subsonic.

i believe that you must possess EM charts of all 3 aircraft to say with such confident? . Opps let me guess, it is theory again and you have no number? or the charts are super extremely secret that you cannot share with anyone ?


degrasse wrote:
So within it, Air Density and payload allowing, by virtue of a higher Lift coefiscient, lower wing load, lower drag resulting from its canard-delta formula, what do you expect?

Not so quick mate, where are the lift coefficient-AoA charts of Typhoon , F-22 and Rafale?
Where are the Drag coefficient - AoA chart for Typhoon , F-22 and Rafale?
where is the stability vs speed chart for F-22?
Or do your fan boy brain automatically assume close coupled canard+ delta is better?

degrasse wrote:
For sustain turn rates, just add thrust vs drag and you have pretty much the same results until the performances of the engines makes the difference, that means Rafale would eat a Typhoon alive below 35.00 ft on the basis of lift/drag ratio, and comfortably live with F-22 at up to a lower altitude for this very reason.

Yet another confident fanboy assessment with zero number

degrasse wrote: it was a drag race, it won and its pilot is certainly not THE specialist of drag management a F-22 pilot is supposed to be.

what drag race? what speed and what was the time?

degrasse wrote:What we know for sure is what i wrote

Yes, we do know most of what you wrote are BS, that why your name became so infamous in the first place

degrasse wrote: Rafale aerodynamic optmisation allows for a higher lift/drag ratio, and its boundary layer and vortex control is way more developed, we know how and why, we also know why it is not the case for the A-C you compared it with = end of debate.

:mrgreen: yep, no charts or number comparison but you so sure that Rafale is better and more developed. That based on what ? your fanboy opinion?

degrasse wrote:While you're showing photos and posting little videos you forget the most important thing here, energy management, in real life, this fanboyz favourite airshow stunts doesn't work, and more to the point they are the reasons why both SAAB and Dassault aviation did NOT relax the operational limitation of their airframe to reach the aerodynamic limits.

It is a loop not a high post stall maneuver so your point is moot.
In real life, nothing beat a good HOBS missiles

degrasse wrote:You really do not comprehend the simplest thing about high AoA do you? Again, you do NOT need a twin fin, you need good roll and YAW control which are both reliants on airflow, and fuselage boundary layer control, which is better than that of the A-C you quoted in the case of Rafale. We just demonstrated that the US aircrafts were not top on this topic

Yep, behold the supreme optimum airflow of Rafale aerodynamic where you don't even need the air to hit the control surface for it to works
What more? it allows the Rafale to have extremely strong torque at stall speed even stronger than TVC breaking aerodynamic laws


degrasse wrote:Dryden studies as evidences but eh, i doubt very much that reality is your friend on this one, better forum legends and aerodynamics for beginers.

Funny how you keep reapet Dryden study yet doesn't understand why the stab has crack
Video vortex Rafale:
https://youtu.be/l_WQH0zObEE?t=1s

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2017, 17:33
by f-16adf
I like the Rafale alot, but they seriously need to give that jet improved engines.




It finally does a full 360 degree turn at 4:17.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_WQH0z ... tu.be&t=1s


Granted Gloucester was 20 C (68F) on July 15th and 24C (75F) on Sunday so density altitude probably was not all that high.


That's a nice turn, but I have seen stock SU-27's and small tail F-16A's, let alone GE powered Vipers, turn quicker than that.



Rafale has an impressive ITR, but STR needs improving....

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Aug 2017, 23:39
by degrasse
You dont seem to understand, i asked for a source, if you actually have the source then post the link here :wink: let me guess : the source is some super secret document that only you have access to ? or did it came from some "expert" on forum ? how convenient :slap:


You're quiet LOUD mouthed for someone who doesn't know how turn rates are computed...

LOL! The pathetic troll feast, you guys kiss your mums with mouth like these?

My source were the French AdlA on French MoD website, and the 1/7 pilots in charge at the time, plus 1/7 is still today a multirole Squadron, years after this ATLC which took place when the Squadron was implementing weapon, systems and tactics for the A2G role at first, no need for a "source" to know this, you write and write and blah-di-blah but know little about it all.

Sorry mate but this is not Indiadefence where almost everyone are retarded and just believes every single word you say without demanding evidence.


Oh, is see, ultra-p"""d because India didn't fall for your "superior" A-C and chosed instead to buy Rafale are we? Nope, i did not post in this forum for years, seek councelling to take care of those acute paranoia and sore bum, and you could also do something about your superiority complexion because many of the Indian posters there are WAY more educated than you, perhaps one reason they dont need som much miking and takes no sh"t from you...

So that mean all pilots from 1/7 are of equal skill ? and there are no amateur F-22 pilot ?what a joke


This mean exatly what i wrote, at the time NONE of the 1/7 pilots came from Air Superiority Squadrons but transformed from Jaguar or Mirage 2000D which as everyone know but you are Strikers, NOT air superiority fighters, you know what? Trolls always asko for sources and links, enthusiats find them.

As for the 27 FS, certainly NO "amateurs" there, but pure A2A specialists with Air Superiority as sole mission all the way from 1942, flew F-86, F-89, F-94, F-102, F-106, F-4, were the FIRST to fly F-15 in 1976, not much pound for air to ground here, you're sh*t out of luck.

They transformed to F-22 mid-January 2006, while the 1/7 were transforming from Jaguars to Rafale a few mont later, before deploying to Af'stan, having been on hold without their Jaguars for an entire year, not much Air superiority there either. and certainly not hard to figure which Squadron was the most trained in A2A.


Nice try, but as usual you are so full of sh*t


Again this photo was taken on arrival at the exercise, anyone aware would know but you (meamning those who actually were there), it doesn't take much time to paint this on an A-C side, and you keep taking your case for a world standard, not everyone is that clueless.

If this F-4 killed a Rafale, it might well have been in BVR when the Squadron Rafales didn't have what it takes to take them on at long range, true, at this stage of their evoution, they were more often used as plastron in BVR but this have changed with AESA radar, SECTRA and now Meteor upgrades.

They even go as far as writing Frisian flag 2008 and Rafale eater on it LOL. The truth must be so hard for a fanboy like you to swallow, and no there wasn't any Eurofighter in Frisian flag 2008


And NO definitively the silouete is NOT that of a Rafale, there are enough distinctive features on it to figure this one out as well so this let much questions unanswered, like how can anyone confuse this for a Rafale or consider for one second that GAF F-4 never crossed GAF Typhoon in actual exercises at home even during this exercise, or that it is just the silouet of the A-C they were about to transform to?... And you keep caling people fanboyz?

How do you know if F-22 pilot also want to roll ? or do you think the counter to one maneuver is to do exactly the same ? :doh:


That's exactly what he did during the whole engagement but you can't figure what is what on a video, talk about fanboyism, you dont even comprehend what vertical yo-yos are, not loops there, so it implies rolls at the top, so both A-C DID roll, you even can see the F-22 doing just that.

Oh really? mind giving me the exact name of their airfoil ?


Rafale's airfoil is clasified as is that of every Dassault fighter since a good while, that of F-22 is a supercritical designed by Dryden, i believe developed under the NASA SCW technology program. How come you dont know this already?

you are the one without any clues here but of course you don't want me to post any picture because it will just destroy your argument


You mean you delude yourself into thinking you are doing it while posting w.h.a.t.e.v.e.r together with completely false assumptions and ignoring reality, sure...

None of the picture you post actually made your false points, aerodynamicist such as those i quoted does make the point for me, so does the Dryden doc about F-18 vortex "efficiency", as opposed to your funny interpretation of basic aerodynamics, your bunch clearly dont know what you're writing about and prefer reality denial to actual technical debate...


You group the characteristics of the main wing with vortex generating devices?


Absolutely, since they work the exact same way as LEX only on a larger scare and are wider.

As i said, delta wings generates their own main vortexes at their root with or without LEX/canard, that's precisely the characteristics of delta plans, vortex lift and it's NOT only happening at high AoA, especially with close coupled canards and/or moderately swept deltas like F-22 or Rafale, not even on Mirage IIIs which is something you totaly failed to notice after the results graphs of the IIIS flight test were posted to you.

You like pretty pictures it seems.
Image

Here special MTO conditions i keep mentioning, allows the wing root vortex to be visible, which they wouldn't without the amount of moisture in the air, they are those which are nearest to their departure point as well (low speed, + AoA) although a long way from it. Now, the most important are those you do NOT see, canard root and tip vortexes, and those of the LEX. If that's not clear enough for you, like the rest of it, it's due to some deficiency from your side...

The other wing vortexes take root on the UNDERWING leading edge and need to go around it, they also are weaker than the main root vortex.

Question: Knowing nothing about it, having such a low sense of obervation, why do you keep spaming the forumn pages with ignorant B.S instead of learning your basics?

so you don't even understand why they put LERX on F-16, F-18 in the first place
follow your logic all aircraft should have delta wing and LERX and Canard since more vortex creating devices = better.


Sorry, YOU meant to say that YOU dont understand what LEX are or does, or what vortex lift is, that's a clear fact by now, and they are NOT called LERX but LEX as named by their inventors, ask Dryden/NASA, they knows tons more than you do.

Nope, delta wing can generate vortex at high AoA, that what give them higher max AoA than a normal straight or low swept wing.Because the vortex stops flow separation.


What a bag of bulls, so according to you genius, Rafale rotates at high AoA during take off? :bang:

You can't even read a Mirage IIIS graph with lift and Aoa given to you, such Delta wings vortex are the sole source of their lift as early as they take a moderate AoA, using canards only trigger the appearence of vortex lift at even lower AoA, therefore reduced induced drag.
Image
Here pressure computation, shows clearly the difference between the main vortex and the others, on a highly swept delta, the LEX/wing root have exactly the same characteristics and will generate a main vortex the exact same way.

Now; conclusion of the Mirage IIIS tests: "The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices on the delta wing.

This gives an extension of controlled airflow up to a higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder.

The vortex lift starts earlier, which results in reduced drag at a given lift
(see Fig 1).At a given AoA, the canard configuration gives more lift and less drag than the canardless delta configuration.

The improved yaw stability permits higher AoA, and therefore lift and drag are
approximately doubled with the canards
".
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... 03298.html

And THIS is with a old 58* swept Mirage III, not a 48* + LEX canard like that of Rafale note that there is no question of "can generate vortex at high AoA" but up to higher AoA, and vortex lift starting earlier, not your disneylandish version of reality graph plus report = you proven completly our of your league. Again.

So what were you saying about F-16/18 sweep angles and LEX? Close coupled canards achieve the SAME, add LEX to them and you get MORE lift than simple LEX/wing configuration regardless of sweep angle, with added benefits such as more natural damping (no transonic bump or limitation such as those seen on F-16 or E-F), more tolerance to out of CG range or assymetric loading, LOWER drag in all flight regime, better trim drag.

What does "an extension of controlled airflow up to a higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder" and "improved yaw stability permits higher AoA" to you? A great need for a second fin?

If you look at the graph, it shows the appearence of vortex lift way before reaching a third of its Max AoA, which is moderate since it is only a Mirage III with 58* swept delta, vortex lift will appear much earlier on both F-22 and Rafale, even without the canards.

But that does not mean delta can generate higher total lift/unit area than a straight or low swept wing at similar AoA, its lift curve is far less steep.


Well it's bound to do just that by sheer mechanical logic, since delta plans are simply larger in surface for equal weight, offer more internal volume for fuel, drag less in transonic and supersonic while being larger, offering a lower wing load, one of the reasons why it was chosen for the F-22 in the first place and neither F-16 nor F-18 have straight wings as opposed by what you keep writing but swept wings.

As for F-18 it is notoriously dragy because of its LEX size and generates more drag by simple virtue of insteady vortex, so revise your copy on turn rates and control authority because Dryden who tested this A-C flight envelop disagree with your bunch of bulls, there is a long way between beginers theories and reality.

Higher the sweep angle, the less steep the lift curve would be.


Again you completely missed the points here as usual, their sweep angle is moderate for a delta at 48*, both Rafale and F-22 doesn't have the sort of issue both F-16 and F-18 have, (bar the vortex breakdown in the ailerons area in the case of F-22), they combine BOTH the characteristics of the delta and straighter wings by just being moderate in swep, use LEX, and being larger in surface than if they used swept wings, plus canards on Rafale.

The delta plan offers MORE surface for LOWER structural weight, equals more lift for lower drag, so your theory falls flat on this basis only.

Now if one take into account the drag generated by F-18 LEX while Rafale is optimised for a much higher lift/drag ratio, you can pull whatever stunt you like and post all the web litle pictures, you wont make your points.

Many aircraft have LERX, yet retain their low swept wing because that help them combine the benefit of both delta and low swept
Delta = higher AoA
Low swept = higher lift at the same AoA


Actually no, it doesn't works quiet just like that in real life either, it's a tad more complext than your little pictures and fantasist interpretations would let us believe for the many good reasons i already demonstrated: Quote someone who knows his subject, as opposed to you:

"The close coupled delta canard configuration’s primary feature, its stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, meaning high maximum lift coefficient, had lately been realized by the Americans, instead using large strakes as forward wing root extensions together with conventional tail arrangement, as found on the F-16 and F-17/18".

So according to the designer of Gripen, which can eat any F-16/18 for breakfast in WVR, the reason WHY US designers used LEX on both the A-C you mentioned is to obtain stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, which is THE particularity of a close coupled delta canard, is that what you call the aerodynamic bashing encoutered on F-18 or vorteexes breakdwon on F-22 wings? It proves that you have absolutely NO idea whatstodever how vortexes works.
U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

So where are the actual numbers to back up this point? or is this another a$$ pull of your?


You had the answer from a master aerodynamicist, so i think a$$ pulls are what you make of reality when it's way too complex for you... We're FAR from your complete lack of understanding and knowledge of aerodynamics and aviation history aren't we?

And something else, BOTH F-16 and F-18 have more than one aerodynamic gremlin, as demonstrated by Dryden studies (those your bunch wont read for cause of nervous diarrhea).

F-18 have aerodynamic bashing inducing drag, yep, it drags way more than any of those other A-C, F-16 is well known for its AoA limitations (risks of superstall) AND not being tolerent to assymetric load in the transonic regime where it would DEPART when the pilot pulls a small amount of G with only one AAM attached to its wingtip rails, so much for aerodynamic excellency.

THIS is completely unknown to the Delta canards, they are a lot more tolerant to assymetric load due to natural damping, yet another little detail you know nothing about, you like your little Youtube newbies feeders? Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/Rv9YC-gaNYo

btw, the only reason i post this video AFTER your pal is that i couldn't post up to now, but i understood what this topic was about while he totally mised the point, LOSS of control flight in the transonic regime is not equivalent to post-stal maneuvers capabilities, it is a flaw, not a quality and the test pilot says it clearly, in an area where the A-C is prone to depart.

Close-coupled canard does NOT depart, not in assymetric loads either, and have little of the transonic issues known by conventional configuration A-Cs.

As for confirmation from Gripen designer on the subject of how easy it is to obtain the same results from a conventional design, here, a little picture for you.
Image

said the troll who pull everything out of his a$$ without any sources or number


So obsessed with this part of your anathomy, it looks like the center of your intelligence, no wonder you seems to be totally unable to comprehend your basics, they're lost somehere in a place far remote from your mind...

All talk but not a single source or actual number for comparison between Rafale and F-22 and Btw, wing tail configuration with negative stability will have their horizontal tail add up to the total lift, something canard cannot achieve


Considering what you do of the sources one can pass on to you it's like feeding a goldfish with four stars Russian caviar hoping for it to get smart enough to get a Nobel Price in quantum mechanics, every single serious source on the subject conterdict you, enuff said.

Your funny theories falls short when one looks closely to what is actually happening with the A-C you keep comparing Gripen and Rafale to, they simply are not on par aerodynamically with F-22 and even less Gripen or Rafale.

So where are the actual numbers to back up this point? or is this another a$$ pull of your?


What? A pressure zone simulation of F-22 vortex breakout and departure from Dryden an a$$ pull?? Yeah, i know your buddy managed (or so he like to think) to turn vortex breakdown, a defisciency, into aerodynamic excellence, but i beging to understand why you guys are so deluded.

It's all good if you forget induced drag, lower lift and control surface authority due to unsteady vortexes and the rest of it and consider vortex brakedown as efficient as stable vortex flow, which goes some way to demonstrate how little you guys have comprehended the subject in the first place...

Sums you up doesn't it, posting a F-16 departure due to lack of control and damping in the transonic regime and come up as proof of possible recovery (I'd be worried if it havent been able to recover) from high AoA post stall maneuver takes some doing, same for the F-18 and F-35 aerodynamic bashing, that's a proof of good airflow is it, uncontroled departed spins and controled flight be it post-stall are thew same?

I think you dont even know the meaning of the words flight and control at all.

Sorry but i'll skip the rest of your paranoiac, flame bating troll feast wee-wee contest after this post, i do not do t**s feeding, you guys need to get nannies or psys or both, learn your very basics and accept reality for what it is, which is going to take time, and then some, considering how far in your fantasy world you're all gone.

So it's just yet another Dryden educated document you havent managed to read or get your head around, as usual, being vulgar, agressive and taking on "what's his name? Picard" with personal attacks doesn't make your point but make you look like a complete freaked out ignorant with no argument at all.
Get the PDF and learn your basics, then perhasps if you comprehended what it says we can talk aerodynamics, in a few years, if ever.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a245152.pdf

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 10:26
by garrya
On the subject of high AoA maneuver
Benefits of TVC and high angle of attack:
Image

Twin tails or single tail:
Image
Image

Effects of LEF:
Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 12:40
by degrasse
garrya wrote:On the subject of high AoA maneuver

Twin tails or single tail:



I see we go to the same book shop.

Very interresting study here, note that the need for stealth and vertical surfaces tail reduction dictated the choice for twin tails configuration, but it still need to use all its surfaces + TVC to obtain those levels of lateral stability and pitch/roll control.

Most of Dryden links for test flight results are dead now, including that of YF-22 but i can recall their recommandation for the cranked trailing edge for cause of vortex breakdwon causing excessive bashing in this area, they also recommanded a reduction of the wingsweep to the actual 48*.
Image

Funny Rafale and F-22 ended up with similar leading edge/LEX configuration...

And before some paranoiac trolls start jumping up and down screaming "Picard" , this image is the result of my own studies and photoshop work, and it's been a while... (what was i saying)... :bang:
Image

As i said, one is designed for stealth and as such have to compromise with shapes and configuration, the other conceived with hyper-maneuvrability in mind from day one with no compromise but aerodynamic optimisation, the main difference between them being the canard surfaces and mostly the effects they have on ALL axis, providing with stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack.

Vortex breakdwon are not part of what stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack defines, aerodynamic bashing is not as efficient as stable aiflow, regardless of vortex strength, cleaner airflow works way better.

On the effects of close-coupled canards:
"The close coupled delta canard configuration’s primary feature, its stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, meaning high maximum lift coefficient, had lately been realized by the Americans, instead using large strakes as forward wing root extensions together with conventional tail arrangement, as found on the F-16 and F-17/18".
U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

So according to the designer of Gripen, the reason WHY US designers used LEX on both mentioned A-C is to obtain stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, which is THE particularity of a close coupled delta canard and visibly NOT the case of the A-C experiencing vortex breakdown or aerodynamic bashing phenomenons at any point.


What you do NOT see... Airshows are nice, Youtube videos are nice, but there is little there for proper analysis, better get the information where it is than jumping to false conclusions...
Image

Here special MTO conditions allows the wing root vortex to be visible, which they wouldn't in this case without the amount of moisture in the air, they are those which are nearest to their departure point as well (low speed, + AoA) although a long way from it. Now, the most important are those you do NOT see, canard root and tip vortexes, and those of the LEX

The A-C AoA at rotation is lower than 15*, it is a stable 16* on appropach and the configuration for the FCS active lift/drag optimisation is obviously different, biased for low speed, descent slope angle and rapid deceleration.

Now; conclusion of the Mirage IIIS tests:

"The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices on the delta wing.

This gives an extension of controlled airflow up to a higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder.

The vortex lift starts earlier, which results in reduced drag at a given lift (see Fig 1).At a given AoA, the canard configuration gives more lift and less drag than the canardless delta configuration.

The improved yaw stability permits higher AoA, and therefore lift and drag are
approximately doubled with the canards
".
https://www.flightglobal.com/pdfarchive ... 03298.html

This is why a sound close-coupled canard-delta design does NOT need a twin tail, it will retain a proper level of yaw control up to AoA where the fin will be completely immersed in the fuselage wake and ailerons will have to take over in this axis anyway.

On X-31, it's 50* AoA, but on Gripen and Rafale (which does not use differencial canard deflection btw), it is higher, simply because their canard are aerodynamicaly coupled and that of X-31 are NOT.

Now, there are design features on Rafale meant to increase the fuselage boundary layer energy at up to higher AoA in a view to improve yaw control authority other than close-coupled canard root vortexes, clue; on Gripen they are strakes.

I am still holding the info to see if anyone can figure it out, since i'm restricted for posting i'll be back later with more fun, but dont expect me to respond to the trolling wee-wee contest of those frustrated by their "been owned by uncivilised Indians" experience. Some comments starts to sound pretty xenophobics and have no place in an aviation forum...

@ garrya ps: Good to see one can have a proper technical debate in here, but i cannot reply to your post below by restriction, i have to edit.

Yes those A-C are hardly comparible simply because they do not respond to the same set of requirements and i keep pointing this out, stealth means aerodynamic compromises, but when it comes to their performances in this topic's video, the fact that Rafale can roll at speed as low as 80kt (and he didn't push it, just done it right for the circumstances, there is NO FCS-built-in restriction for speed) is one of the reason why the Rafales were able to equal F-22 in this encounter.

Those graphs even without scales are interesting in that they give a good idea of the difference between the two configuration, they also includes the effects of the strakes mounted on the pitot tubes (similar in purpose to that of F-22 and Kfir), i'm sure you will find the whole article of most interest.

The parralel i make between F-22 and Rafale at this level is still perfectly valid when you compare their respective plan form, in particular LEX and leading edge angles, considering the purpose of the vortex sources and what they are doing for the airframe airflow as a whole.

The F-22 lacks the 4th set of vortex offered by the canard wingtips, which energises the outer wing boundary layer, thus offering a higher level of roll control at high AoA, a particular feature F-22 does not posses simply because its design point is stealth instead of hyper-maneuvrability.

The canard root vortexes does the same job as F-22's strakes and are not meant to extend futher outward than mid-wingspan, as a matter of fact, when not combined with canard tip vortex, they brake down, looses their efficiency and in the case of F-22 (F-18 before it and F-35 after it suffers the same problem for slightly different reasons) caused structural fatigue due to aerodynamic bashing.

On the other hand, they keep a steady airflow on the fuselage fin and rudder, which is much easier to achieve on a single fin for cause of aerodynamic bashing, on top of increasing lift by interacting with wing root (and LEX) vortexes.

So vortex root position matters a lot more than their "strength" (See F-35 wandering strake vortexes), vertical separation of forward vortexes is also a factor increasing the efficiency of their interaction with the outer wing vortexes, so it is one aspect where F-22 stealthier features works against its aerodynamic efficiency in comparison and one of the reason they breakdown instead of staying steady.

Then "strength" is a word with little meaning since there are only MAIN and RESIDUAL vortexes, only the main vortexes matters and once you have a root for them, their strength will be pretty much equivalent from an A-C to another for the same speed/AoA.

So all i am doing is to explain within this particular contest HOW a Rafale with no TVC and lower TWR is capable of equaling a F-22 in a WVR encounter (and not as some have perceived launching a wee-wee contest)...

In a drag race, Rafale is near unbetable at low speed, simply because its aerodynamics are optimised for this purpose, this goes up to speed and altitude where engine thrust will take more importance and it's a long way from 80kt or 9.0 g +.

What mattered in this particular topic, was its ability to roll at those speeds and recover its energy fast enough to outfly the F-22 in this drag race, despite F-22 higher TWR and use of TVC, that's Lift/Drag optimisation, aiflow control allowing for a higher level of energy management.

We can further debate on the benefits of the close-coupled canard formula in other area of the flight envelop when i am able to post, but there are tons of good documentation on the subject, including from NASA/Dryden, Hans Herbst, U. Claréus, Swiss MoD, and some leaked Dassault-Aviation flight testing program management.

I'm sure you can find most of it goggling them. Have a good day.

To others unaware French bashing specialists: A little reality strike, final score was 1/1 and 4 nils.

Here is a real AdlA 1/7 Squadron culture thing, when i said EQUAL: Out of 6 encounter, each side managed ONE kill, the rest were 0 scores within the allocated time for the fights, with love from the 1/7 pilots.
Image

1 sec fire at 2500 r/pm with a hit ratio of 90% gives you 46 rounds of OPIT 30mm on target, here is a F-22 in very bad shape (check the NEXTER 30mm characteristics for a laugh); reality denial does no good for good aviation forum debates.

As for the other AdlA Squadron, such as Air Superiority Mirage 2000 C/-5:
Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 12:46
by garrya
degrasse wrote:Very interresting study here, note that the need for stealth and vertical surfaces tail reduction dictated the choice for twin tails configuration, but it still need to use all its surfaces + TVC to obtain those levels of lateral stability and pitch/roll control.

IMHO, That is very vague definition, comparison is impossible without parallel data, especially considering that there is no scale on the graph either.

degrasse wrote:Image

As far as i understand it, these graphs shows the aerodynamic comparison between delta wing fighters with and without strakes, canard. It is not a comparison between delta wing with canard and trapezoid wing conventional lay out aircraft. Thus,while iam open to the possibility of Rafale more lift oriented than F-22, you are pretty much comparing Apples and Oranges when using those charts to compare F-22 and Rafale

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 14:19
by viper12
And before some paranoiac trolls start jumping up and sown screaming "Picard" , this image is the result of my own studies and photoshop work...


So you just created this picture right now ?

Seriously, anyone rational would say with 99%+ confidence you're Picard ; what are the odds of someone picking a picture posted by Picard, hidden so deep in the comments section on a page of the Aviationist you have to click on "Load more comments" multiple times, while not being Picard ?

And no, you're clearly not a professional, or even someone a little serious, if you don't bother to provide sources, and saying X is good at some point to only use the opposite argument a few paragraphs later.

Also, your picture is clearly the hallmark of a professional ; comparing the 18.92m long F-22A to the 15.27m long Rafale, with the same apparent size.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 15:12
by mixelflick
Jesus.

I just spent over an hour reading all this. Can someone tell me who "won"? :)

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 15:20
by wrightwing
I love how he asks how it's possible that the Rafale outflew the Raptor, when it didn't win any of the engagements (while T-38s have managed to get simulated kills.) I think he defines outflew differently, than is traditionally understood. He's also one of the fans, that like to compare clean configurations.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 15:51
by viper12
mixelflick wrote:Jesus.

I just spent over an hour reading all this. Can someone tell me who "won"? :)


Ask yourself the following questions :

1) Who claims there were Eurofighters at Frisian Flag 2008, when there weren't (link 1, link 2, link 3) ?

2) Who claims X, Y, Z but doesn't bother to provide specific sources or links ?

3) Who posts a water tunnel test picture that's so well hidden deep inside the comment section of a specific The Aviationist article, a comment posted by Picard, a known fanboi whose "facts" have been debunked for years ?

4) Who claims to be a professional yet cannot make a picture at the same scale on both sides, or doesn't even know the standard symbol for degree, as in a 90-degree turn, as you've certainly noticed in his posts ?

After answering these questions, you know who "lost".

Or even better ; let [s]Picard[/s] degrasse use the equations shown here, the very ones he's quoted :

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r279 ... eqv9-1.jpg

Then see which numbers he gets after plugging in realistic numbers, showing every step of the computation ; chances are he won't get realistic ones, for reasons known to anyone with a minimum knowledge of science...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 17:57
by f-16adf
It's great if the Rafale and Gripen flew to alphas above 80 or 90 degrees in tests. But with what we have seen (air show demos) ((and not by unverified internet diagrams)) their slow fight is not particularly impressive. Sure it's an improvement over the F-16. However, Flankers and Hornets can fly at higher alphas; and they have been doing it for years.

The F-14 Tomcat flew to very high alphas in testing, but that doesn't mean it was sanctioned for squadron service.


Show some actual E/M diagrams (not internet estimations) otherwise this is just becoming an exorbitant anecdotal fallacy.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 18:23
by eloise
f-16adf wrote:Show some actual E/M diagrams (not internet estimations) otherwise this is just becoming an exorbitant anecdotal fallacy.

It is not even an estimation of Rafale or F-22 aerodynamic,
He got the following:
_ Some graphs (without any number) about of benefits of canard for delta wing


_ A tunnel photo of F-35 shape in unknown condition
_ A contour of F-22 in unknown condition
( AoA and speed will change vortex and air flow formation , so each condition is entirely different in terms of lift and drag)
He has no contour or tunnel photos of Rafale in the same condition as F-22 and F-35 to compare, he just concluded that Rafale is better because "canard-delta", "more optimum vortex", "no stealth, super extremely optimum aerodynamic".

He has no Cl, Cd curve for any of the airplane in discussion, he has no dynamic thrust curve.Yet he concluded that Rafale will have best STR and ITR because again "canard super optimum" "11G structure limits"

He keeps insisting that Rafale has the best post stall fighting capabilities despite all evidence to the contrary because "close coupled canard"

and then he pretend to work in Military and start sharing his " stories", tried to lie about Frisian flag but get shut down immediately by me.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 18:43
by sferrin
f-16adf wrote:It's great if the Rafale and Gripen flew to alphas above 80 or 90 degrees in tests. But with what we have seen (air show demos) ((and not by unverified internet diagrams)) their slow fight is not particularly impressive. Sure it's an improvement over the F-16. However, Flankers and Hornets can fly at higher alphas; and they have been doing it for years.

The F-14 Tomcat flew to very high alphas in testing, but that doesn't mean it was sanctioned for squadron service.
.


Yep, the Eagle broke 120 degrees AOA in early flight tests. Didn't see it doing any Cobras at airshows.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 20:34
by f-16adf
Exactly, he insists that Rafale has the best ITR/STR ..... and my point is there are NO ACTUAL E/M diagrams presented to validate his argument.

I will say that Rafale has an extremely good ITR, the best that's debatable. STR, by the Video and even with other vids (black Rafale from the mid 1990's, and there are others) seems a little lacking. The only complete turning Rafale really has been doing is coupled with 4 rolls; and Ivan has been doing that since the late 1980's with the Mig-29.

I have seen EF Typhoon complete it in a little over 16 seconds, and baseline Su-27 in 14-15 seconds. All these jets were probably low if not very low on fuel (just like Rafale). Granted it's a difficult comparison because we don't know the AC (Density Altitude) of the comparing days. And you can't compare a demo of a jet that is flying near very low MSL elevations (many air bases in the UK and at Paris) to one that is flying at Hill or Nellis (you are already at 1500ft MSL and on the ground); that is just silly-

The internet is filled with garbage, so if we are not actual USAF/USN/FAF/RAF/RuAF/IAF pilots (and probably 99% of the posters here are not ((myself included))) then we really do not have much to go by. Nice to see actual real E/M stuff, but again that is very, very, very difficult to attain.


Lastly, from what I have witnessed, Rafale and Gripen high AOA flights are not very impressive. It goes against very logic to say a conventional jet post stall is better than a TVC jet post stall.

Ever stall a Cessna or an Archer? Once you are in full (post) stall if you do not recover, you fall like a rock. Your lifting surfaces (wing) obviously are not working any more.

The main impetus behind TVC was always that it was to fly you "technically" beyond the stall (when your other conventional controls are buffeting, rocking, becoming "mushy", and ceasing to work) and nose pointing....

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 20:58
by f-16adf
For s*its and giggles; should we all start buying Block 10 small tails again, because if we go by this video ((it's at the very end)) it beats Rafale and most other canard delta jets in time- :bang:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5u5IH04Qp2E

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2017, 22:07
by degrasse
f-16adf wrote:Exactly, he insists that Rafale has the best ITR/STR ..... and my point is there are NO ACTUAL E/M diagrams presented to validate his argument.

I will say that Rafale has an extremely good ITR, the best that's debatable. STR, by the Video and even with other vids (black Rafale from the mid 1990's, and there are others) seems a little lacking. The only complete turning Rafale really has been doing is coupled with 4 rolls; and Ivan has been doing that since the late 1980's with the Mig-29.

I have seen EF Typhoon complete it in a little over 16 seconds, and baseline Su-27 in 14-15 seconds. All these jets were probably low if not very low on fuel (just like Rafale). Granted it's a difficult comparison because we don't know the AC (Density Altitude) of the comparing days. And you can't compare a demo of a jet that is flying near very low MSL elevations (many air bases in the UK and at Paris) to one that is flying at Hill or Nellis (you are already at 1500ft MSL and on the ground); that is just silly-

The internet is filled with garbage, so if we are not actual USAF/USN/FAF/RAF/RuAF/IAF pilots (and probably 99% of the posters here are not ((myself included))) then we really do not have much to go by. Nice to see actual real E/M stuff, but again that is very, very, very difficult to attain.


Lastly, from what I have witnessed, Rafale and Gripen high AOA flights are not very impressive. It goes against very logic to say a conventional jet post stall is better than a TVC jet post stall.

Ever stall a Cessna or an Archer? Once you are in full (post) stall if you do not recover, you fall like a rock. Your lifting surfaces (wing) obviously are not working any more.

The main impetus behind TVC was always that it was to fly you "technically" beyond the stall (when your other conventional controls are buffeting, rocking, becoming "mushy", and ceasing to work) and nose pointing....


"HE" is not ME, if you're one of those freaking out about Picard...

Now allow me a few personal remarks on your post:

1) SOFRADIR is one of the companies at the top of IR technology, they bough one US company to establish themselves in the USA and equips the M1 Abraham for years among other things so they can't be that bad.

Then you seems to base your conclusions or at least impressions on Airtshow stunts, i doubt very much that one poster here comprehend what a Rafale demo display is about, it's FAR remote from the stunts thing to impress the public, instead they demonstrate TRUE, USEABLE combat capabilities.

Low speed:

a) It is NOT FCS limited, the sound alarm kicks in at 100kt but you could probably fly a low lower, as a matter of fact depending on the pilots, they do, in mock combat, controled flight was recorded at speed as low as 15kt.
Source: Rafale flight test manager himself.
http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... en-vol.pdf

b) Max AoA, FCS limits it to 32* (some says 39*), depending on configuration (mainly heavy loads), the A-C is G limited but there is an extra 2.0g available to the pilot after the 9.0g stop, you just need to pull a little harder.

The airframe was designed with a higher ultimate structural load than the 1.5 international standard, at 1.85, mainly because they wanted to retain the same life-span for the Marine version and ALL airframes are derivated from it down to the anti-corosion coating, before the M receives its own specific structural strenghtening, so it CAN take 11.0g routinely.

The AoA limit is firmly there for operational purposes, AdlA and French DoD decided that those limits would allow every pilots (top and newbies alike) to fly it "careless" safely, they are NOT aerodynamic limits at all.

Same goes for Gripen, so if you expect a Cobra maneuver, you need to get an entry at a Flight test center for high AoA testing, they will load up a different AoA scale for the HUD and relax the FCS limits, IMHO, you have zero chances for this to happen but it is what it would take.

Depending on the pilot and his personal style, max g can differ; during the first year of the Rafale Demo Team, their pilot was pulling 10/10.5/11g at virtually every airshow, he says so himself during an interview at the Paris Airshow 2009.
https://youtu.be/x5O-vRXrgig

The pilot changes every new season, so does the display.

Now, since you sound like you know your turf, you figured that it obviously depends on MTO conditions, i dont think he would reach 11.0g in hot condition but the whole point being, when it comes to instantaneous turn rates, the higher the structural g load the higher the turn rate obtainable.

You compute turn rates using maximum structural load, some fighters can reach more than 9.0g some can't, being limited either structuraly either aerodynamicall of both, like the E-F which is firmly limited to 9.0g being already designed at a lower tultimate structural g than the international standard.

So i am not bothered on how people perceive Rafale from seing them at Airshows, from my experience i know that such displays are either representative or NOT of what an A-C can and need to do in a real combat situation and since i'm not interested in winning wee-wee contests in forums it matters more to me than Youtube videos.

The only complete turning Rafale really has been doing is coupled with 4 rolls; and Ivan has been doing that since the late 1980's with the Mig-29.


Sure thing, only they do not initiate the roll in the same direction nor as fast from 9.0g simply because they are aerodynamically limited, Typhoon did it too, but "ivan" fashion, not as hard to achieve, so you missed ther main purpose of the figure which is to demonstrate its capability to reverse-roll from a high g turn.

I think you easily could ask them more about their display by contacting them yourself, just try...
https://www.rafalesolodisplay.com/

Ever stall a Cessna or an Archer? Once you are in full (post) stall if you do not recover, you fall like a rock. Your lifting surfaces (wing) obviously are not working any more.


Those are not canard-deltas, i did stall and post stall myslef (basic acro) and obviously the aerodynamic configuration of an A-C makes a lot of difference, on some jets, you could enter a superstall too, from which you won't recover, on some acro A-C you can use the ailerons in the same fashion as that descibed for the Gripen, to initaie and stop a rotation in the yaw axis.

Post stall maneuvers were explored by Ministere de la Defense, they first got ONERA to simulated J and HERBST turns, then ehy probably were tested during the high AoA test campain of which we know nothing, the goal was to figure out their usefulness in combat.

The conclusion was that despite few advantages, overal the loss of energy was too high and such maneuvers could be easily countered by other maneuvers, such as vertical yo-yos, pilots were at higher risks of spacial disorientation so the decision was taken to limit the AoA.

The main impetus behind TVC was always that it was to fly you "technically" beyond the stall (when your other conventional controls are buffeting, rocking, becoming "mushy", and ceasing to work) and nose pointing...


True but even Hans Herbst conclusion differed after X-31 tests and E-F never was equiped with TVC while it was always intended to be by design, being a quasy conceptual copy of X-31, since designed by the same guy.

Dr. Wolfgang Herbst, designer of the X-31 and TFK-30 aka Eurofighter Typhoon:
Image
Image

Then i doubt very much that you will see a F-22 pilot do post-stall in mock combat, as i said, it's good for showing off, less for combat where you need energy management at a higher level.

if we are not actual USAF/USN/FAF/RAF/RuAF/IAF pilots (and probably 99% of the posters here are not ((myself included))) then we really do not have much to go by


You know what it takes to get to fly an A-C so allow me to disagree with what you are saying, because unless you specialise in flight testing, it is perfectly possible after passing your theoricals to know as much on the aerodymics of an A-C than a Squadron pilot who does not always spend this much time on this topic.

So sure, there is a LOT of gargabe online, the main reason being that most of what you can find there is not copy-righted, meaning the real stuff is not made available to you in the web, but when you get your minimum knowledge base, you can sort out the serious stuff from the idiot book series of "documentation" writen in diverse websites.

Sure pilot know their flight envelops, but so do i in the case of Rafale from leaked documentation among other things, other sources such as Dryden/NASA will give you that much details on other A-C, reason why i can guaranty you that what they say about canard-delta not suffering from transonic "bump" and not being g-limited even with assymetric loads in transonic is true, this is called damping, a close-coupled canard characteristic, and i equaly can tell you that it is not the case of a SU-27.

So there is a flyer/enthusiast culture there that distinguish them (including you and I to our respective levels) from your average keyboard warrior which only experience of flight would be Mircrosoft simulation, and you dont need to learn much theorical to fly that.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 00:18
by nutshell
There's a point where arguing against someone should not be worth anymore.

This RafaleMasterRace guy is one of these points.

Btw, for the structural limit of the Typhoon i can respond.

Source, one of my pals is a pilot in Gioia del Colle, a Typhoon nest.

Its pretty much 11G for deep inspections, at 11.2G you can be sure u provoked small cracks over wings which means new pair of wings.

AFAIK he never mentioned any intentionally forced G-Limiters when patrolling or simply grinding their flight hours quota.

Also, he's not sure you can actually pulls it; he never tried as he always remind me that 7.5G is already VERY stressy, let alone 9G (and people talks about Gs like they're candies) but he witnessed people scolded for going close to 10 without a logical reason to do so.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 02:36
by degrasse
mixelflick wrote:Jesus.

I just spent over an hour reading all this. Can someone tell me who "won"? :)


Obviously it's way above you paygrade.

1) Who claims there were Eurofighters at Frisian Flag 2008, when there weren't


Not me pal, i claim that the photo given as "proof" a Rafale kill is a goof, it was taken the day of the arrival and the silouet of the Typhoon + mention "Rafale Eater" is due to the near-future transformation of the Squadron from F-4 to E-F, if you cant figure a Typhoon from a Rafale even with so little details, it's not my fault, i can.

2) Who claims X, Y, Z but doesn't bother to provide specific sources or links ?


You bunch, i provide plenty, it triggers collective nervous diarhea, temporary blindness and wee-wee contests...

3) Who posts a water tunnel test picture that's so well hidden deep inside the comment section of a specific The Aviationist article, a comment posted by Picard, a known fanboi whose "facts" have been debunked for years ?


Well actually it is only ONE of the ilustrations of the problems encountered by F-35, i didn't want to go on and on since it was just to illustrate what is NOT a steady airflow, but there have been a lot more of the kind, in particular when they figured what it was doing to the whole rear section of the airframe. I can dig it out for you but i'm afraid we're on for yet another round of your magic roundabout reality denial parties...

The comment says it all, "Something is "pulling" the lip vortex inwards; normally strakes vortexes progapage outward at a 10-20 degree angle". "Turbulent flow field Can couple w/Structural Modes."

READ: Same old issues from F-18 to F-35 through F-22, if that's a "proof" of aerodynamic excellency and the superiority of the twin tail configuration then you will have your washing machine pull 11.0 g turns easily.

They were expecting those vortexes to do a completely different thing than what they figured, i know WHY, you dont, the reason (why you guys doesn't figure out such things) is because you spend too much time doing your flame-bating thing rather than actually reading about what you write in forums.
Image
This picture perfectly illustrate unwanted unsteady vortex flow, on the other hand, the pic of F-22 shows only the result of the absense of forward vortex to energise the wing tips, not the result of a design fault but well as i said, a compromise made to stealth and it would be the same with any A-C with no canard tip vortexes.

The REAL problem here is always the same since F-18, aerodynamic bashing of the twin fins, not because of vortex "strength" (straight from the idiots books) but far from being optimal vortex positioning in regard to that of the fins.

The end result were the structural issues which forced the redesign of the F-22 trailing edge and change of material of the fins forward beams, after Dryden concluded it would fix the problem, but i'm confused here, you guys are supposed to be the US A-C specialist and know ZILTH about them.

4) Who claims to be a professional yet cannot make a picture at the same scale on both sides, or doesn't even know the standard symbol for degree, as in a 90-degree turn, as you've certainly noticed in his posts ?


A professional? LOL! Nope, who make claims about people by puting words in their mouth? You, and there is no need for it to be of the same side, i tried, it doesn't help, take my word for it, they both have a <> 70* LEX and 48* leading edge sweep.

After answering these questions, you know who "lost".


Yes, you.


Or even better ; let [s]Picard[/s] degrasse use the equations shown here, the very ones he's quoted :

Image

Then see which numbers he gets after plugging in realistic numbers, showing every step of the computation ; chances are he won't get realistic ones, for reasons known to anyone with a minimum knowledge of science...


Really and WHY that? And which science would it be? Trolling or accute paranoia?

Who was spot-on about Typhoon ultimate structural load and why did i need to post this equation to show that it matters a lot in the final result of computing a turn rate, unless you're such a genius and can get your washing machine to pull 11.0g, you're wrong again. Trolling doesn't make for good reads.

What is amazing is that aerodynamic laws applies to everyone but your favourite A-Cs, it's patholigic methink, and it's not ME who wrote all the articles on the subject but guys which names you dont even dare mentioning because the only trick you have left is personal attacks on those who post the info, pathetic. Talk about plugging in figures and ask for links after that.

nutshell wrote:There's a point where arguing against someone should not be worth anymore.

This RafaleMasterRace guy is one of these points.


That's what your collective problem is, it's a Rafale and not an F-something or an E.F, too bad your enthusiasm for aviation is so limited but this is something i can't help you with.

>>>

nutshell

Btw, for the structural limit of the Typhoon i can respond.

Source, one of my pals is a pilot in Gioia del Colle, a Typhoon nest.


So we can take your word for that, yes? I'm no troll, so i wont ask you for a link, a pretty picture or Youtube video, i've done my home work.


Its pretty much 11G for deep inspections, at 11.2G you can be sure u provoked small cracks over wings which means new pair of wings.

AFAIK he never mentioned any intentionally forced G-Limiters when patrolling or simply grinding their flight hours quota.

Also, he's not sure you can actually pulls it; he never tried as he always remind me that 7.5G is already VERY stressy, let alone 9G (and people talks about Gs like they're candies) but he witnessed people scolded for going close to 10 without a logical reason to do so.


Well, you see, i do not need to have a pal flying E-F in Gioia del Colle to know that, and it must have been some times since he told you that since they went from a stick-mounted switch for the limiter to a FCS limiter...

To conduct a proper analysis you first have to do some research work on the A-C history, funny thing, many documents are classified only AFTER the A-C receives its MoD stamp of aproval and many documents got deleted from the manufaturer website from then on.

Most of the conceptual details have already been made public, how stupid can this system be?

Points; none of those who replied (especially not the specialist in funny interpretation of pretty videos/pictures) have managed to debunk the conclusions of the aerodynamicists who designed those A-C, but what is showing red hot is that they do not want to aknowledge FACTS.

Like this E-F ultimate structural limits or, the importance of steady airflow in the performances of an A-C.

The end result is this jumping up and down about to explain that "undisclosed" AoA is a factor to prove how little it matters when F-22 vortexes breaks down before reaching the wing tips or F-35 vortexes are not doing what they are supposed to do or Dryden tests on F-18 are not a proof of lack of a efficiency.

AoA doesn't matter at all, it wouldn't be out of normal foreseen flight envelop anyway, what matters is that those vortexes doesn't stay steady when expected to, that it shows in normal flight conditions with resulting structural issues where there shoudn't be any.

When something is not broken, you do not need Dryden to fix it for you.

To finish i have to say that i read aviation topics from nay different countries just out of interrest and didn't post for years (so end this Picard paranoia, he must be laughing), and more and more, this community is loosing its marble and aura of a serious source of GOOD information, you don't want to know what the "retards" from other forums thinks of this one today.

One doesn't inform with comments such as "anybody with some knowledge of physics or science"-blah, one provide with proper counter arguments and demonstrates.

So far none have been able to do just that simply because there is NO arguments against those of the guys who wrote those studies or designed those A-C, even less against their history and when it comes to issues with vortex flow, it is a well known fact that since F-16, ALL US designs have encountered the same issues, namely F-18, F-22 and now F-35.

Not good, but nothing to do with me.

Now what have we seen here as "proofs"?

Wee-poor atempts at trying to demonstrate the opposite of what designers, engineers, aerodynamicicts such as Herbst or U. Claréus write on the subject, complete reality denial and rewriting of the book basics trying to "prove" that a twin tail is a must when in fact, those guys says clearly that it only applies when fin size have to be reduced (now for lower RCS) and even went as far as using X-31 for testing this possibility.

Oh yeah, the USAF FS 27 are "amateurs" flying exclusively A2A missions from 1944 to today and one English speaking posted CANT get any information from the French MoD on the 1/7 role, man considering the knowledge base of some, wikipedia is already too complicated a read.

So if you have something to say on the subject, you have the choice, join the wee-wee contest and troling party or actually add something worth reading about it, THIS makes the difference between a good, serious forum and what some contributors are making of this one.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 02:46
by f-16adf
I think Rafale's wedge, re-energizes the airflow over the wings. Because, once airflow starts to break up near the back of the wing, the elevons effectiveness for pitching decreases.

The elevons are hinged to the wing, where as a stab leading edge (like on the F-18) can more freely bite into the wind. And I have yet to see any of the euro-canards match or exceed the Hornet in high AOA nose pointing.


I love Rafale, it's an absolutely beautiful machine. It is extremely agile and elegant. However, it is not the best at everything.



In the real world a Rafale will go into ACM with external stores (probably 4 AAM, and EFT pylons (unless they go with the tank), an F-22 has all of that internal. We must not forget that-

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 05:13
by eloise
degrasse wrote:Iam very LOUD mouthed for someone who doesn't know how turn rates are computed LOL! The pathetic troll feast.

fixed it for you

degrasse wrote:My source were the French AdlA on French MoD website, and the 1/7 pilots in charge at the time, plus 1/7 is still today a multirole Squadron, years after this ATLC which took place when the Squadron was implementing weapon, systems and tactics for the A2G role at first, no need for a "source" to know this, you write and write and blah-di-blah but know little about it all.

In short, you can't provide any evident to back up your point, so you try to mislead others by more babling nonsense



degrasse wrote:Oh, is see, ultra-p"""d because India didn't fall for your "superior" A-C and chosed instead to buy Rafale are we?

No, because Indiandefence is pretty much the only place where you can start the babling nonsense and don't get shutdown :mrgreen:


degrasse wrote:This mean exatly what i wrote, at the time NONE of the 1/7 pilots came from Air Superiority Squadrons but transformed from Jaguar or Mirage 2000D which as everyone know but you are Strikers, NOT air superiority fighters, you know what?

Does that mean all F-22 pilots are better than all Rafale pilots? nope

degrasse wrote:Trolls always asko for sources and links, enthusiats find them.They transformed to F-22 mid-January 2006, while the 1/7 were transforming from Jaguars to Rafale a few mont later, before deploying to Af'stan, having been on hold without their Jaguars for an entire year, not much Air superiority there either. and certainly not hard to figure which Squadron was the most trained in A2A.

How convenient, of course, anyone who dare to ask for your source are trolls, "enthusiats" are people that just buying your BS isn't it?. So where is the link Mr expert?

degrasse wrote:s for the 27 FS, certainly NO "amateurs" there, but pure A2A specialists with Air Superiority as sole mission all the way from 1942, flew F-86, F-89, F-94, F-102, F-106, F-4, were the FIRST to fly F-15 in 1976, not much pound for air to ground here, you're sh*t out of luck.

Nice try, but as usual , full of sh*t
F-102, F-106 are interceptor
F-4 is multirole but hardly the best in dogfight
F-15 is air superiority fighter but hardly the best in dogfight either, repeatedly beaten by F-16, it is not known for post stall agility either





degrasse wrote:Again this photo was taken on arrival at the exercise, anyone aware would know but you (meamning those who actually were there), it doesn't take much time to paint this on an A-C side, and you keep taking your case for a world standard, not everyone is that clueless.
If this F-4 killed a Rafale, it might well have been in BVR when the Squadron Rafales didn't have what it takes to take them on at long range, true, at this stage of their evoution, they were more often used as plastron in BVR but this have changed with AESA radar, SECTRA and now Meteor upgrades.

First, it was " drawing before any encounter taken place". Then after i pulled up the photos, it changed to "F-4 may have killed Rafale from BVR" as if that will make thing any better.According to our friend degrasse here, Rafale, a 4.5 generation fighter with PESA and low RCS was beaten by F-4 equipped with AIM-7, using mechanical radar from BVR. Not just one but at least 5 time. F-4 pilots are not the best of the bunch when it comes to dogfighting either


degrasse wrote:And NO definitively the silouete is NOT that of a Rafale, there are enough distinctive features on it to figure this one out as well so this let much questions unanswered, like how can anyone confuse this for a Rafale or consider for one second that GAF F-4 never crossed GAF Typhoon in actual exercises at home even during this exercise, or that it is just the silouet of the A-C they were about to transform to?... And you keep caling people fanboyz?

The drawing may look more like Typhoon, but the writing clearly say " frisian flag" and "Rafale eater" , sorry mate but you sh*t out of luck trying to deny this one


degrasse wrote: Rafale's airfoil is clasified as is that of every Dassault fighter since a good while, that of F-22 is a supercritical designed by Dryden, i believe developed under the NASA SCW technology program. How come you dont know this already?

Nice try, but once again, you exposed your own BS
you are the one who said their wing are the same thickness, now you said that they are classified, basically mean you have no information about them but decided to babling anyway


degrasse wrote: You mean you delude yourself into thinking you are doing it while posting w.h.a.t.e.v.e.r together with completely false assumptions and ignoring reality, sure...

keep telling yourself that if it help you heal the burn :wink:


degrasse wrote: None of the picture you post actually made your false points, aerodynamicist such as those i quoted does make the point for me, so does the Dryden doc about F-18 vortex "efficiency", as opposed to your funny interpretation of basic aerodynamics, your bunch clearly dont know what you're writing about and prefer reality denial to actual technical debate...

Nice try denying
F-22 contour at unknown specific AoA and speed make your point how?
F-35 tunnel photo at unknow specific AoA and speed make your point how?
How exactly the chart about canard effect on delta making a point about comparing canard-delta and wing-aft tail configuration?
Where is the contour and wind tunnel photo of Rafale in the same exact situation to compare?
Seem like F-35 vortex does expand and quite stable :wink:
Image
Image

degrasse wrote:Absolutely, since they work the exact same way as LEX only on a larger scare and are wider

Yet you fail to realize that while higher swept have easier time generate vortex, they also have less steep lift curve
Image

degrasse wrote:As i said, delta wings generates their own main vortexes at their root with or without LEX/canard, that's precisely the characteristics of delta plans, vortex lift and it's NOT only happening at high AoA, especially with close coupled canards and/or moderately swept deltas like F-22 or Rafale, not even on Mirage IIIs which is something you totaly failed to notice after the results graphs of the IIIS flight test were posted to you.

Ability to generate vortex and ability generate higher lift are not the same
Image
Image

degrasse wrote:You like pretty pictures it seems.
Image

Here special MTO conditions i keep mentioning, allows the wing root vortex to be visible, which they wouldn't without the amount of moisture in the air, they are those which are nearest to their departure point as well (low speed, + AoA) although a long way from it.

Any sharp, moderate swept wing can generate vortex at AoA, so what?, does that mean a delta have higher CL than a moderate swept wing at the same AoA, nope.
Btw, since you like small wing vortex so much, this is the photo of F-35 in a dry day.
Image
this is the photo of F-35 in a wet day
Image

degrasse wrote:Now, the most important are those you do NOT see, canard root and tip vortexes, and those of the LEX. If that's not clear enough for you, like the rest of it, it's due to some deficiency from your side...

You mean like this ? :wink:
Image

Sacarsm on OMFG 3 three different sources of vortex, best aerodynamic evarrrrr "Sacarsm off

degrasse wrote:I Knowing nothing about it, having such a low sense of obervation, why do ikeep spaming the forumn pages with ignorant B.S instead of learning my basics?

Fixed that for you :wink: and i think the answear is that you are a fan boy



degrasse wrote:Sorry, YOU meant to say that YOU dont understand what LEX are or does, or what vortex lift is, that's a clear fact by now, and they are NOT called LERX but LEX as named by their inventors, ask Dryden/NASA, they knows tons more than you do.

More babbling, keep repeating Dryden/NASA while completely ignored the charts provided :wink: i like your tactic alot


degrasse wrote:What a bag of bulls, so according to you genius, Rafale rotates at high AoA during take off? :bang:

No, but vortex is what slow down flow detachment at high AoA => the reason that delta can stall later compared to a straight wing. But at low AoA, the vortex lift+ wing lift of delta still interior to moderately swept wing. FYI, even the F-35 can produce loads of vortex at similar AoA as the Rafale
Image

degrasse wrote:You can't even read a Mirage IIIS graph with lift and Aoa given to you, such Delta wings vortex are the sole source of their lift as early as they take a moderate AoA using canards only trigger the appearence of vortex lift at even lower AoA, therefore reduced induced drag.

Firstly, your CL- AoA charts have zero value on them. What are the exact AoA ? what are the CL ?
Secondly, delta are not known for their high CL- AoA either

degrasse wrote:Now; conclusion of the Mirage IIIS tests: "The canard produces two additional vortices which combine with the vortices on the delta wing.
This gives an extension of controlled airflow [b]up to a higher AoA
and an unshielded fin and rudder.

The question is up to what exact AoA? how does it compare to wing- aft tail configuration. Up to higher AoA alone is not sufficient, up to how much? 10 AoA ? 20 degrees AoA or 30 degrees AoA ?

degrasse wrote:The vortex lift starts earlier, which results in reduced drag at a given lift[/b] (see Fig 1).At a given AoA, the canard configuration gives more lift and less drag than the canardless delta configuration.
The improved yaw stability permits higher AoA, and therefore lift and drag are
approximately doubled with the canards
".

This is actually quite funny:
Lift AND drag are double with canard ???? what, i don't think you want to increase drag mate


degrasse wrote:And THIS is with a old 58* swept Mirage III, not a 48* + LEX canard like that of Rafale note that there is no question of "can generate vortex at high AoA" but up to higher AoA, and vortex lift starting earlier, not

58 degrees swept will have less CL/Alpha than 48 degrees swept so once again, the improvement from canard on Mirage III cannot be translated to the same % to the improvement from canard on Rafale


degrasse wrote: your disneylandish version of reality graph plus report = you proven completly our of your league. Again.

What ? you posted an article about Mirage with and without canard with absolutely zero information about value of CL, zero information about F-22, F-35, Eurofighter aerodynamic and you think that mean you are out of my league ? :drool: staying in Indiandefence for so long much have caused some deficiency in your brain :wink:

degrasse wrote:So what were you saying about F-16/18 sweep angles and LEX? Close coupled canards achieve the SAME, add LEX to them and you get MORE lift than simple LEX/wing configuration regardless of sweep angle, with added benefits such as more natural damping

Nice try, but no
delta by natural have much less steep lift curve compared to moderately swept wing such as those on F-16, F-18, strakes or LERX will help improve the lift curve, same for canard.
Question is : will Delta wing + canard + LERX able to generate equal CL to moderate swept wing + LERX, knowing that normal moderate swept wing has higher CL than Delta wing at the same AoA. That the question that you can not and will not be able to answer without specific tunnel test or CFD simulation of both airframe.
Another benefit of aft tail aircraft is their horizontal stabilizers can add in lift if the aircraft are negative stable.

degrasse wrote:What does "an extension of controlled airflow up to a higher AoA and an unshielded fin and rudder" and "improved yaw stability permits higher AoA" to you? A great need for a second fin?

It depends on what AoA you are talking about

degrasse wrote:If you look at the graph, it shows the appearance of vortex lift way before reaching a third of its Max AoA, which is moderate since it is only a Mirage III with 58* swept delta, vortex lift will appear much earlier on both F-22 and Rafale, even without the canards.

No, lower swept can have higher CL/alpha but higher swept, lower aspect ratio will generate vortex sooner that why LERX are all narrow and have strong swept angle
Image


degrasse wrote:Well it's bound to do just that by sheer mechanical logic, since delta plans are simply larger in surface for equal weight, offer more internal volume for fuel, drag less in transonic and supersonic while being larger, offering a lower wing load

Nice try ignoring the main drag back of delta which is lower CL for the same AoA



degrasse wrote:As for F-18 it is notoriously dragy because of its LEX size and generates more drag by simple virtue of insteady vortex

What a loads of nonsense
F-18 is draggy because of 2 reasons:
Firstly, it has very low swept wing, this generates more lift at subsonic but also more drag through transonic and supersonic
Secondly, F-18 pylon are canted outward
Image

F-16 has a massive LERX, yet remain one of the best acceleration and sustain turn rate

degrasse wrote:so revise your copy on turn rates and control authority because Dryden who tested this A-C flight envelop disagree with your bunch of bulls

Oh really, did he disagree with me or it is your babbling nonsense again?


degrasse wrote:Again you completely missed the points here as usual, their sweep angle is moderate for a delta at 48*, both Rafale and F-22 doesn't have the sort of issue both F-16 and F-18 have, (bar the vortex breakdown in the ailerons area in the case of F-22), they combine BOTH the characteristics of the delta and straighter wings by just being moderate in swep, use LEX, and being larger in surface than if they used swept wings, plus canards on Rafale.
The delta plan offers MORE surface for LOWER structural weight, equals more lift for lower drag, so your theory falls flat on this basis only.

Firstly, straighter wing can also uses LERX, in case of arts tail they can uses horizontal tails to add in lift as well.
Secondly, you still haven't provide anything to shows that Rafale vortex doesn't break down in ailerons area, you haven't provided the study or the specific conditions ( AoA - Speed) where F-22 contour was taken either.
Thirdly, being bigger in wing area does not improve CL-AoA which is the factor affecting sustained turn rate. Look at the F-16 vs Mirage.
F-16 has LERX while Mirage has strakes for vortex
Image

the delta wing of Mirage can generate vortex lift too and then Mirage also has significantly more wing area=> lower wing loading => follow your logic then Mirage is better in all aspects

yet in reality F-16 has better-sustained turn rate by over 2 degrees/sec
Image
Image

Before they stalled F-16 moderate swept wing will generate more lift at the same AoA than Mirage delta wing even with vortex lift=> F-16 can use less AoA to turn => less drag => better sustained


degrasse wrote:Now if one take into account the drag generated by F-18 LEX while Rafale is optimised for a much higher lift/drag ratio

Here we go again with the so called optimum lift/drag of Rafale without absolutely zero number to back up



degrasse wrote:Actually no, it doesn't works quiet just like that in real life either, it's a tad more complext than your little pictures and fantasist interpretations would let us believe for the many good reasons i already demonstrated: Quote someone who knows his subject, as opposed to you:

"The close coupled delta canard configuration’s primary feature, its stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, meaning high maximum lift coefficient, had lately been realized by the Americans, instead using large strakes as forward wing root extensions together with conventional tail arrangement, as found on the F-16 and F-17/18".


As i expected, you don't know what is maximum lift coefficient either.
maximum lift coefficient or CLmax is the lift coefficient achieved right before aircraft stall, because LERX and Canard both raised the stalling AoA, which means the maximum Clmax will also increase. That what he talked about but it goes right over your head.
Image
But it is not related to what i mentioned earlier which is Lift-AoA, aka the comparison of lift curve steepness between delta and moderate sweep wing. Of course, vortex will also improve lift before CLmax but too bad for you, you chosen the wrong quote to post, which is understandable for someone who doesn't know anything about aerodynamic

Image


degrasse wrote:So according to the designer of Gripen, which can eat any F-16/18 for breakfast in WVR U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

You mean the aircraft that was less than satisfactory in Swiss evaluation?, weak aircraft performance
Image

degrasse wrote: the reason WHY US designers used LEX on both the A-C you mentioned is to obtain stable vortex flow up to very high angles of attack, which is THE particularity of a close coupled delta canard, is that what you call the aerodynamic bashing encoutered on F-18 or vorteexes breakdwon on F-22 wings? It proves that you have absolutely NO idea whatstodever how vortexes works.

Firstly, the vortex only break down at the end of the wing and even though a break down vortex will have less improvement than a strong full vortex, your contour shows that it still help decrease pressure => lift
Secondly, vortex flow changed with speed and AoA, what is the AoA and the speed taken for F-35 and F-22 contour? how do you know Rafale vortex is any better in the same condition?
Thirdly, aero bashing happened because the vortex hit the stabs, stable or not is not the reason for the crack, but the increase of the airflow there help yaw authority.
I can easily give you contour of F-35 with vortex fully stable
Image


degrasse wrote:You had the answer from a master aerodynamicist

hahahahahahahahahahahah funny joke mate, you are a master of aerodynamicist then iam probably the designer of PAK-FA or F-22

degrasse wrote:F-18 have aerodynamic bashing inducing drag yep, it drags way more than any of those other A-C,

most of its drag came from the wing swept and pylon angle

degrasse wrote:F-16 is well known for its AoA limitations (risks of superstall) AND not being tolerent to assymetric load in the transonic regime where it would DEPART when the pilot pulls a small amount of G with only one AAM attached to its wingtip rails, so much for aerodynamic excellency.

yes because it has only single vertical stabilizer



degrasse wrote: you like your little Youtube newbies feeders? Enjoy:

https://youtu.be/Rv9YC-gaNYo

funny how you repost what i posted earlier when you asked what is the different between reach high AoA and having high AoA control lol, oh so where is the video of Rafale rolling faster than X-31 in post stall ?

degrasse wrote:THIS is completely unknown to the Delta canards, they are a lot more tolerant to assymetric load due to natural damping, yet another little detail you know nothing about,
Close-coupled canard does NOT depart, not in assymetric loads either, and have little of the transonic issues known by conventional configuration A-Cs.

Oh really? Opps awkward


degrasse wrote:As for confirmation from Gripen designer on the subject of how easy it is to obtain the same results from a conventional design, here, a little picture for you.

Did he say it is impossible ? no. So another fallacy from you



degrasse wrote:Considering what you do of the sources one can pass on to you it's like feeding a goldfish with four stars Russian caviar hoping for it to get smart enough to get a Nobel Price in quantum mechanics, every single serious source on the subject conterdict you, enuff said.

In short, you have no sources or number to back up your fanboy theory, how typical of you Picard :mrgreen:



degrasse wrote:What? A pressure zone simulation of F-22 vortex breakout and departure from Dryden an a$$ pull??

The contour itself is fine, but you keep avoiding these main question:
1- what is the AoA and Mach number in the simulation?
2- where is the Rafale contour in the same situation?
3- where are the Cl/Cd chart for Rafale and F-22 ?
without those, your fanboi theory about the Supreme optimum efficiency of Rafale compare to F-22 is nothing more than a$$ pull


degrasse wrote:It's all good if you forget induced drag, lower lift and control surface authority due to unsteady vortexes and the rest of it and consider vortex brakedown as efficient as stable vortex flow, which goes some way to demonstrate how little you guys have comprehended the subject in the first place...

*sarcasm on exactly mate keep throwing some more terminologies and you sure will convince people even without any numbers and sources *sacasm off

degrasse wrote:Sums you up doesn't it, posting a F-16 departure due to lack of control and damping in the transonic regime and come up as proof of possible recovery (I'd be worried if it havent been able to recover) from high AoA post stall maneuver takes some doing

May be you dont understand the word " sarcasm"
let me help
Image

degrasse wrote:same for the F-18 and F-35 aerodynamic bashing, that's a proof of good airflow is it, uncontroled departed spins and controled flight be it post-stall are thew same?

Actually, both F-18 , F-35 , F-22 are documented to be able to do post stall maneuver and they have demonstrated that many times. On the otherhand, despite your fanboi theory, your beloved Rafale is limited to around 30 degrees AoA in combat and never once shows post stall maneuver in airshow.
Hey where are the video of Rafale rolling faster than X-31 in post stall ?



degrasse wrote:So it's just yet another Dryden educated document you havent managed to read or get your head around, as usual, being vulgar, agressive and taking on "what's his name? Picard" with personal attacks doesn't make your point but make you look like a complete freaked out ignorant with no argument at all.
Get the PDF and learn your basics, then perhasps if you comprehended what it says we can talk aerodynamics, in a few years, if ever.
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a245152.pdf

hahahaha that quite funny, because you know what? i actually saw Picard posted that exact document in the comment section in one of his blog post. What are the chance and yes, i have read that document ages ago, too bad for you, it is the comparision between with/without canard of delta , and long arm vs close coupled canard but not the comparison between canard and aft tail aircraft, just like others have said


degrasse wrote:i always make sure i checked what i post and can prove it with proper sources as i just did several time over

Prove with proper sources? I must have missed that when you posted the Cl/Cd curve between Rafale and F-22. Let me check, Opps you didn't. How strange.
Let see the Rafale contour and wind tunnel test at the same AoA and Mach number as the F-22 then, opps you didn't post that either.
Hmm how about their respective EM diagram, opps you provided none

degrasse wrote:Quoting U. Claréus, project manager, JAS 39 Aerodynamics, Saab Aerospace.

"In the high AOA and spin tests that has taken place since 1996 and recently concluded successfully, the normal tactic was to initiate the tests with a near vertical climb with speed dropping off to near zero and a rapid increase of AOA up to extreme angles, and the aircraft could then be “parked” at 70 to 80 degrees of alpha.

When giving adverse aileron input there, a flat spin with up to a maximum of 90 degrees per second of yaw rotation started and could then be stopped by pro aileron input. Recovery followed, whenever commanded".

That's post-stall maneuver for you and 90*/sec yaw

Hahahah you considered a spin-recovery test as post stall fighting capabilities? Why do you think they talked about recovery?
*Sarcasm on Hey look F-16 with fuel tank reach 110°degrees/second yaw rate, super awesome post stall maneuver *Sarcasm off

There are F-14, F-35 spin recovery test too


degrasse wrote:i can only speculate based on KNOWN AND DOCUMENTED FACTS on what does what at which AoA passed the FCS 32* AoA limit:

So here goes: Close coupled canards are MORE efficients than long arm/decoupled ones or conventional designs at every levels
Image


Not so quick there buddy, the wing-body configuration in that study is a delta wing platform. So their conclusion is that delta+ canard is better than delta alone. Nothing relates to a a moderate swept wing - aft tail configuration. Don't get ahead of yourself
Image

For comparison, lift improvement from LERX:
Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 14:45
by eloise
degrasse wrote: Not me pal, i claim that the photo given as "proof" a Rafale kill is a goof, it was taken the day of the arrival

Funny that another photo of that same F-4 in the start of exercise has nothing on the body, here is something to trigger your nervous diarrhea even more.Jaguar also defeated Rafale in exercise before.

degrasse wrote: You bunch, i provide plenty

Oh really.? So where are the sources again? What was the AoA and Mach number simulated in F-22 contour and F-35 tunnel photos? Where are the photos and contour of Rafale in the same condition for comparison? Where are the Cl/Cd charts? Where are the Em diagrams? Funny that you made so many claims yet can only provide source comparisons of delta with and without canard, not a single Cl/cd chart of delta canard vs trapezoid aft tail configuration.

degrasse wrote:They were expecting those vortexes to do a completely different thing than what they figured, i know WHY, you dont,

Sure you do Mr expert. :wink:


degrasse wrote:That's what your collective problem is, it's a Rafale and not an F-something or an E.F, too bad your enthusiasm for aviation is so limited but this is something i can't help you with.

No darling, the problem is that you talk out of your a$$ so much and yet provide no evidence for anyone to take your words. People here have no problem accepting that Su-27, PAK-FA have good aerodynamic, so why they have problems with your optimum supreme efficiency theory? may be they don't buy fanboy bs

degrasse wrote: I'm no troll, so i wont ask you for a link, a pretty picture or Youtube video, i've done my home work.

That what troll say when they don't want people to ask for evidence of their babbling nonsense.

degrasse wrote:Points; none of those who replied (especially not the specialist in funny interpretation of pretty videos/pictures) have managed to debunk the conclusions of the aerodynamicists who designed those A-C

and did the aerodynamicist designed those aircraft made any comparison between F-22, F-35, F-16 and Rafale? Opps no they didn't, they only talked about benefits of canard on delta, not even a comparison with aft tail aircraft, the rest is just your fanboy babbling nonsense as usual.


degrasse wrote:Low speed:
a) It is NOT FCS limited, the sound alarm kicks in at 100kt but you could probably fly a low lower, as a matter of fact depending on the pilots, they do, in mock combat, controled flight was recorded at speed as low as 15kt.
Source: Rafale flight test manager himself.
http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... en-vol.pdf

Able to momentarily stay at very low speed is not equal to high post stall agility, let alone better post stall agility than TVC aircraft.
This F-35 stay at near zero airspeed at the top of the tail slide, but that doesn't mean it will be able to compete with a F-22 in post stall.
From last page, TVC can double control power at high AoA
Image

degrasse wrote:b) Max AoA, FCS limits it to 32* (some says 39*), depending on configuration (mainly heavy loads), the A-C is G limited but there is an extra 2.0g available to the pilot after the 9.0g stop, you just need to pull a little harder

:doh: plane doesn't use max AoA to pull maximum G

degrasse wrote:The airframe was designed with a higher ultimate structural load than the 1.5 international standard, at 1.85, mainly because they wanted to retain the same life-span for the Marine version and ALL airframes are derivated from it down to the anti-corosion coating, before the M receives its own specific structural strenghtening, so it CAN take 11.0g routinely.

Funny that Picard say exactly the same thing, yet absolutely no source :mrgreen:
Where are the links for absolute structure limit of F-22 and Rafale?

degrasse wrote:The AoA limit is firmly there for operational purposes, AdlA and French DoD decided that those limits would allow every pilots (top and newbies alike) to fly it "careless" safely, they are NOT aerodynamic limits at all.

Sure, Rafale can reach higher AoA, it just has high risk of getting into a deep stall and pilot has to eject.


degrasse wrote:Now, since you sound like you know your turf, you figured that it obviously depends on MTO conditions, i dont think he would reach 11.0g in hot condition but the whole point being, when it comes to instantaneous turn rates, the higher the structural g load the higher the turn rate obtainable.

For most altitude, instantaneous turn rate depends on your CLmax, not maximum structure G load

degrasse wrote:You compute turn rates using maximum structural load

Nope, you compute instantaneous turn rate by calculate
total lift at specific altitude and speed/weight => G that can be pulled.



degrasse wrote:Those are not canard-deltas, i did stall and post stall myslef (basic acro) and obviously the aerodynamic configuration of an A-C makes a lot of difference, on some jets, you could enter a superstall too, from which you won't recover, on some acro A-C you can use the ailerons in the same fashion as that descibed for the Gripen, to initaie and stop a rotation in the yaw axis.

Wing aft tail aircraft can also use ailerons to start and stop a rotation in yaw axis, they can aldo use their horizontal stabs for that purpose



degrasse wrote:True but even Hans Herbst conclusion differed after X-31 tests and E-F never was equiped with TVC while it was always intended to be by design, being a quasy conceptual copy of X-31, since designed by the same guy.

Different requirements => different designs



degrasse wrote:Sure pilot know their flight envelops, but so do i in the case of Rafale from leaked documentation among other things, other sources such as Dryden/NASA will give you that much details on other A-C

Sureeee, so where is the leaked document? Or is it so super secret so you can't share? Let me guess, not only an aerodynamic guy, you are a spy as well? :mrgreen:

degrasse wrote:canard-delta not being g-limited even with assymetric loads in transonic is true.

Here we go again with the supreme aerodynamic and structure effeciency of canard delta with no g limit whatsoever

degrasse wrote:All of that nonsense and funny, innacurate interpretation of stuff you don't even start to comprehend as "proof" that unseady aiflow is as efficient as a steady airflow?

Did i said a word about efficiency? Nope, you are the one who keep repeating aerodynamic efficiency of Rafale get give absolutely zero Cl/Cd charts for any aircraft. I talked about strength, pressure and lift. More lift doesn't necessarily mean more efficient. For example, upto stall point higher AoA can generate higher amounts of lift, but at the same time more drag.



degrasse wrote:One doesn't inform with comments such as "anybody with some knowledge of physics or science"-blah, one provide with proper counter arguments and demonstrates.

Damm, such big words.
Where are the Cd/Cl charts of any aircraft mentioned?
So where are the EM diagrams of these aircraft?
Where are the contour of Rafale in same conditions as F-22?
Where are the evidence that Rafale can roll faster than X-31 at high AoA again? Or you still think a spin test is the same as performing controlled post stall maneuver? :doh: *sarcasm on F-16 spin at 110°/sec wow even better post stall than PAK-FA *sarcasm off

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 14:48
by f-16adf
Degrasse,


You missed a couple of my points:

1. REAL Fighter pilots have access to CLASSIFIED MATERIAL that you and I (and everybody else here) do not. That is what matters, not BS charts (from wanna-be AE) of lift curves that I have seen 4K times. :D


2. Everybody on these sites, thinks they are an Aerospace Engineer with a PhD. Quite frankly I could care less if they are or not. Once again, I am tired of all the BS unverifiable diagrams and nonsensical babbling, etc.....

3. I never said a Cessna or an Archer was a Canard-Delta, I was just trying to give an example of what slow flight and stall entry is ACTUALLY LIKE IN THE REAL WORLD. It is not the same as playing mock dogfights on DCS in mommy and daddy's basement.

4. The Russians and pretty much everybody else display maneuvers (if impressive) on video. Do you remember the jaw dropping stunts that their aircraft (Mig-29 and Su-27) performed FOR THE PUBLIC TO OBSERVE nearly 30 years ago?? So "if" the Rafale and Gripen are hiding some super-duper AOA flight, I sure would like to see it? We have seen the Finns do extreme AOA flight on their stock Hornets? Why not on Rafale, Gripen, or EF. Probably because they can't :D


5. Close-coupled canards are better than long moment canards (like on EF). I do not think anyone is disagreeing with you here. And again, from what we have seen. (Until I see Rafale doing 14 second turns like a 1987 model Su-27 then I will change my mind) But Rafale's complete turns are 3 seconds short of the Flanker's. 3 seconds is alot- It sure seems that the eurocanards cannot match tailed aircraft in STR and time.

Rafale gets out turned by a 1987 Su-27 and a 1979 model F-16A (BTW, which are tailed aircraft). If Rafale can turn faster, then please, please, please, please someone show me an actual E/M diagram or vid displaying otherwise. Not just because they "think" it can.



6. If the Rafale had simulated kills on a Raptor, (then good for them, ONCE AGAIN I COULD GIVE A S*IT LESS). ACM is all about pilot skill.
Example: https://ibb.co/f0OLNv

But the Rafale is NOT the best at everything as you wrongly keep inferring. It will go into the fight with external stores, the F-22 will be fighting CLEAN.


From the photo dare we deduce that the F-4E Phantom II is a better performer than the F-16A? No, because it is all about who is in the cockpit. Rafale is a good enough plane to have simulated kills on anything. It is illogical that people are blowing a nut over it. In fact, some Block 30's had simulated kills on Rafale and EF. Dare I say the Block 30 is a better jet than them, no I'm not.

7. "The AoA limit is firmly there for operational purposes, AdlA and French DoD decided that those limits would allow every pilots (top and newbies alike) to fly it "careless" safely, they are NOT aerodynamic limits at all."

And that translates into: A LIMIT IS A LIMIT..... :bang:

So its "carefree handling (AOA)" for FAF is still less than F-18 "carefree handling" for the USN and the Finns. AND: its carefree handling up until a point it reaches a (its) limit.



All jets have their positive and negative attributes. The maturity, or lack of it, on these discussion boards says otherwise.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2017, 16:53
by viper12
degrasse wrote:
Really and WHY that? And which science would it be? Trolling or accute paranoia?




Hum, some nice ad hominem without providing the proof of your basic knowledge of science. So professional.

Now show us you can do basic Newtonian physics and that you quote stuff you actually understand...

Since your fields are "aerodynamics and research", let's make it more worthy of your education since you can certainly solve the following problem ; take your equations again : http://photobucket.com/gallery/user/sam ... NA==/?ref=

A plane is flying at 17,000ft MSL, 20°C hotter than on a standard day, and is starting a 9G horizontal turn.

Let's say V(t) = 395+5t kts CAS, t being the time in seconds. Integrate dPsi/dt to find Psi between t=0 and t=48.72s. Give the value of Psi and its physical meaning.

Also tell where I intentionally made a pretty unrealistic assumption in the problem.

I can say with utmost confidence people who know their basics about aerodynamics can solve that in 5-15 minutes correctly.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:08
by garrya
degrasse wrote:The parralel i make between F-22 and Rafale at this level is still perfectly valid when you compare their respective plan form, in particular LEX and leading edge angles, considering the purpose of the vortex sources and what they are doing for the airframe airflow as a whole.
My field are aerodynamics and researche, and i always make sure i checked what i post and can prove it with proper sources as i just did several time over, forum legends does reality no good and are easily debunked, so i equally can easily see how you managed to get your wires so badly crossed and are unable to comprehend how a Rafale can beat a F-22 in a drag race.

Which brings us back to the topic's subject, how? Simple, more lift, less drag, low speed, now study the provided doc, it's not here for bashing but educational purposes

As open mind as iam, i still have to say that it is near impossible to compare aircraft without their data. Nevertheless, because you said aerodynamic is your field, IMHO your words will have more impact if you can solve some aerodynamic math problems:
a) Airfoil A has aspect ratio AR of 7.5, taper ratio of 0.33, the sweep angle at 25% MAC is 39, root thickness to chord ratio of 15%
Airfoil B has aspect ratio AR of 6.8, taped ratio of 0.35, the sweep angle is 42, root thickness to chord ratio of 10%
Plots lift coefficient versus alpha of 2 airfoils at Re = 9*10^5 and Re = 4.2*10^4

b) Determine and plot the lift distribution for the aircraft X at cruising flight. The characteristics of this aircraft are given below. Then determine the lift coefficient at AoA of 24.
Wing area is 28 m2, max take off weight is 3734 kg, Crusing velocity is 233 knot (at 24500 ft), Taper ratio = 0.7, AR = 8.6, Twist angle = -2.6 deg, incident angle = 3 degrees, airfoil section: NACA 23018 (root), NACA 23015 (tip)

viper12 wrote: Give the value of Psi and its physical meaning

Correct me if iam wrong but Isn't it Ps instead of Psi

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2017, 17:42
by viper12
@garrya : You're so mean. I love it ! :mrgreen:

No, it's Psi, the Greek letter, in the equation he's shown. Ps would be way above what he can compute. Maybe "physical meaning" isn't the best way to phrase it ; "explain in layman's terms the significance of the Psi value you get" would be better I think.

P.S. : Don't write what's actually Psi ; I'm not even sure he knows what it is despite quoting it with a picture.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2017, 00:31
by nutshell
Dunno what's wrong with this french fanboy, considering i always made my opinion clear on the Rafale, as the best 4+ gen fighter (to me, strictly my opinion) available right now. Yes, fanboy, i think the Rafale is actually superior to any flanker derivative as well.

Besides, i really can't understand your point on my Typhoon stance. I'm just reporting what a guy who fly on that bird told me once.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 08 Aug 2017, 11:04
by klearhos
Well, that F-22 pilot was lucky cuz he/she/other had the opportunity in this exercise to see his/her/other future in actual combat.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 02:18
by viper12
Where's [s]Picard[/s], sorry, degrasse ? Starting to work on this aerodynamics degree ? :devil:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 08:17
by charlielima223
viper12 wrote:Where's [s]Picard[/s], sorry, degrasse ? Starting to work on this aerodynamics degree ? :devil:


I can explain his trend of thought very very easily...

1. If its not european and doesn't have canards... it sucks
2. if its a product of the United States... it sucks

i just summed up all of that person's male bovine excrement.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 19:30
by f-16adf
"I can explain his trend of thought very very easily...

1. If its not european and doesn't have canards... it sucks
2. if its a product of the United States... it sucks"



Very well said. That's exactly how the Euros think-

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 21:36
by white_lightning35
f-16adf wrote:"I can explain his trend of thought very very easily...

1. If its not european and doesn't have canards... it sucks
2. if its a product of the United States... it sucks"



Very well said. That's exactly how the Euros think-


I would hesitate to say that. Some European countries are buying the f-35, so it doesn't make sense to say they all think alike. I do notice that the f-35(and others) don't exactly have many fans among the cheese-eating surrender monkeys, though....

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Aug 2017, 22:31
by f-16adf
I probably should have included: "some" Euros think that way.


I think the French were always jealous of the F-4 Phantom's multi-role abilities; One wing of the Phantom could basically tote the entire load of the Mirage III. :D

And later by the time they perfected the Mirage F1, the F-16A stole their thunder. It basically took them 15-20 years to finally construct a jet that could beat most versions of it.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 17:07
by cavok
f-16adf wrote:I probably should have included: "some" Euros think that way.


I think the French were always jealous of the F-4 Phantom's multi-role abilities; One wing of the Phantom could basically tote the entire load of the Mirage III. :D

And later by the time they perfected the Mirage F1, the F-16A stole their thunder. It basically took them 15-20 years to finally construct a jet that could beat most versions of it.


Becase you know several of them? And you know how any of them think?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 19:35
by white_lightning35
cavok wrote:
f-16adf wrote:I probably should have included: "some" Euros think that way.


I think the French were always jealous of the F-4 Phantom's multi-role abilities; One wing of the Phantom could basically tote the entire load of the Mirage III. :D

And later by the time they perfected the Mirage F1, the F-16A stole their thunder. It basically took them 15-20 years to finally construct a jet that could beat most versions of it.


Becase you know several of them? And you know how any of them think?


I personally get my information from an insider at the top of the french intelligence forces,who is a Légion d'Honneur recipient. How about you?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 19:37
by white_lightning35
Oh, here is a picture of him.

Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Oct 2017, 19:58
by f-16adf
Cavok, Yes, in fact I do.


I am the son of a Italian father and a Greek mother (that is actually a quarter French, from Marseille). My prior statement has nothing to do about one country v another country. I am well aware of certain European pride, just as I am familiar with the like for some Americans.


The F-4 Phantom was superior to the Mirage III in nearly every performance metric. The F-16 beat the Mirage F1 at Paris (and I am a big F1 fan). But reality is reality. Those 2 Jets were just better, plain and simple.

5100 Phantoms + 4600 Vipers=?, ....how many F1's and Mirage III's were ever sold?



Sure the Rafale beats nearly all Blocks of the F-16, but it took them a considerable amount of time to catch up-
And the Rafale is a beautiful jet. :D

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Oct 2017, 01:43
by rheonomic
f-16adf wrote:Sure the Rafale beats nearly all Blocks of the F-16, but it took them a considerable amount of time to catch up-
And the Rafale is a beautiful jet. :D


If only they could have made the fugly fixed probe retract...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 12:00
by cavok
f-16adf wrote:Cavok, Yes, in fact I do.


I am the son of a Italian father and a Greek mother (that is actually a quarter French, from Marseille). My prior statement has nothing to do about one country v another country. I am well aware of certain European pride, just as I am familiar with the like for some Americans.


The F-4 Phantom was superior to the Mirage III in nearly every performance metric. The F-16 beat the Mirage F1 at Paris (and I am a big F1 fan). But reality is reality. Those 2 Jets were just better, plain and simple.

5100 Phantoms + 4600 Vipers=?, ....how many F1's and Mirage III's were ever sold?



Sure the Rafale beats nearly all Blocks of the F-16, but it took them a considerable amount of time to catch up-
And the Rafale is a beautiful jet. :D

Mirage III/V ? around 1500 (i don't know exact numbers, can check if you wish) not that bad for a small plane coming from a small country, is it?
Mirage F1 around 750-800. Not as future proof as F-16 (flybywire) i agree. Better compare with Mirage 2000.

I'll use a common forum language here : (i hate it, but...) Rafale beats F-16 any block hands down in any mission.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 14:54
by eloise
cavok wrote:I'll use a common forum language here : (i hate it, but...) Rafale beats F-16 any block hands down in any mission.

How about block 60? Or anti ship mission?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 15:10
by basher54321
Block 60 is an unknown in terms of true capability so a useful comparison from the UAE is what is required perhaps.

The modern day F-16 as far as the USAF is concerned is the F-35A of which the Rafale is not comparable of course.

Most US F-16 upgrades have been cancelled over the years - even F-16V doesn't seem to be adding that much - although the APG-83 could certainly be a better radar.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 15:37
by f-16adf
Not trying to start an argument here. But.....

I read a few sources a couple years back that the Turkish GE Vipers didn't do all too bad in ACM vs the supposed superior EF and Rafale. I remember seeing HUD gun kills on a EF for sure. I think the article(s) were in Combat Aircraft???

Turkish Block 30/40 are from late 1980's early 1990's. They are OLD.....about 15 years or more older than the EF and Rafale.

Yeah, sure, it's pretty easy for the euro canards to beat up on the MLU models (which are from the early to mid 1980's, and have a weak engine). And according to Italian sources the EF and Pratt-220 F-16ADF were equals in ACM up to 10K. The EF and Rafale really only have a better ITR and marginal improvements in AOA authority. I'm willing to bet a light Block 15 with a -229IPE would have no problem in ACM against the euro canards. Rafale and EF have great ITR (like M2000) but I believe they are not superior when it comes to STR. And their AOA authority is FAR less than a legacy F-18C.


Additionally, if LM can keep the F-35's weight down; and PW could upgrade its engine to nearly 50K thrust. I bet it would be a handful in ACM against the euros...

I have already spoken to a Langley Raptor pilot, and he would not get into specifics, but he did say that it has a better ITR and STR than either of them. And we all know the F-22 has much greater Alpha.


When it comes down to it: the UK, France, and my country (US) are great allies- and will always be :D

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 15:59
by basher54321
f-16adf wrote:Yeah, sure, it's pretty easy for the 'supposed invincible' euro canards to beat up on the MLU pratt models (which are from the early to mid 1980's). And according to Italian sources the EF and Pratt-220 F-16ADF were equals in ACM up to 10K. The EF and Rafale really only have a better ITR and marginal improvements in AOA authority.



There is actually video of an MLU gunning an EF-2000 in some kind of turning fight - and I have no doubt F-16s have wiped the floor with both F-22 & Rafale on occasion - but these exercises and videos are hopelessly irrelevant if you are trying to associate some kind of dogfight / aircraft performance with them - because firstly the point of the exercise or the setup is usually completely unknown and secondly the pilot factor is a massive factor.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 16:46
by f-16adf
Well said Basher,

Unknown ROE, goes for any vid including the Rafale v Raptor.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 18:10
by sferrin
rheonomic wrote:
f-16adf wrote:Sure the Rafale beats nearly all Blocks of the F-16, but it took them a considerable amount of time to catch up-
And the Rafale is a beautiful jet. :D


If only they could have made the fugly fixed probe retract...


Yeah, that ruins the lines completely. As bad as the one on the F-104 - like a giant wart on the nose of a Victoria's Secret model.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 18:18
by cavok
I have already spoken to a Langley Raptor pilot, and he would not get into specifics, but he did say that it has a better ITR and STR than either of them. And we all know the F-22 has much greater Alpha.


F-22 is not F-16. And DACT wasn't that huge a victory for F-22 aside ATLC. F-22 Langley pilot had any comment on that?

I remember many years ago, Rafale F2 came to Red Flag and did a stop over at Luke AFB. Rookie pilots (av 250 hours on Rafale, and coming from a A2G dedicated sqd, beat F-16 instructors 6-2)...

How about block 60? Or anti ship mission?

Antiship mission is on Rafale since F2 standard (exocet).

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 18:26
by eloise
cavok wrote:I remember many years ago, Rafale F2 came to Red Flag and did a stop over at Luke AFB. Rookie pilots (av 250 hours on Rafale, and coming from a A2G dedicated sqd, beat F-16 instructors 6-2)

Source?

cavok wrote:Antiship mission is on Rafale since F2 standard (exocet).

Tell me how is that superior to F-16 equipped with SLAM-ER, JSOW-ER, NSM or JSM? F-16 antiship weapons are significantly better.
How many exocet can Rafale carry? I have never seen it with more than 1 exocet. F-16 can carry 4 antiship missiles while still got 3 EFTs
Image

How about SEAD? Spectra is very good but Falcon edge is nothing to scoff at. Rafale doesn't have a dedicated anti radar missile, it uses AASM while F-16 can use HARM/AARGM. So F-16 will win the range/reaction time
Image

Rafale doesn't have access to an equivalent of MALD-J either.
Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 18:53
by f-16adf
Rafale guy could have beat the F-16 pilot. What block of F-16 was it? The under-powered Block 25 and 32? Or was it one of the GE Vipers?


Rafale is a beautiful plane and very agile, I'm not disagreeing here.


My point is that a F-16, with a bigger motor, made with 21st century materials (just like euro-canards) to save weight. Would be right up there with them.

The Canard-Delta configuration just does not offer that big of an advantage over a well thought out tailed design. I have never seen EF, Rafale, or Gripen complete a 360 degree turn in 15 seconds like a Block 30. I have never seen a euro canard perform a J-turn, Pirouette, or fly at Super Hornet type AOA.

If someone has a vid proving otherwise, ...great. I could be full of BS, maybe not. :D

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 19:01
by f-16adf
And if a weak motor Pratt F-16ADF can hang with a EF up to 10K. Well, what do you think putting an IPE motor in it would do? An extra 5K of thrust or more would bring it to parity or even slight advantage in ACM-

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Oct 2017, 21:27
by basher54321
UAE might have already looked at the Raf - you might not need an extra 5000 lbs for your what if:

One Rafale pilot at Solenzara who has flown in the UAE remarked that one reason they want a more powerful engine is that its pilots are now used to the latest F-16 Block 60, which is essentially a small airframe built around a very big engine, and so find the Rafale underpowered by comparison.

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -2012.html

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2017, 12:14
by swiss
eloise wrote:How many exocet can Rafale carry? I have never seen it with more than 1 exocet. F-16 can carry 4 antiship missiles while still got 3 EFTs


Looks like the Rafale can carry 4 Exocet or 4 Harpoon.

https://sites.google.com/site/blogaame/ ... IAF-14.jpg

The Pic is from this Site.

http://www.aame.in/2012/02/know-your-ra ... ghter.html

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2017, 12:21
by vanshilar
sferrin wrote:Yeah, that ruins the lines completely. As bad as the one on the F-104 - like a giant wart on the nose of a Victoria's Secret model.


But Picard said it was a stealth feature because the probe is angled!

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 08 Oct 2017, 17:22
by eloise
swiss wrote:Looks like the Rafale can carry 4 Exocet or 4 Harpoon.

https://sites.google.com/site/blogaame/ ... IAF-14.jpg

The Pic is from this Site.

http://www.aame.in/2012/02/know-your-ra ... ghter.html

That pic include AGM-65, ALARM, Harpoon, HARMs, AGM-119, AIM-120 as weapons for Rafale. I don't think i ever seen any Rafale carry any of that. Exocet location is wrong too.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2017, 07:07
by swiss
eloise wrote:That pic include AGM-65, ALARM, Harpoon, HARMs, AGM-119, AIM-120 as weapons for Rafale. I don't think i ever seen any Rafale carry any of that. Exocet location is wrong too.


Maybe the Indien Airforce has some of ths Wapons? At least they have the Harpoon from what i read.

As you said, there are only Pictures about the Rafale with 1 Exocet. Interestingly there is a Pic were a Mirage carry 2 Exocet.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2017, 13:28
by cavok
eloise wrote:
cavok wrote:I remember many years ago, Rafale F2 came to Red Flag and did a stop over at Luke AFB. Rookie pilots (av 250 hours on Rafale, and coming from a A2G dedicated sqd, beat F-16 instructors 6-2)

Source?
https://youtu.be/DfqJYyPevvw


cavok wrote:Antiship mission is on Rafale since F2 standard (exocet).

Tell me how is that superior to F-16 equipped with SLAM-ER, JSOW-ER, NSM or JSM? F-16 antiship weapons are significantly better.
How many exocet can Rafale carry? I have never seen it with more than 1 exocet. F-16 can carry 4 antiship missiles while still got 3 EFTs
Image

How about SEAD? Spectra is very good but Falcon edge is nothing to scoff at. Rafale doesn't have a dedicated anti radar missile, it uses AASM while F-16 can use HARM/AARGM. So F-16 will win the range/reaction time
Image

Rafale doesn't have access to an equivalent of MALD-J either.
Image


About 1 exocet (and weapon "quality, which is always disputable), Rafael can carry more. the dictrina is to lert antiship capabilities to Navy trained pilots. Rafale M do not carry more than one exocet in order to prevent imbalances as much as possible for carrier operations.

About SEAD, yes, there is a weak capability here. Doctrine is using AASM or SCALP missile. The idea is to evolve towards saturating weapons like AASL. However, Spectra is a very different concept to falcon edge. It integrates many more capabilities like proposing to reroute mission "en route" etc.

Ans originally my point was (as far as i remember) that saying Rafale is filling the gap with earlier F-16 blocks is pretty a stupid statement (i do not like those d.... size games)

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2017, 15:41
by eloise
cavok wrote:Source?
https://youtu.be/DfqJYyPevvw

Is there anything in English or an article from reputable aviation magazine? I can't understand anything in there, let alone detail about rockies and instructor pilots.
On another note, it appears to be a 2 seat F-16
cavok wrote:About 1 exocet (and weapon "quality, which is always disputable)

I find AM39 Exocet inferior to JSM in almost all important areas.
Range: 70 km vs 550 km
Radio Signature: conventional vs stealth
Infrared Signature: Rocket engine vs turbo jet engine.
Guidance: Active radar seeker vs IIR with ATA+ passive RF + 2 ways datalink
Defense against CIWS: Nothing vs Terminal high G maneuver.

cavok wrote: Rafael can carry more. the dictrina is to lert antiship capabilities to Navy trained pilots. Rafale M do not carry more than one exocet in order to prevent imbalances as much as possible for carrier operations.

I don't know if Rafale can carry more. Physically, there are space, but the pylons are not necessary wired, F-16 has space for 8 AAM, but you will never see it carry AIM-120 or AIM-9 on stations 4/6.


cavok wrote: Ans originally my point was (as far as i remember) that saying Rafale is filling the gap with earlier F-16 blocks is pretty a stupid statement

But saying Rafale will out perform any block of F-16 in any roles is also ignorant.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2017, 22:48
by f-16adf
Those F-16C's appear to be Block 25 or 32. Once again, as I said, they have probably a -220 engine.

It's not a Pratt -229 IPE because you can tell by the color of the turkey feathers (they are not black, which the -229 has).


So what's the big deal, a Rafale beats an F-16C that has an even worse TW ratio than the ancient MLU? Seriously, this is almost laughable.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2017, 00:26
by basher54321
AETC jets at Luke with LF codes seem to be either Block 25 or the slightly worse Block 42 bearing in mind this was back in July 2008, the French may have gone to Red Flag as well that year.

The video is blurry but one shown could be http://www.f-16.net/g3/f-16-photos/albu ... 65/84-1243 -

This has comments from 309 FS members so likely Block 25 - http://www.luke.af.mil/News/Article-Dis ... n-at-luke/ - no idea whether they were F-16 newbies or not though.


Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2017, 12:31
by cavok
Offline
eloise
Elite 1K
Elite 1K
Posts: 1357
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 3:05 pm
PostMon Oct 09, 2017 2:41 pm

cavok wrote:
Source?
https://youtu.be/DfqJYyPevvw
Is there anything in English or an article from reputable aviation magazine? I can't understand anything in there, let alone detail about rockies and instructor pilots.
On another note, it appears to be a 2 seat F-16
cavok wrote:
About 1 exocet (and weapon "quality, which is always disputable)
I find AM39 Exocet inferior to JSM in almost all important areas.


Hmm i think your data about exocet to be quite old... Even if JSM is moremodern (btw, Exocet is soon to be replaced by new english/french missile, can't remember the name). But the point was "doese it have A2sea capability no?

At the time of 2008, 1/7 Provence, a former jaguar flying sqd was newly formed and average pilots time was 250h. Luke pilots were instructors afaik.

Finally (i'd like to stop that contest) let's remind that F16V was dropped on technical reasons from indian MMRCA?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2017, 13:13
by eloise
cavok wrote:Hmm i think your data about exocet to be quite old... Even if JSM is moremodern (btw, Exocet is soon to be replaced by new english/french missile, can't remember the name). But the point was "doese it have A2sea capability no?

There isn't any newer version of AM-39 and the point isn't whether Rafale has anti ship capability, the point is Rafale will not out perform all version of F-16 in all missions.
cavok wrote:Luke pilots were instructors afaik

What is his name?
cavok wrote:Finally (i'd like to stop that contest) let's remind that F16V was dropped on technical reasons from indian MMRCA?

Let remind that it has a lot to do with technology transfer and the fact that CFT will reduce F-16 agility when installed.
sketch-1507637203871.png

sketch-1507637242550.png

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2017, 14:23
by basher54321
cavok wrote:Finally (i'd like to stop that contest) let's remind that F16V was dropped on technical reasons from indian MMRCA?


The F-16V didn't exist then and is different to the F-16IN that was offered at the time, although the F-16 Block 70 currently being offered to India might be more like the V.

The 309 FS is one of the F-16 training squadrons at Luke which is probably one reason they get the low powered jets - I'm not going to speculate on the F-16 A-A hours they had.........

FYI the F-16 Block 50/52 was the USAF primary SEAD platform since taking over from F-4Gs in the 1990s, utilises an upgraded AQS-213 HTS/STING pod - so we can safely say it was and is very capable in that mission.

To make you aware, the other advanced F-16 variant today is the F-2A that was possibly designed with a primary anti ship mission for one, with a second gen Japanese AESA radar and AESA tipped active missiles, again bit of an unknown but expect very capable.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2017, 14:59
by cavok
There isn't any newer version of AM-39 and the point isn't whether Rafale has anti ship capability, the point is Rafale will not out perform all version of F-16 in all missions.


You know perfectly what i was answering to.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 12:25
by rnvalencia
fbw wrote:And for your Entertainment, Picard..... enough said.

One question, what control surface is the Rafale using to control yaw rate above 35 degrees AoA?

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... le-334383/

The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2018, 23:33
by rnvalencia
f-16adf wrote:I think Rafale's wedge, re-energizes the airflow over the wings. Because, once airflow starts to break up near the back of the wing, the elevons effectiveness for pitching decreases.

The elevons are hinged to the wing, where as a stab leading edge (like on the F-18) can more freely bite into the wind. And I have yet to see any of the euro-canards match or exceed the Hornet in high AOA nose pointing.


I love Rafale, it's an absolutely beautiful machine. It is extremely agile and elegant. However, it is not the best at everything.



In the real world a Rafale will go into ACM with external stores (probably 4 AAM, and EFT pylons (unless they go with the tank), an F-22 has all of that internal. We must not forget that-

I haven't seen Rafale executing controlled high AOA cobra manoeuvre with near zero speed.

https://youtu.be/A5E-qOtu9Jk?t=32
F-18E Super Hornet's cobra manoeuvre with near zero speed.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 02:53
by gta4
Some comments from a F-22 pilot who have flown against Typhoon and Rafale:

" I spoke with 2 Langley Raptor pilots (one came from Block 30/40/50 Vipers, the other came from C model Eagles). The Raptor, according to them, has better ITR/STR than eurocanards. And it's a better dog-fighter/air to air platform than the F-35 (sorry it just is). One said that he fought Rafales in Europe, and unless the Raptor pilot was asleep, he should nearly always come out on top; it had better ITR/STR/AOA/nose authority. The other said that the only real concern that he would have if any, was to be "careful" at times with the EF's acceleration. He DID NOT SAY that the EF can out accelerate a Raptor, he was simply implying that its T/W ratio and acceleration is its greatest asset. "

by F-16adf

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=5525&start=990

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 03:03
by gta4
It seems Rafale is less of a threat than EF2000! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

They have similar turn rate, but EF2000 accelerates faster, while Rafale is mediocre in all aspects

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 11:58
by wil59
gta4 wrote:It seems Rafale is less of a threat than EF2000! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

They have similar turn rate, but EF2000 accelerates faster, while Rafale is mediocre in all aspects

yes the results prove it 7/1 in BFM victory of the rafale on EF2000 but yes gta 4 for you the rafale is bad.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 14:07
by viper12
Source and context ?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2018, 15:16
by gta4
wil59 wrote:
gta4 wrote:It seems Rafale is less of a threat than EF2000! :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

They have similar turn rate, but EF2000 accelerates faster, while Rafale is mediocre in all aspects

yes the results prove it 7/1 in BFM victory of the rafale on EF2000 but yes gta 4 for you the rafale is bad.


Well 7/1 is claimed by French, while German air force claimed that EF200 beat Rafale's sh*t out above 20000 ft. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 05:17
by nutshell
"And it's a better dog-fighter/air to air platform than the F-35 (sorry it just is)'

:lmao: :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:

It's for sure better at being disseminated around large portions of ground.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 05:47
by sprstdlyscottsmn
That quote refers to Raptors.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2018, 15:09
by herciv
eloise wrote:
cavok wrote:Hmm i think your data about exocet to be quite old... Even if JSM is moremodern (btw, Exocet is soon to be replaced by new english/french missile, can't remember the name). But the point was "doese it have A2sea capability no?

There isn't any newer version of AM-39 and the point isn't whether Rafale has anti ship capability, the point is Rafale will not out perform all version of F-16 in all missions.
cavok wrote:Luke pilots were instructors afaik

What is his name?
cavok wrote:Finally (i'd like to stop that contest) let's remind that F16V was dropped on technical reasons from indian MMRCA?

Let remind that it has a lot to do with technology transfer and the fact that CFT will reduce F-16 agility when installed.
sketch-1507637203871.png

sketch-1507637242550.png


As an analysis there's this one : https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/07/14696.html
or here https://thediplomat.com/2017/08/indias- ... om-france/

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 01:41
by nutshell
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:That quote refers to Raptors.


Ah yeah, misread it.

Just for now, then...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2018, 03:54
by sprstdlyscottsmn
No worries

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 16:09
by swiss
Interesting Artikel about F-22 Dogfights vs Rafale, EF etc.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-bu ... shot-26318

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 18:16
by charlielima223


I find that women do the best "eye roll"

Image

Image

You gotta love how over the top Krysten Ritter does it :-D

Image

In all seriousness this subject has been discussed, dissected, and analyzed so much that there is no reason to have an article done by the hack David Axe posted here. This is like resurrecting the discussion about the infamous Red Flag exercise between the F-22 and Typhoon where allegedly the Typhoon had "Raptor Salad" only to beat it to death again. This article provided no substance or analysis to the event.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 20:21
by Scorpion1alpha
Amazing that after all this time, this guy still doesn’t have all the facts, yet still reposts this sensationalized nonsense. Fightin' Eagle guys were laughing their heads off for years (and went on to earn the Raytheon Trophy in 2010).

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 20:42
by swiss
charlielima223 wrote:I find that women do the best "eye roll"

Image


Well my favorite is also Cersei Lennister. :wink:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 19 Jun 2018, 20:49
by vilters
Without ROE's?
A Pair of Rafales will NEVER come closer then 70-50 NM to a pair of F-22.

With ROE's? Who wrote the ROE's? LOL.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 02:35
by gta4
Found an interesting thing:

No matter how many times F-22 won dogfights, if it lose once, it's a defeat.
No matter how many times Rafi/Tiffi loses dogfights to F-22, if it won once, it's a victory.

They have no idea what exchange ratio is, and they refuse to talk about exchange ratio.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 02:44
by gta4
Found an interesting thing:

No matter how many times F-22 won dogfights, if it lose once, it's a defeat.
No matter how many times Rafi/Tiffi loses dogfights to F-22, if it won once, it's a victory.

They have no idea what exchange ratio is, and they refuse to talk about exchange ratio.

https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-plane- ... n-dogfight

"It sounds as though we have very different recollections as to the outcomes of the BFM [Basic Fighter Maneuvering] engagements that were fought...We ended up with numerous gunshots"

"I did review the HUD footage, a lot of gun shots from the F-22's to the Eurofighters and not a whole lot coming back"

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 02:46
by gta4
https://www.flightglobal.com/about-us/b ... ouncement/
https://www.popularmechanics.com/milita ... -11248461/
This Phrase:
“in that area (dogfight) the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in all aspects.”
is always misunderstood (maybe deliberately?) as:
“in that area the Typhoon doesn't have to fear the F-22 in any aspects.”

That is way too different. Even though I am not a native speaker, I know the former means "Typhoon still fears F-22 in some aspects of dogfight".

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 03:44
by f-16adf
Here is the original article I believe:


52715561.jpg




"doesn't necessarily have to fear the F-22 in all aspects."

That sounds to me as though the Typhoon is being overwhelmed in the 'majority' if not more, of comparable parameters. The key words are "necessarily" and "all".



I remember back in the mid 1980s there was an article (don't remember the magazine) showing a F-15 Eagle in the gunsight of a RAF Jaguar. The pipper was clearly on the back of the F-15. This tells us nothing of the two jets. We don't know the ROE or the quality of the pilots involved. Even Active and Reserve Phantoms at times had gun kills on teen series jets. I love the Phantom, but it CLEARLY was inferior to all of them. The F-4 aviators must have been damn good, and the teen series pilots rookies. For example: "In the 1982 Felix International Fighter Meet, VF-201 equipped with ancient F-4N Phantoms took first place honors achieving a 15:2 kill ratio over USAF and USN adversaries flying the more modern and agile F-5E, F-14, F-15, and F-16."


Also, I am a huge Rafale, EF fan. But it is rather ironic when their fans tell us about how they killed the Raptor in DACT; yet they are totally SILENT when (at times) outdated teen series MLU/Turkish Vipers, Saudi Eagles, and Hornets have killed ALL THE EUROCANARDS IN DACT! Just do a search and you will find the pics/articles. Some of the vids are on YT.
Am I suppose to conclude that an ancient 1983 model MLU is superior to a 2010 Eurofighter? Or an aging early nineties Hornet is superior to Rafale? We don't know the ROE (neutral, offensive, defensive, 1v1, many v many). What about pilot skill? Their fans are being hypocritical and not applying the same criterion as when they beat on their chests about a rare Raptor kill.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 08:47
by hornetfinn
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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 10:48
by juretrn
TNI is really something
" this article first appeared in 2013"
And then rehash it like once per month.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 20 Jun 2018, 11:22
by zero-one
Typhoon vs Raptor
https://typhoon.starstreak.net/Eurofighter/tech.php
Britain's DERA, the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (now split into QinetiQ and DSTL) wrote:the Eurofighter's acceleration at Mach 0.9 and 22,000ft equals that of the F-22. At supersonic velocities (Mach 1.6 and 36,000ft) the sustained turn rate of the Eurofighter betters all but the F-22, while its instantaneous turn rate is superior to the F-22. At low altitudes, Eurofighter can accelerate from 200kts to Mach 1.0 in under 30 seconds. In a similar vain to its supersonic performance, the sustained and instantaneous subsonic turn rates of the Eurofighter are bettered only by the F-22. Only the Rafale comes close to the matching the Eurofighter's capabilities in these comparisons


Safe to say whatever makes the Typhoon competitive against the Raptor isn't due to performance advantages

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 21:40
by juretrn
That's a bad-ass photo right there!

Thanks for the insight both on the F-22 and F-35.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 24 Jun 2018, 22:24
by wrightwing
With the sensor upgrades, HMS/AIM-9X Block 2, etc... the F-22 is only going to get more lethal in WVR..

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 08:30
by zero-one
Col Burke wrote: If we're having a conversation about dogfights, then I know the conversation is in the wrong place."


Dolby Hanche wrote: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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 10:38
by Corsair1963
hornetfinn wrote: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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 12:07
by hornetfinn
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 16:34
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote: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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2018, 17:54
by SpudmanWP
Have you seen the "Out of the Shadows" article that came out of Edwards AFB?

spazsinbad wrote: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

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2018, 00:35
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote: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....

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 06:44
by 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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 07:30
by 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;

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 08:07
by wrightwing
f4u7_corsair wrote:
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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 08:17
by 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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 09:01
by wrightwing
f4u7_corsair wrote: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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 09:09
by 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...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 09:29
by 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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 09:45
by 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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 16:11
by 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.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 17:09
by gta4
Time to post this again:

viewtopic.php?f=37&t=54146
A computer simulation of close range gun fight between aircraft A and B.

Aircraft A: has far better conventional turn capability than fulcrums and flankers (aircraft A can acheive almost 30 deg/sec SUSTAINED!)
Aircraft B: similar to F-35, it can perform J-turn. However its other performances are inferior to F-35. Its T/W is only 0.75.

Result: Aircraft B dominates the dogfight. Even we give some initial positional advantage to A for free, this advantage is quickly neutrlized in less than one turn.

P.S.:

I know PST maneuvers can be countered by going vertical. But F-35 welcomes any jet to fight in the vertical. F-35 itself is a very tough player in the vertical.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Jun 2018, 18:08
by kimjongnumbaun
Economy of scale...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 17:06
by rheonomic
gta4 wrote:Result: Aircraft B dominates the dogfight. Even we give some initial positional advantage to A for free, this advantage is quickly neutrlized in less than one turn.


I'm not sure I'd be willing to make such sweeping claims based on a single simulator study from 1983...

That said, don't get into a knife fight with an F-35.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 17:57
by zero-one
lrrpf52 wrote:I didn't get that impression from LTCOL Berke. It isn't like they aren't training for worst-case WVR encounters anymore.

Thats what an informed, unbiased individual like you would say. But imagine an F-35 detractor or a media journalist that likes to publish eye catching click bates.

They can and will easily twist words like this as it serves as an opening.

Just look at some of these depressing articles
United States, as well as many of its allies, have always looked towards increasing range of combat as much as possible. Just as often, it failed, especially in the air, where technologists’ dream of destroying enemy air force before it reaches visual range remains unfulfilled to this day.

This has resulted in development of aircraft that are very heavy carry large amounts of missiles, and are far more expensive and much less reliable than aircraft with bias towards visual-range combat.


There is a real impression that the US is convinced (again) that WVR will no longer happen which is why the fighters they develop are not designed for WVR combat.

We all know this is not true, but Col. Burke, saying these things can be interpreted to support that theory.

lrrpf52 wrote:* Future enemy threat (that currently doesn't exist) that has a smaller RCS (and is able to evade detection from the entire sensor chain web-good luck with that optical/IR spectrum ghost aircraft)

Actually I think he meant, smaller RCS than current Adversary aircraft, those things already exist.

lrrpf52 wrote:* Opponent who is able to evade all the missiles from a flight of F-35s in Norwegian airspace (no longer a Raptor conversation)

Or whats left from the initial salvo.

For the record, I understand Burke, I simply prefer Hanche's answer more. It's a better counter to all the naysayers. Usually if you go with Burke's answer, it can bite you back.

If someone tells you that the F-35 can't dogfight and you tell him that it doesn't need to, the typical response is
vietnam VIETNAM VIETNAM

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 18:48
by f4u7_corsair
lrrpf52 wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Economy of scale...


Rafales produced as of early 2018: 164 (first was in 1986)

Not sure where you get that date from. Rafale A is a demonstrator, not prototype.. X-35/EAP equivalent.
but it seems to have serpentine inlet ducts to prevent fan blade exposure from frontal aspect

Indeed, plus serrated edges on panels, I suspect some coating (not the the extent of the JSF of course), aligned leading edges, fixed ramp intakes. Its shape has been entirely redesigned after the Rafale A demonstrator to include computer-calculated fuselage curves and shapes, maximizing RCS reduction (there is not a single, exact shape commonalty between Raf A and B/C/M).

No other 4th gen. aircraft sports even half of these features!

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 22:40
by rheonomic
lrrpf52 wrote:France has a huge edge over every other nation in terms of avionics and missile design and production, save the US and UK/Germany/Italy partners. The MICA and Meteor are superb A2A missiles, and the latest Rafale variants are one of the only 4th Gen aircraft that have sensor-fusion/avionics integration at that level.


In terms of being able to create a complete fighter aircraft on their own, I'd say the French are second only to the US.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 30 Jun 2018, 23:19
by rheonomic
Largely agree on all points.

UK has the technology, but I wonder if they could do an entire program on their own (largely political here, but there's probably some loss of capability given the way they've abused their aerospace industry). I'm confident in saying that the Germans, Italians, and Spanish could not.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2018, 16:34
by mixelflick
f4u7_corsair wrote:
lrrpf52 wrote:
kimjongnumbaun wrote:Economy of scale...


Rafales produced as of early 2018: 164 (first was in 1986)

Not sure where you get that date from. Rafale A is a demonstrator, not prototype.. X-35/EAP equivalent.
but it seems to have serpentine inlet ducts to prevent fan blade exposure from frontal aspect

Indeed, plus serrated edges on panels, I suspect some coating (not the the extent of the JSF of course), aligned leading edges, fixed ramp intakes. Its shape has been entirely redesigned after the Rafale A demonstrator to include computer-calculated fuselage curves and shapes, maximizing RCS reduction (there is not a single, exact shape commonalty between Raf A and B/C/M).

No other 4th gen. aircraft sports even half of these features!


Does not the Typhoon sport reduced RCS, Meteor, ASRAAM and performance levels in the same league? Don't get me wrong: I think the Rafale is a fine aircraft, likely with the best E/W fit (third only to the F-35/22). I'd say the Typhoon has the edge in kinematics though..

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2018, 21:56
by talkitron
rheonomic wrote:UK has the technology, but I wonder if they could do an entire program on their own (largely political here, but there's probably some loss of capability given the way they've abused their aerospace industry). I'm confident in saying that the Germans, Italians, and Spanish could not.


The UK is facing immense cuts in procurement based on the existing, 2015 or so plan if they do not ramp spending up to 2.5% of GDP. The previous plan was based on unrealistic assumptions about cost savings and economic growth. Some UK media claim the prime minister and defense minister are in a power struggle over whether to cut procurement or raise spending. Anyway, in this funding climate getting R&D funds to develop a brand new fighter without partners seems like a long shot.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 01 Jul 2018, 23:34
by f4u7_corsair
mixelflick wrote:Does not the Typhoon sport reduced RCS, Meteor, ASRAAM and performance levels in the same league? Don't get me wrong: I think the Rafale is a fine aircraft, likely with the best E/W fit (third only to the F-35/22). I'd say the Typhoon has the edge in kinematics though..

I don't believe it has serrated panel edges, and some features like the variable intake aren't too beneficial for reduced RCS. Unlike Rafale, and as far as I know, its shape has not been designed with RCS reduction particularly in mind.

It indeed benefits from the Meteor, since it is fielded on both aircraft. From my understanding, ASRAAM is a bit shorter legged than the MICA, which even with its IIR head is designed to be employed as a true BVRAAM, and compares very well to the AMRAAM (until the latest Charlie 7 and most importantly Delta variants were designed - MICA NG is ongoing development to close the gap).

The Typhoon is indeed a dragster; it'll be found usually higher and faster than a Rafale, especially w/ its centerline tank loadout. It is the result of its interceptor design philosophy, and I have to admit astounds most Raf/M2000 pilots I've talked to.

When it comes to maneuvring though, Rafale fares significantly better, mostly thanks to its flight controls. It shows in displays, but most importantly in ACM..

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 02 Jul 2018, 15:11
by marsavian
The Typhoon shape was tuned to lower stealth in tests at BAE Warton in the 1990s and they did claim on release it was second only to the F-22 in stealth so RCS reduction was part of the design albeit a secondary/tertiary priority. Whether this second to F-22 comparison also included Rafale and Super Hornet is debatable as they were all released at the same time so may not have been included in the comparison and how would they know anyway.

What about the Rafale flight controls makes it superior to the Typhoon in maneuvring ?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2018, 01:09
by rheonomic
marsavian wrote:they [...] claim on release it was second only to the F-22 in stealth

Lol.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2019, 08:45
by youda008
Links! Not enough LINKS!

11 pages (another 20 in another thread) of some forums users claiming this and that about what happened between the F-22 and Rafale and almost not a single link to a source.

Even rafale pilots accept these facts, while some forum players don't.

Open your eyes and look at all the sources say it is 5 draw and 1 win!

There are other FRENCH sources claiming that F-22 used gun to kill the Rafale at least twice without much difficulties

I have other french sources claiming that the F-22 "come out on top for most dogfight situations against rafale"

Stop trolling. This garbage was debated ad naseum and the French sources admitted the pictures were not from the 1v1s.

In all seriousness this subject has been discussed, dissected, and analyzed so much


You know, all these sentences are completely useseless, because without the link it's just "someone on the internet said".

When somebody comes to you in 2019 and says "I just saw a video where Rafale defeated F-22, damn that F-22 is useless.", you have nothing to show him, because all the guys on the forums do is talk about it, without actually backing up their claims.

I've spent nearly 3 hours googling information about the incident and only things i found were several misleading populistic articles from some bloggers and newspapers contradicting each other and hundred-pages threads on forums like this, full of "It's clear what happened, ALL THE SOURCES state that ..." without any usable link.

What a waste of time.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 11 May 2019, 12:31
by wil59
youda008 wrote:Links! Not enough LINKS!

11 pages (another 20 in another thread) of some forums users claiming this and that about what happened between the F-22 and Rafale and almost not a single link to a source.

Even rafale pilots accept these facts, while some forum players don't.

Open your eyes and look at all the sources say it is 5 draw and 1 win!

There are other FRENCH sources claiming that F-22 used gun to kill the Rafale at least twice without much difficulties

I have other french sources claiming that the F-22 "come out on top for most dogfight situations against rafale"

Stop trolling. This garbage was debated ad naseum and the French sources admitted the pictures were not from the 1v1s.

In all seriousness this subject has been discussed, dissected, and analyzed so much


You know, all these sentences are completely useseless, because without the link it's just "someone on the internet said".

When somebody comes to you in 2019 and says "I just saw a video where Rafale defeated F-22, damn that F-22 is useless.", you have nothing to show him, because all the guys on the forums do is talk about it, without actually backing up their claims.

I've spent nearly 3 hours googling information about the incident and only things i found were several misleading populistic articles from some bloggers and newspapers contradicting each other and hundred-pages threads on forums like this, full of "It's clear what happened, ALL THE SOURCES state that ..." without any usable link.

What a waste of time.
troller is exactly what you do, all sources say 5 tie, 1 defeat, 1 contested victory (video). But that does not matter its date of 2009! . Your first message and you already troll on a plane !. Go to sleep, its going to rest the few neurons that you have.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 14:41
by gta4
all sources say 5 tie, 1 defeat, 1 contested victory (video)

Wrong. All french sources says 5 tie, 1 defeat, no victory (From French pilots interview).
Or all defeats (From a French magazine)

Image

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2019, 14:45
by gta4
wil59 wrote:
youda008 wrote:Links! Not enough LINKS!

11 pages (another 20 in another thread) of some forums users claiming this and that about what happened between the F-22 and Rafale and almost not a single link to a source.

Even rafale pilots accept these facts, while some forum players don't.

Open your eyes and look at all the sources say it is 5 draw and 1 win!

There are other FRENCH sources claiming that F-22 used gun to kill the Rafale at least twice without much difficulties

I have other french sources claiming that the F-22 "come out on top for most dogfight situations against rafale"

Stop trolling. This garbage was debated ad naseum and the French sources admitted the pictures were not from the 1v1s.

In all seriousness this subject has been discussed, dissected, and analyzed so much


You know, all these sentences are completely useseless, because without the link it's just "someone on the internet said".

When somebody comes to you in 2019 and says "I just saw a video where Rafale defeated F-22, damn that F-22 is useless.", you have nothing to show him, because all the guys on the forums do is talk about it, without actually backing up their claims.

I've spent nearly 3 hours googling information about the incident and only things i found were several misleading populistic articles from some bloggers and newspapers contradicting each other and hundred-pages threads on forums like this, full of "It's clear what happened, ALL THE SOURCES state that ..." without any usable link.

What a waste of time.
troller is exactly what you do, all sources say 5 tie, 1 defeat, 1 contested victory (video). But that does not matter its date of 2009! . Your first message and you already troll on a plane !. Go to sleep, its going to rest the few neurons that you have.


No french source claims that video as a victory, because F-22 appears in the front hemisphere of Rafale for only 29 seconds in a video that lasts 3 minutes. What happened for the rest of the time? French people won't let us know.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 15:16
by prof.566
It not considered as a victory because FOX2 were not allowed. Who cares? The video is just there for the show.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 21:03
by wrightwing
prof.566 wrote:It not considered as a victory because FOX2 were not allowed. Who cares? The video is just there for the show.

They weren't practicing missile shots. The only chance the Rafale has versus a Raptor, is a guns only fight. If they allowed missile shots, there wouldn't have been any ties.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 13 Jun 2019, 21:24
by SpudmanWP
If they allowed missile shots, there wouldn't have been a fight.
FIFY

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 14 Jun 2019, 10:07
by prof.566
In the end we have a rare video about dogfight we should just enjoy. Should be the only impotant thing. Always remember that rule : the winner of a fight is the one that shouts the louder in debrief room.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Jun 2019, 03:26
by gta4
Remember one thing: Other french sources say something that contradicts French air force' s "1 lose, 5 draw" claim:
Image
At least 2 victories for Raptor, without much difficulties.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 04 Aug 2019, 18:38
by youda008
wil59 wrote:Your first message and you already troll on a plane !. Go to sleep, its going to rest the few neurons that you have.


Asking people to backup their claims by providing sources is trolling? Put yourself together. That is a essential requirement and rule of every sensible discussion.
The only proof that has been provided is this photo of a paper with a little French article. Where are sources to all of the claims i quoted above? Where?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2019, 03:39
by boilermaker
Chances are the French account about the 5 draws and 1 kill are accurate given that US forces will never deploy their full potential in foreign adversarial exercises like these for security reasons. By the way, back then, the Typhoon was running circles around the Rafale already, with more powerful engines and helmet cueing which the Rafale did not have and only has partially now with the cueing after launch of the Mica.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 05 Aug 2019, 08:39
by zero-one
youda008 wrote:The only proof that has been provided is this photo of a paper with a little French article. Where are sources to all of the claims i quoted above? Where?


If you notice, its not hard to find articles where the USAF claims that their Raptors wiped out 144+ of their own F-15s and F-16 with 0 losses or something like that.

But whenever you get to international exercises they are very mum about it, even against Malaysia's Su-30MKMs all they said was that it was a good learning experience for both air forces. In fact it was the Malaysian media that labeled their own Flankers as "Raptor killers" although officially the RMAF said they walked away with a good dose of healthy respect for each other.

Even against the Navy, the Raptor's performance is a closely guarded secret, it was the Navy that actually published a photo of their Hornet getting a Raptor on its HUD.

So are we to believe that the F-22 can achieve ridiculously lopsided kills against fellow USAF F-15s and F-16s but can only manage a draw against Typhoons, Rafales, Flankers and Hornets.

not buying it, Personally I think the Raptor also achieves lopsided stats against everything else, but saying that outside of the debriefing room would just be adding insult to injury.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 00:09
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
youda008 wrote:The only proof that has been provided is this photo of a paper with a little French article. Where are sources to all of the claims i quoted above? Where?


If you notice, its not hard to find articles where the USAF claims that their Raptors wiped out 144+ of their own F-15s and F-16 with 0 losses or something like that.

But whenever you get to international exercises they are very mum about it, even against Malaysia's Su-30MKMs all they said was that it was a good learning experience for both air forces. In fact it was the Malaysian media that labeled their own Flankers as "Raptor killers" although officially the RMAF said they walked away with a good dose of healthy respect for each other.

Even against the Navy, the Raptor's performance is a closely guarded secret, it was the Navy that actually published a photo of their Hornet getting a Raptor on its HUD.

So are we to believe that the F-22 can achieve ridiculously lopsided kills against fellow USAF F-15s and F-16s but can only manage a draw against Typhoons, Rafales, Flankers and Hornets.

not buying it, Personally I think the Raptor also achieves lopsided stats against everything else, but saying that outside of the debriefing room would just be adding insult to injury.


Most exercises with the F-22 and/or F-35 are going to have ROE very lopsided against them. As without such "restrictions" they would just "crush" all comers. Which, means they wouldn't be challenged. Nor, would anybody want to fight them.....

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 00:50
by quicksilver
“But whenever you get to international exercises they are very mum about...”

That’s called “diplomacy” in some quarters; “team play” in others. These are nations and players that are desired allies in many potential circumstances, and in some cases, the pilots involved often (eventually) become high level leaders not only of their services, but of their nations. Chest-beating in those circumstances is self-defeating in the long run.

Be professional...it will be remembered.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 03:17
by SpudmanWP
Not only "diplomacy", but in case you missed it, going BVR against a 5th gen from a 4th is no fun and offers "little" in the way of training when it comes to these "one-off" meetings. They pretty much stick to WVR.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 06:48
by hornetfinn
SpudmanWP wrote:Not only "diplomacy", but in case you missed it, going BVR against a 5th gen from a 4th is no fun and offers "little" in the way of training when it comes to these "one-off" meetings. They pretty much stick to WVR.


Or they put Luneburg lenses on to 5th gen fighters to level the BVR playing field, like they did in that recent exercise (name escapes me now).

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 12:29
by element1loop
hornetfinn wrote:
SpudmanWP wrote:Not only "diplomacy", but in case you missed it, going BVR against a 5th gen from a 4th is no fun and offers "little" in the way of training when it comes to these "one-off" meetings. They pretty much stick to WVR.


Or they put Luneburg lenses on to 5th gen fighters to level the BVR playing field, like they did in that recent exercise (name escapes me now).


That's pretty galling as at least half of the point of exercising is to train pilots in a 5th-gen to develop and use the 5th-gen tactical approach and tools.

It would make much more sense to fly 5th-gens against 5th-gens, or else against low-observable 'aware' piloted drones as much as possible. And when integrating with the 4th-gens to teach the 4th-gen pilots how to maximize their being at the "back of the bus" now, and 5th-gen pilots how to be a bus driver.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 12:37
by madrat
Unless that 5th gen is simulating a 4th gen threat...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 13:07
by element1loop
madrat wrote:Unless that 5th gen is simulating a 4th gen threat...


Get a Lear45.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 15:25
by gta4
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-an ... le.330385/
The mighty Rafale vs F-15, the result was a tie, 3:3. Claimed by French Pilot.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 16:28
by zero-one
element1loop wrote:That's pretty galling as at least half of the point of exercising is to train pilots in a 5th-gen to develop and use the 5th-gen tactical approach and tools.


I'm sure they train on full up stealth mode as well. But as some F-22 pilots have said, its too easy its like clubbing baby seals. So I don't know how you can further improve on that, rather, improve what? club baby seals faster maybe?

At some point 5th gen pilots need to learn the old school tactics, Boresite missile shots, tail aspect only, maybe even using the gun

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 06 Aug 2019, 16:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Putting early F-35s in aggressor squadrons will allow 5th gens to train against a challenging adversary.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 13:11
by mixelflick
gta4 wrote:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-and-french-fighters-get-familiar-f-15c-vs-rafale.330385/
The mighty Rafale vs F-15, the result was a tie, 3:3. Claimed by French Pilot.


I wonder if India is concerned. They're about to take delivery of an aircraft that... drew even with an F-15C, from the 1980's? What happened to the much vaunted Rafale's maneuverability, avionics and especially Meteor BVR missiles?

Yes, I know pilot quality matters and matters a lot. Did the French field a bunch of guys with 100 hours in the Rafale? Something doesn't seem right. I'd love to know the ROE's..

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 07 Aug 2019, 18:33
by wrightwing
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-and-french-fighters-get-familiar-f-15c-vs-rafale.330385/
The mighty Rafale vs F-15, the result was a tie, 3:3. Claimed by French Pilot.


I wonder if India is concerned. They're about to take delivery of an aircraft that... drew even with an F-15C, from the 1980's? What happened to the much vaunted Rafale's maneuverability, avionics and especially Meteor BVR missiles?

Yes, I know pilot quality matters and matters a lot. Did the French field a bunch of guys with 100 hours in the Rafale? Something doesn't seem right. I'd love to know the ROE's..

It was probably a guns only fight.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2019, 09:08
by wil59
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-and-french-fighters-get-familiar-f-15c-vs-rafale.330385/
The mighty Rafale vs F-15, the result was a tie, 3:3. Claimed by French Pilot.


I wonder if India is concerned. They're about to take delivery of an aircraft that... drew even with an F-15C, from the 1980's? What happened to the much vaunted Rafale's maneuverability, avionics and especially Meteor BVR missiles?

Yes, I know pilot quality matters and matters a lot. Did the French field a bunch of guys with 100 hours in the Rafale? Something doesn't seem right. I'd love to know the ROE's..
.
what was the ROE, the Meteor was not qualified on the Rafale in 2014. The Rafale was' he equipped with AESA or the PESA ?. Do not make an emotional decision without knowing that it really happened. What were the conditions?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 16 Aug 2019, 09:30
by wil59
gta4 wrote:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-and-french-fighters-get-familiar-f-15c-vs-rafale.330385/
The mighty Rafale vs F-15, the result was a tie, 3:3. Claimed by French Pilot.
.
LOL. Here is another reality! But you will not accept that. Since only your point of view matters! http://airforces.fr/2009/12/20/rafale-v ... rofighter/

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2019, 00:50
by madrat
element1loop wrote:Get a Lear45.


Negative Gs in an LJ45 would fly the wings off in no time. And good luck ejecting through a hardtop...

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2019, 04:16
by gta4
wil59 wrote:
gta4 wrote:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-and-french-fighters-get-familiar-f-15c-vs-rafale.330385/
The mighty Rafale vs F-15, the result was a tie, 3:3. Claimed by French Pilot.
.
LOL. Here is another reality! But you will not accept that. Since only your point of view matters! http://airforces.fr/2009/12/20/rafale-v ... rofighter/


Just check its sources:

"rumors said XXX...
I remember XXX..."

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2019, 08:49
by boilermaker
wil59 wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
gta4 wrote:https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-and-french-fighters-get-familiar-f-15c-vs-rafale.330385/
The mighty Rafale vs F-15, the result was a tie, 3:3. Claimed by French Pilot.


I wonder if India is concerned. They're about to take delivery of an aircraft that... drew even with an F-15C, from the 1980's? What happened to the much vaunted Rafale's maneuverability, avionics and especially Meteor BVR missiles?

Yes, I know pilot quality matters and matters a lot. Did the French field a bunch of guys with 100 hours in the Rafale? Something doesn't seem right. I'd love to know the ROE's..
.
what was the ROE, the Meteor was not qualified on the Rafale in 2014. The Rafale was' he equipped with AESA or the PESA ?. Do not make an emotional decision without knowing that it really happened. What were the conditions?


I am pretty sure the French would do exercises in degraded conditions. They do not wish to make the Saudi pilots more literate than them. This was a friendly exercise.

In other cases, French pilots were not happy having to train Lybian pilots to whom Mirages were being sold, with the possibility of facing them later in Chad. Rumors were that the French pilots sought to teach them with an impossibly steep learning curve to make Lybian pilots demoralized and feel scared to fly, with a French pilot asking a pair of inexperienced students to follow him in the alps where he went nap of the Earth over the ridges inducing both Libyan students to crash and die on the flank of a mountain.

Another situation was the sale of Mirages III to Argentina. The French had gutted the aircrafts of state of the art electronic and replaced it with older version of the stuff. Argentinians would ask questions about what was that empty space for, as if a box had been removed. The French mechanics would bull sht them telling them, nah, there is nothing there nor was there anything, to not worry about it.

The French are notorious for being competitive by never giving out what they know.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 17 Aug 2019, 12:38
by mixelflick
Oh man, I hope that isn't true.. The part about the French pilots leading them to their deaths in the alps. I can't even imagine doing something so irresponsible.

Granted, he may not have wanted them to die.. but he damn sure knew it was a possibility. Those poor pilots/their families..

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2019, 01:21
by element1loop
madrat wrote:
element1loop wrote:Get a Lear45.


Negative Gs in an LJ45 would fly the wings off in no time. And good luck ejecting through a hardtop...


Depends what you want to simulate (obviously not gun ACM) but practicing intercepts against recon , or an attacker on a bombing or missile attack profile or CAP does not require F-35s with bolt-on RCS boost to simulate it. And if not a Lear then there are are plenty of former mil jets than can do it much cheaper. The idea that you'd need to use an F-35 for this is nuts when 4th-gens and even updated 3rd-gens are all over the place.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2019, 05:41
by sprstdlyscottsmn
you mean what Draken International does?

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 18 Aug 2019, 11:22
by wil59
boilermaker wrote:Chances are the French account about the 5 draws and 1 kill are accurate given that US forces will never deploy their full potential in foreign adversarial exercises like these for security reasons. By the way, back then, the Typhoon was running circles around the Rafale already, with more powerful engines and helmet cueing which the Rafale did not have and only has partially now with the cueing after launch of the Mica.

Lol, the eurofighter has never circled the Rafale and I remember that only the gun battle was allowed! So again a false rumor. In addition the result of the dogfight Rafale vs Eurofighter is 7/1 in favor of the Rafale. Here is a video of the Rafale wanting to surround another Rafale lol. https://youtu.be/dqcw3U4m8TA

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 03:00
by Corsair1963
wil59 wrote:
boilermaker wrote:Chances are the French account about the 5 draws and 1 kill are accurate given that US forces will never deploy their full potential in foreign adversarial exercises like these for security reasons. By the way, back then, the Typhoon was running circles around the Rafale already, with more powerful engines and helmet cueing which the Rafale did not have and only has partially now with the cueing after launch of the Mica.

Lol, the eurofighter has never circled the Rafale and I remember that only the gun battle was allowed! So again a false rumor. In addition the result of the dogfight Rafale vs Eurofighter is 7/1 in favor of the Rafale. Here is a video of the Rafale wanting to surround another Rafale lol. https://youtu.be/dqcw3U4m8TA



Laughable and one youtube video is hardly proof of anything......... :doh:

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 19 Aug 2019, 08:04
by wil59
Corsair1963 wrote:
wil59 wrote:
boilermaker wrote:Chances are the French account about the 5 draws and 1 kill are accurate given that US forces will never deploy their full potential in foreign adversarial exercises like these for security reasons. By the way, back then, the Typhoon was running circles around the Rafale already, with more powerful engines and helmet cueing which the Rafale did not have and only has partially now with the cueing after launch of the Mica.

Lol, the eurofighter has never circled the Rafale and I remember that only the gun battle was allowed! So again a false rumor. In addition the result of the dogfight Rafale vs Eurofighter is 7/1 in favor of the Rafale. Here is a video of the Rafale wanting to surround another Rafale lol. https://youtu.be/dqcw3U4m8TA



Laughable and one youtube video is hardly proof of anything......... :doh:
.
Yes, this video was for laughs and nothing to see. Just to say that I do not agree with some allegations. Of which the Eurofighter circling the Rafale. Or the fact that the pilot of the Raptor does not give it thoroughly! I do not think, saw in the video the F22 maneuver extremely difficult to get out of the Rafale.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 25 Aug 2019, 12:57
by gta4
wil59 wrote:Yes, this video was for laughs and nothing to see. Just to say that I do not agree with some allegations. Of which the Eurofighter circling the Rafale. Or the fact that the pilot of the Raptor does not give it thoroughly! I do not think, saw in the video the F22 maneuver extremely difficult to get out of the Rafale.


Just give me an official claim (from French media) that Rafale used to defeat F-22 once in dogfight.
All I can find is "5 draws and 1 defeat" (from french air force) or "at least 2 defeats" (from air & cosmos magzine) for the Rafale.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 07:54
by wil59
gta4 wrote:
wil59 wrote:Yes, this video was for laughs and nothing to see. Just to say that I do not agree with some allegations. Of which the Eurofighter circling the Rafale. Or the fact that the pilot of the Raptor does not give it thoroughly! I do not think, saw in the video the F22 maneuver extremely difficult to get out of the Rafale.


Just give me an official claim (from French media) that Rafale used to defeat F-22 once in dogfight.
All I can find is "5 draws and 1 defeat" (from french air force) or "at least 2 defeats" (from air & cosmos magzine) for the Rafale.

I do not speak of the result. This subject has been widely debated. I'm talking about the maneuverability of planes. What I see is that the Rafale is still good. And the fact that he is not an AA fighter like the F22 or the Eurofigter is all to his credit when he sees what he is doing against these fighters.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 26 Aug 2019, 18:31
by gta4
wil59 wrote:
gta4 wrote:
wil59 wrote:Yes, this video was for laughs and nothing to see. Just to say that I do not agree with some allegations. Of which the Eurofighter circling the Rafale. Or the fact that the pilot of the Raptor does not give it thoroughly! I do not think, saw in the video the F22 maneuver extremely difficult to get out of the Rafale.


Just give me an official claim (from French media) that Rafale used to defeat F-22 once in dogfight.
All I can find is "5 draws and 1 defeat" (from french air force) or "at least 2 defeats" (from air & cosmos magzine) for the Rafale.

I do not speak of the result. This subject has been widely debated. I'm talking about the maneuverability of planes. What I see is that the Rafale is still good. And the fact that he is not an AA fighter like the F22 or the Eurofigter is all to his credit when he sees what he is doing against these fighters.

HAhahahahahahah..... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

When speaking about the maneuverability, according to French Air force (published, of course, if you want the source I can scan and paste), there are 2 things that give tremendous advantage to the Raptor compared to the Rafale:

1. The nose authority
2. The energy retension

These are the 2 critical metrics in terms of maneuverability. It means F-22 is better in almost every aspect of maneuverability.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2019, 08:30
by wil59
gta4 wrote:
wil59 wrote:Yes, this video was for laughs and nothing to see. Just to say that I do not agree with some allegations. Of which the Eurofighter circling the Rafale. Or the fact that the pilot of the Raptor does not give it thoroughly! I do not think, saw in the video the F22 maneuver extremely difficult to get out of the Rafale.


Just give me an official claim (from French media) that Rafale used to defeat F-22 once in dogfight.
All I can find is "5 draws and 1 defeat" (from french air force) or "at least 2 defeats" (from air & cosmos magzine) for the Rafale.

And so what is the problem? A French pilot on mirage 2000-9 shot an F-22 during this same exercise. And yet the 2000 is less maneuverable than the Rafale. Maneuverability is not everything in a dog fight.

Re: F-22 vs. Rafale dogfight

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2019, 17:03
by gta4
"A French pilot on mirage 2000-9 shot an F-22 during this same exercise."

Any official claim on that? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: