F-22 vs Rafale dogfight results - French souce

Anything goes, as long as it is about the Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 12:51

Really?

You think France wouldn't trade in their Rafale's for F-22's, if given that chance? :doh:
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 166
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 16:29

mixelflick wrote:Really?

You think France wouldn't trade in their Rafale's for F-22's, if given that chance? :doh:

yes hour flight and maintenance are Lowest deal and it is versatile! he never disappointed
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 16:34

wil59 wrote:Detect

As shown before, F-22 will detect Rafale at 135-200 km. Rafale will detect F-22 at 11-22 km with radar or at 80-100 km with IRST

Detection range of IRST affected alot by weather , clouds ( they dont work in bad weather ) and target aspect ( Ex : OLS-35 can detect enemy's aircraft from 90 km aways tail aspect but only from 30 km away head on aspect )
Another problem of IRST is that you will have to rely on LRF for targeting information ( velocity , range to target ) , LRF are often limited to 20-30 km
IR , EO sensor can also be damaged by enemy's LRF

LRF.jpg



wil59 wrote:. However, radar is an active sensor, which means that it can be detected at far greater distance than its own detection range. Even assuming that target is a flat plate and that entirety of the signal reaches it, radar will get back 1/16th of the signal – at best. RCS comparison shows automobile to have an RCS of 100 m2 (likely from the side; from the front, 25-50 m2 value can be expected), whereas Rafale has RCS of ~1 m2 when armed. Consequently, F-22s radar receives less than 1/400th of the signal that was sent out. Even when aperture size difference between RWR and radar is accounted for, Rafale will detect F-22s radar signal at two times the distance (>350 km), possibly as much as several times farther (note that radar horizon at 10.000 m is at distance of 825 km). Since both fighters have extensive ESM capabilities, radar is not likely to be used.

that is overly simplified
a common assumption is that aircraft carry RWR should be able to detect Radar twice the range the radar can detect them because RWR only have to listen to signal that travel one way, thus giving them 80 dB advantage compared to radar that have to detect reflected signal that travelling 2 ways
However , RWR and Radar doesnt have equal gain
1. RWR antenna typically has a gain of about 0 dB due to wide angular coverage. Fighter AESA radar has a gain of roughly 40 dB. This means instant 40 dB advantage to the radar.

2. Radar can operate at much narrower bandwidth as it knows the frequencies it uses and RWR does not and has to operate at much wider bandwidth. RWR receivers have a sensitivity in the region of -40 to -60 dB while radar receivers have a sensitivity is roughly about -100 dB with digital receivers achieving even better sensitivity like -120 dB.

This can give additional 50 to 80 dB advantage to radar depending on exact design of the systems involved. As AESA has a very wide total bandwidth, RWR must cover that very wide bandwidth leading to much less sensitivity. As the radar signal has a quite narrow bandwidth and radar can process only very narrow bandwidth giving large advantage in sensitivity. For AESA the advantage can be for example in the 60 to 80 dB range.

3. Radar can code or modulate the signal so that it achieves significant processing gain over RWR. Either phase or frequency modulation/coding can be used. As radar knows the coding, it can filter out the signal from noise using matched filters. The RWR can’t know the coding and this gives the radar another big advantage in total gain. This is called Processing gain and it can be tens of decibels. The more complex the coding the larger the processing gain of radar is. Modern AESA radar using Digital Beamforming can use very complex coding schemes and basically only processing power and software is the limit here. A simple calculation about processing gain is dividing the spreading bandwidth (bandwidth where the signal is spread) with actual signal bandwidth.

4. When the radar main beam is not directly pointing towards the RWR, then it will only be seen through sidelobes. Given that sidelobe level can be lower than -50 dB in AESA radars (about -20 to -30 dB in fighter MSA/PESA radars), this gives the radar a healthy advantage against RWR/ESM systems which it’s not painting. This means RWR will only see very short flashes of main beam and makes it more difficult for the RWR to work effectively.

Calculated together, radar can suddenly have well over 100 dB advantage over RWR system through mainlobe and over 150 dB advantage otherwise. There are ways for RWR/ESM systems to get some of that back and of course the race is never ending. RWR/ESM system can use more directional antenna, more sensitive receivers and higher processing power

there many case where radar detection range can surpassed RWR detection range
Image

wil59 wrote: OSF may detect F-22 at 80-100 km (or more) from the front and 120-160 km from the rear;

That range is too overestimate unless you talking about an F-22 moving at mach 2.5 ,60K ft
To be honest ,i dont think the OFS on Rafale is that good ,given the fact that new Rafale version abbadon it and decided to use IR sensor on Mica instead

wil59 wrote:
As shown before, Rafale will be able to attack the F-22 from distance of 70 km. F-22 may be able to attack Rafale from 20-158 km with radar, but doing so will allow Rafale to target it from 160-200 km with SPECTRA. Both aircraft can use their RWRs to cue other sensors (radar, and in Rafale’s case, IRST).


It very different between able to detect something and actually able to track , targeting it
You can use your ESM/RWR to geolocate a ground emitter but again moving airborne emitter then it a completely different story
Here is how ESM, RWR geolocate a ground threat for missiles targeting
Image
Image
however you cant really use most of them to geolocate an airborne AESA emitter
1- triangulation method required target to be stationary , and take very long time
2- Azimuth / Elevation method will not work because you dont know enemy fighter altitude ( for a ground target you know the altitude is 0 ) thus cant use the Sine and Cosine function to work out the distance to target
3 - Time different arrival method required at least 3 aircraft stay at significant distance from the other ,but doesnt work well again AESA radar due to it very small side lobe , and thin beam, it also required many aircraft working together
4- determine distance by signal strength : required to threat radar characteristic to be known so it doesnt work again modern AESA radar because they have random frequency ,random scanning pattern , random PRF thus they are very hard to classified , and they can also manage transmitting power at short range to reduce probably of detection






there are 2 less common additional methods to determine distance by RWR included :
5- phase rate change
6- RF doppler processing
in theory they can be used again enemy's aircraft but they required cooperate target ,thus not very practical in real life
the detail are discussed in the pdf file bellow
http://subs.emis.de/LNI/Proceedings/Pro ... 54-222.pdf
http://users.isy.liu.se/en/rt/fredrik/r ... gsonly.pdf
Image
As you can see from the paper , the passive ranging method have many requirements such as
1) enemy's fighter fly at constant speed the whole time
2) enemy's fighter doesn't change heading the whole time ( the method measures range by calculate the changing of bearing between enemy fighter and ELINT aircraft when ELINT aircraft fly side to side " zic zack pattern" , thus it wouldn't be possible to apply the method if enemy fighter change heading and point their nose to ELINT aircraft direction all the time)
3)enemy's fighter will constantly emitting for the whole time needed for ELINT aircraft to measure range :
4) ELINT aircraft have to perform specific maneuver for a period of times to measure range
5) Accuracy is terrible , 20-40% error in range is very significant, at 100 km distance that is 20 - 40 km error, at 50 km distance that still 10-20 km error, that is even worse than long wave VHF radar thus not very useful for long range BVR engagement again enemy's fighter

How to counter RWR passive ranging discussed above :
let call the aircraft carry RWR sensor : ELINT aircraft
Method 1:
Image
To collect data for range measurement the ELINT aircraft must fly zigzag side to side to measure change in bearing , thus showing it's side aspect RCS to enemy's radar. And the S maneuver will only work if the enemy fighter fly straight and doesn't change their heading, fly at constant speed.
remember that side aspect RCS of any aircraft is very high (often in the range 20-30 dBsm or 100-1000 m2) , so the ELINT aircraft if wasn't detected by enemy radar earlier will be detected the moment it perform the S shape maneuver. Since most aircraft radar nowadays have no trouble tracking airborne target with RCS =100-1000 m2 from 300-400 km
So after detecting the ELINT aircraft, all enemy pilot have to do is changing their heading according to the heading of ELINT aircraft ( if the ELINT aircraft turn left, you turn left, if the ELINT aircraft turn right, you turn right, accelerate or decelerate to make your speed not constant)
that action will neutralise ELINT aircraft passive ranging ability

Method 2 :
Image
alot more simple, since the ELINT aircraft take at least 15 seconds of constant receiving enemy's radar signal to measure range with error about 25-40%, if enemy's pilot turn their radar on and off constantly, the ELINT aircraft wont be able to measure range in that case ( even easier in case of AESA radar since they used very thin beam ,the beam will only paint the target for very short period of time then look aways )

And the biggest drawback of relying on RWR is that you will only detect the target that transmitting ,what if there a flight of F-22 with one of them transmitting and transfer the information through data link to the others ?


wil59 wrote:Rafale’s RBE-2 has 120* field of regard, which is identical for F-22s AN/APG-77. RBE-2 AESA has 140* field of regard.

Rafale have a tiny radar with around 800-900 T/R modules while F-22 radar have 2000 T/R modules , even F-35 have 1675 T/R modules

wil59 wrote:In terms of countermeasures, Rafale has onboard jammers, chaff and flares; SPECTRA is also capable of reducing aircraft’s RCS through active cancellation, though this is likely only an option against older-type radars.

I dont think active cancellation even work again old radar ,and i dont think SPECTRA use active cancellation either since Rafale dont have transmitter all over it's skin
.


wil59 wrote:F-22 has AIM-120 with maximum engagement range of 180 km. This is significantly superior to 80 km range of MICA RF. MBDA Meteor with 315 km range will enter service in 2019, giving Rafale range advantage.

Overly optimistic range ,the only things you can hope to shot down at that distance is may be AWACs
wil59 wrote:In terms of agility, AIM-120D and Meteor can both pull 40 g at Mach 4 and MICA IR can pull 50 g at Mach 4. This means that maximum turn rate is 18,54 deg/s for AIM-120 and Meteor and 23,2 deg/s for MICA IR. Comparing this to respective aircraft turn rates (36,4 deg/s ITR for Rafale and 35 deg/s ITR for F-22), it can be seen that both aircraft have a good chance of evading any of the missiles listed (missile needs to at least match aircraft’s turn rate, and in some cases have twice as high turn rate, in order to hit).


missiles doesnt need to match aircraft turn rate to hit , they are intercept not trying to follow aircraft path
also what you mentioned is ITR, which mean aircraft cannot sustain that turn rate for long and also lose alot of speed and altitude after perform it ,let say you perform very hard turn to dodge first missiles what will happened when the second missiles come ?


wil59 wrote:In terms of gun lethality, Rafale uses GIAT 30 revolver cannon while F-22 uses M61A2 rotary gun. GIAT-30 fires 275 g projectile with 17,5% HEI content (~48 g) at 1.025 m/s muzzle velocity. M61A2 fires 102 g projectile with 10,3% HEI content (~11 g) at 1.050 m/s muzzle velocity. Further, GIAT-30 projectiles have crossectional density of 38,9 g/cm2 compared to 32,47 g/cm2 for M61A2, leading to slower loss of speed. Combination of these factors gives GIAT 30 significantly higher per-projectile effectiveness. Further, F-22 has to open up gun trap doors to use the gun, which adds 0,5 second delay. Even if gun doors are opened beforehand, GIAT 30 will fire 19 projectiles in first 0,5 seconds, compared to 37 projectiles for M61A2. This gives total throw weight of 5,23 kg for GIAT 30, with 0,91 kg of HEI. M61A2 has total throw weight of 3,77 kg with 0,39 kg of HEI. As it can be seen, GIAT 30 is significantly more lethal than M61A2.



since neither Rafale and F-22 are armored like WW II aircraft , the throw weight doesnt matter that much anymore
Last edited by eloise on 07 Dec 2015, 16:49, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 16:42

Am I the only one who noticed this sentence?
(translated from french)
"F-22 did not need to turn on its radar. it used the electromagnetic emission of the french fighter to locate it precisely, and shoot it down from a safe distance" :D :D :D

Poor rafale!
Last edited by gta4 on 07 Dec 2015, 17:08, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 16:50

here another paper regarding passive geolocation
http://www.jhuapl.edu/techdigest/TD/td3 ... Grabbe.pdf
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1467
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 16:53

gta4 wrote:Am I the only one who noticed this sentence?
(translated from french)
"F-22 did not need to turn on its radar. it used the electromagnetic emission to locate the french fighter precisely, at shoot it down from a safe distance" :D :D :D

Poor rafale!

it still need radar for range and velocity information
Journal of Electronic Defense; Bill Sweetman

The F-22 represents a radical departure from the traditional approach to EW. Passive systems, once considered to be defensive in nature, are now critical to detecting, tracking and even attacking the target.

High-priority emitters -- such as fighter aircraft at close range -- can be tracked in real time by the ALR-94. In this mode, called narrowband interleaved search and track (NBILST), the radar is used only to provide precise range and velocity data to set up a missile attack. If a hostile aircraft is injudicious in its use of radar, the ALR-94 may provide nearly all the information necessary to launch an AIM-120 AMRAAM air-to-air missile (AAM)
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1631
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 17:21

gta4 wrote:
Rafale vs F-22.JPG

According to french source, F-22 dominated every time, and "gun killed" the rafale at least twice.
From all french source we could get (including the french "air & cosmos" magzine, and its supp. "the combat of rafale"), all french pilots interviewed admitted that rafale did not score any voctory on F-22. The only controversy lies on whether F-22 won all engagements, or some engagements were draw.


I tried to get a direct translation of everything on the page, but after using Google translator on the
F-22 segment, I got this.

"if the french aviaterus have largely spread on toleas put their Rafale British Typhoon at the last confrontation between the delta Dassault and F -22A Americans present american NONT not even deign to turn on their radars remaining invisiles electromagnetic emission of french fighter thus securing the F -22A were also WOUND with combat burst ensuring closer chanqe hay has a "gun kill" without much difficulty ."

some kind of coded language as you cans see,

Can any of our French speaking friends , translate everything on it please? :mrgreen:
Offline

thenonflyingdutchman

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 41
  • Joined: 07 Mar 2013, 21:23
  • Location: Amsterdam

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 20:28

mixelflick wrote:
You think France wouldn't trade in their Rafale's for F-22's, if given that chance? :doh:


I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

I'll agree that F-22 is superior in air combat to Rafale, as it is also superior to any other plane out there.

If France trades all it's Rafales for Raptors, what does it gain? And more importantly, what does it lose?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 723
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post07 Dec 2015, 20:39

zero-one wrote:
gta4 wrote:
Rafale vs F-22.JPG

According to french source, F-22 dominated every time, and "gun killed" the rafale at least twice.
From all french source we could get (including the french "air & cosmos" magzine, and its supp. "the combat of rafale"), all french pilots interviewed admitted that rafale did not score any voctory on F-22. The only controversy lies on whether F-22 won all engagements, or some engagements were draw.


I tried to get a direct translation of everything on the page, but after using Google translator on the
F-22 segment, I got this.

"if the french aviaterus have largely spread on toleas put their Rafale British Typhoon at the last confrontation between the delta Dassault and F -22A Americans present american NONT not even deign to turn on their radars remaining invisiles electromagnetic emission of french fighter thus securing the F -22A were also WOUND with combat burst ensuring closer chanqe hay has a "gun kill" without much difficulty ."

some kind of coded language as you cans see,

Can any of our French speaking friends , translate everything on it please? :mrgreen:


Did you use google translate?

The exact translation of the last phrase is:

"For at least two times, F-22 entangled Rafale at close range, ensuring each time a "gun kill" without much difficulties."
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 464
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post08 Dec 2015, 00:08

I wonder where Picard578 gets these magical numbers from. He claims the OSF can detect the F-22 at 80-110 km....when official sources say the OSF has less range than the PIRATE which ID/detect target frontally at around 50 km. Also, he claims RWR from the SPECTRA can detect the F-22's signals from 300 km....yeah. With no evidence.

Also isn't all IR vulnerable to phosphorous smoke? If the F-22 is using red phosphorus flares it can blind the IRST when providing midcourse updates for the MICA/Meteor. The Meteor's seeker is radar only so it I doubt it will home on to the F-22 effectively due to jamming and stealth. Then the F-22 shoots an AIM-120 AMRAAM. The more powerful radar and midcourse updates evade the SPECTRA, killing the Rafale.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2392
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post08 Dec 2015, 00:43

thenonflyingdutchman wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
You think France wouldn't trade in their Rafale's for F-22's, if given that chance? :doh:


I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

I'll agree that F-22 is superior in air combat to Rafale, as it is also superior to any other plane out there.

If France trades all it's Rafales for Raptors, what does it gain? And more importantly, what does it lose?


What does it lose?

The ability to fly off a carrier, that's it.

In every other respect the fear/intimidation factor, the ability to hold any target at risk, anywhere anytime is much greater IMO. 2 1000lb JDAM's and 8 Small Diameter Bombs is nothing to sneeze at. Especially when it can wax any aircraft sent up to intercept it. Try sending Rafale's into Iran for example. They've wisely invested not in their air force, but in SAM's, radars and other weapons systems that are going to make any 4th gen think twice about entering their air space. The ability to deal with any air defense system, in any country harboring ISIL.

They don't have any of that today with Rafale..
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 464
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post08 Dec 2015, 00:53

What is there to loose?

The equipment that is designed to maintain the Rafale, and millions of dollars to get new infrastructure to support the expensive F-22.
Offline
User avatar

cosmicdwarf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 677
  • Joined: 11 Feb 2015, 21:20

Unread post08 Dec 2015, 02:19

Yeah the Rafale was pretty much made to support France's aviation industry. It's not a bad plane by any means, but you can't ignore that was the reason for it.

Well, that and the falling out with the rest of the Eurofighter countries.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1631
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post08 Dec 2015, 07:35

thenonflyingdutchman wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
You think France wouldn't trade in their Rafale's for F-22's, if given that chance? :doh:


I'm pretty sure they wouldn't.

I'll agree that F-22 is superior in air combat to Rafale, as it is also superior to any other plane out there.

If France trades all it's Rafales for Raptors, what does it gain? And more importantly, what does it lose?


Trading the Rafale's for F-22s won't be a good move for France, the F-22 clearly has the advantage in air to air, but I think the Rafale is still a better bomber.

With its own optical imaging sensors the Rafale is more tailored for missions such as CAS or SEAD.
Offline

armedupdate

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 464
  • Joined: 05 Aug 2015, 21:11

Unread post08 Dec 2015, 08:00

^CAS yes. SEAD is definitely better with the Raptor with its stealth and ALR-94. Also the F-22 can use its MAW as an 360 IRST like the DAS.
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 6 guests