F-22 vs Rafale dogfight results - French souce

gta4 · by **gta4** » 06 May 2017, 19:46

20000 lb (approximate) and 19261 lb (accurate) do not contradict one another. 20000 is a good approximation of 19261, with only 3.9% deviation.

If we claim there could be small deviation for the same block, isn't it the same for all aircraft? So what is the standard for performance comparison?

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 06 May 2017, 21:06

johnwill wrote:

If you are talking about the comment on EFT pylons, I haven't seen the HAF dash 1, so you may have it correct. It's not very important, is it?

The HAF F-16 has the 600 Gal tanks listed as well - although it might also not be clear that the 370 pylons are part of the actual 370 tank.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 06 May 2017, 21:52

basher54321,

You and Johnwill are right. I never knew that when they jettison the 370 gallon tank the pylon goes with it. I was reading the DI index of 50 from the eagle.ru site (which the discussion about F-14 vs XYZ has interested me of late). The poster on their must have his ordinance load wrong (and I was going mainly by his numbers).

I think GD/LM just used 50 as a benchmark.

The way to get to it for an air to air load is:

2 aim-9 5(2)= 10
4 aim-120 2(4)=8, wingtip missiles = 0
2 aim-9 pylon+adapter 6(2)=12
2 aim-120 pylon+adapter 6(2)=12
2 aim-120 wingtip pylon = 0 (part of jet)
all add up to 42, and then add the centerline fuel tank pylon which has a DI of 7 and you get a total of 49.

Is this right to you?

The Tomcat's DI is either a 42 (without tank pylons) or a 44 (with tank pylons). So it is still a little lower than the Block 50 that they like to use. The Tomcat chart at 10k does not mention that it has those pylons loaded, so I guess the real DI is a 42?

Also, they forget that the Block 30 is a better performer than the 50 at 10K with a similar load. So their comparison is rather unfair.

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 06 May 2017, 22:17

You are counting six non wingtip missiles there. The DI should be eight lower as only two are carried under the wing.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 06 May 2017, 22:43

Spurts, I believe I have 6 total aams.

4 aim-120 (2 on wing tips have a DI = 0, 2 under wings have a DI = 8 total).
2 aim-9 (2 under wings have a DI = 10 total).

2 aim-9 launcher+adapter = 12 total.
2 aim-120 launcher+adapter=12 total.

42, then add 7 to that for the CL fuel pylon.

total=49

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 07 May 2017, 00:54

Okay, it was just the way to wrote it. Everything else was DI(number of stores) but it was backwards for the AMRAAM. Your total DI is correct.

gta4 · by **gta4** » 07 May 2017, 02:55

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TcBlEU62e8c
Turkish F-16 solo team do not fly block 30. The above 14-15 sec turning video is a block 40, which weights the same as block 50, but less thrust.
https://flycamera.com.pl/index.php/pl/t ... -demo-team

johnwill · by **johnwill** » 07 May 2017, 04:43

basher54321 wrote:
johnwill wrote:

If you are talking about the comment on EFT pylons, I haven't seen the HAF dash 1, so you may have it correct. It's not very important, is it?

The HAF F-16 has the 600 Gal tanks listed as well - although it might also not be clear that the 370 pylons are part of the actual 370 tank.

When I made the comment about EFT pylons, I wondered about the possibility of HAF using 600 gallon tanks. 600 g tanks do not use an integral pylon, but use a standard weapon pylon, modified with fuel transfer plumbing. The tank can be jettisoned from the pylon, so it is possible to have EFT pylons without tanks in that case.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 12 Jun 2017, 18:36

f-16adf wrote:basher54321,

The Tomcat's DI is either a 42 (without tank pylons) or a 44 (with tank pylons). So it is still a little lower than the Block 50 that they like to use. The Tomcat chart at 10k does not mention that it has those pylons loaded, so I guess the real DI is a 42?

Also, they forget that the Block 30 is a better performer than the 50 at 10K with a similar load. So their comparison is rather unfair.

Wow, I never know the Cat's EFT's added so little drag! Or is this written to mean just the pylons, and not the tanks too??

sprstdlyscottsmn · by **sprstdlyscottsmn** » 12 Jun 2017, 23:47

That was just the pylons

niafron · by **niafron** » 29 Jun 2017, 11:10

gta4 wrote:How many times do I need to say this?

1) That video is 3-minute long, but the F-22 only appeared at the front hemisphere of the Rafale for only 20 seconds. What happened for the rest of the time? The french people won't let us know.

2) That is not a kill, because that was a gunfight which requires the crosshair to overlay the target, which did not happen.

If it was a missile fight, F-22 would use other tactics (such as high AOA pointing) to gain missile lock opportunity.

F-22 adopts different tactics in different rules of engagements. That's it,end of the line.

The proof: French air force did not interpret this as a KILL.

French air force never says it had gained any dogfight victories on F-22 (some draws, one or two defeat, no victories). French officials never claimed any dogfight victories on F-22! This clearly indicates that the dogfight in the video was not a victory.

3) There are other FRENCH sources claiming that F-22 used gun to kill the Rafale each time without much difficulties.

One more time at least, we french are stubborn...

1) The vid came from the OSF (Optronique secteur FRONTAL) so obviously, it show only the frontal hemisphere... So nothing to do with " french people don't want to let us know!"

2)It did happen... But if we can't even agree on that, well, i guess US eyes are better than french eyes. And in a missile fight, Rafale adopt different tactics too...

And about the interpretation of the result, i already explained my opinion. It's just an hypothesis, but for me, the Kill was cancelled cause the french pilot broke the ROE ( and it was considered a Draw on the French side, a Raptor victory on the US side).

3) No... your famous french source is just a newspaper quoting an US Spokesman...

madrat · by **madrat** » 29 Jun 2017, 12:28

Troll much? This rudeness has been perpetuated for far too long. Let it go.

niafron · by **niafron** » 29 Jun 2017, 14:05

Was just a tribute to the long friendship between our countries...

A real troll would have been that:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdPiRyYetI8

:wink:

0K, ceasefire... i take the french leave!

( In french: " Je file à l'anglaise!").

geokav · by **geokav** » 29 Jun 2017, 16:04

Despite that I really like the Rafale, it can't match the F-22. Raptor plays on another level..., alone !!!

As for the F-16 blk 30, its the best dogfighter among all blocks. Despite the difference in combat weights, T/W ratios, there is also one small difference between these blocks, which I haven't read so far in this thread. It's the analog FBW...
The difference between analog FBW and digital FBW in blk50 and above, is the delay of the activation of the AoA limiter.
This gives the blk30 pilot an advantage of positioning the nose of the aircraft quicker and sharper. This has an effect only in aerial combat, as the analog FBW has other restrictions than the digital FBW...

niafron wrote:A real troll would have been that:

<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PdPiRyYetI8</span>

0K, ceasefire... i take the french leave!

( In french: " Je file à l'anglaise!").

Lol..., this is not troll..., it's the reality... :wink:

basher54321 · by **basher54321** » 29 Jun 2017, 19:18

geokav wrote:
The difference between analog FBW and digital FBW in blk50 and above, is the delay of the activation of the AoA limiter.
This gives the blk30 pilot an advantage of positioning the nose of the aircraft quicker and sharper. This has an effect only in aerial combat, as the analog FBW has other restrictions than the digital FBW...

Digital FLCS was Block 40/42.

Who said they noticed the difference in that regard?