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

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 801
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post17 Sep 2018, 16:20

And one more thing to notice is that, French media tries to attribute F-22's energy characteristics to its thrust, not its aerodynamic design.

In fact, even though F-22 has twice as much thrust as Rafale, it also weights twice as much. (19.7 ton vs 10 ton). F-22 does not have significant T/W ratio advantage at all. All its energy retention advantage can only be attributed to its low drag profile, just like the article I posted before, better L/D ratio in maneuvering.
Offline

charlielima223

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 946
  • Joined: 12 Jan 2014, 19:26

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 07:10

niafron wrote:Exactly what i pointed out, the F22 is excellent at recovering energy, not at keeping it. So perhaps, thanks to the TVC, it could have an excellent instantaneous rate of turn, but maybe not a good sustained turn.


I'm going to call male bovine excrement on that... (sorry but this is anecdotal based on my memory)

I live out here in Las Vegas and Nellis AFB is right here. I go to the open house (Air Show) every year when schedule permits. I've had a chance to talk to aggressor pilots who fly for the Red Flag. I've had the chance to talk to both Viper and Eagle pilots (when the F-15 was part of the aggressor force). Ask them about their experiences with F-22 and their responses are usually along the lines of

That thing is a real bitch to fly against


or

Its never a fair fight


One F-16 pilot mentioned that in a WVR fight the F-22 has no problem with getting into the turn with him and staying there despite the F-22's size and weight. Before they took F-15s out of the aggressor force, an Eagle pilot mentioned that the F-22's sustained turn is comparable to the Eagle in some cases and in others far exceeds what the Eagle is capable of.

claiming that the Raptor isn't good at sustained turns and keeping its energy is false.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 09:38

Even though it loses lots of energy in very high AOA maneuvers, the energy is quickly recovered


well reading it carefully the writer clearly states that the F-22 looses lots of energy in very high AOA maneuvers. This is not unique to the Raptor, no aircraft can maintain energy at "very high AOA".

Anyway:
https://hushkit.net/2015/12/18/typhoon- ... inal-word/
Typhoon is the faster aircraft and has a significantly superior thrust-to-weight ratio which gives it better acceleration at all altitudes. This also allows Typhoon to retain and regain energy faster than Rafale in a horizontal dogfight situation. It also has a significantly higher service ceiling of over 60,000ft which allows it to operate uniquely well alongside the US F-22 Raptors ‘high and fast’ in the air superiority role which is exactly where it was designed to excel. Rafale has a significantly superior load-carrying capability and its manoeuvrability at low speeds and altitudes is also better than Typhoon’s although the margin is slim except where both aircraft are very heavily loaded. In terms of horizontal manoeuvrability, Rafale has the better instantaneous turn rate allowing it to reverse its turns more quickly but Typhoon can sustain higher g’s for longer without bleeding speed. High alpha performance is similar, with both aircraft limited by their air intake placement and lack of thrust vectoring although Typhoon’s intakes can at least ‘gape’ slightly to increase airflow at high Alpha and low speeds.


Typhoon Startreak is no longer published on the net but I saved the contents which were straight from the British DERA department.

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.


So Pretty much:

High energy dogfight rankings:
1. Raptor
2. Typhoon
3. Rafale

Slow speed, high AOA:
1. Raptor
2. Rafale
3. Typhoon

I'm convinced any aircraft would have their hands full against any of the 3 planes mentioned and pilot skill would really be the deciding factor.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5209
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 09:53

zero-one wrote:
So Pretty much:

High energy dogfight rankings:
1. Raptor
2. Typhoon
3. Rafale

Slow speed, high AOA:
1. Raptor
2. Rafale
3. Typhoon

I'm convinced any aircraft would have their hands full against any of the 3 planes mentioned and pilot skill would really be the deciding factor.


In the above comparison between the Raptor vs the Typhoon and Rafale. Did the latter two have external weapons and fuel???

Sorry, back to the same old Apple and Oranges comparison..... :doh:
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 608
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 13:21

Rafale is easily the best out of the eurocanards. The RAF may say the Eurofighter has more power, but when the 2 have met in ACM, the Rafale has generally kicked the s++t out of the Typhoon (and on many occasions). While the Gripen is pretty much considered a toy.

What are Rafale's greatest assets against Raptor? Its small size, and its crisp roll rate (I don't know who has the better of the two, it may be pretty close). My point is Rafale is extremely quick.

As far as AOA, even the video shows that the Rafale bottoms out at about 29.9 (30 alpha) at about 3G. F-22, F-35, F-18 all easily best that. But if you are going to pull maneuvers at 35 or 45 AOA, you will pay a price. The thing is, the F-22 has a ton of thrust, to power out of it. And call me a conspiracy theorist, but P&W has been saying SINCE 1990 that the -119 puts out 35K thrust. Seriously, between 1990-2005 do you actually think that number stayed fixed? Call me crazy, but I'm willing to bet the real number is between 37-40klbs. The answer I received on the occasions that I have asked was "its around 35,000lbs", so just exactly what does "around" mean?


F-22 TVC are tied in to the stick, so the pilot is able to command whatever number he wants. From what I was told, it has better ITR and STR vs Rafale. But it is possible that the Rafale is still very close as far as ITR is concerned. (meaning that it is still competitive)


So my point is, a well flown Rafale can beat just about anybody. The Raptor technically seems superior in many WVR metrics. But if the Raptor guy doesn't bring his A game, the Rafale will win.
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2017, 14:57

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 13:31

First of all, never said the F22 is bad at anything, i'm really impressed by this plane.

Second, i agree, the pilots are the most important factor ( this is precisely why i really don't believe this 3-3 story, but well...).

Well obviously, most of you got a poor opinion of french aeronautical industry... Perhaps may i try to change your mind...

The Rafale is a complex machine relying for agility on several factors: Delta Wing+ Close coupled canard+Natural instability+Modern Flight control system.

We got many studies about that in France, concerning vortex and airflow, lift and drag ratio,and so on... but i'm pretty sure i'll have more chance to convince you with US sources. So there's some readings, first of all, a US Marine Captain ( and an aeronautical engineer) to understand how it work:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a256311.pdf
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2991
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 15:35

I too, don't believe the F-119 has remained stagnant in thrust in the more than a decade it's been serving. I'd bet my IRA the real thrust is closer to 40,000 vs 30. I understand the real money is going to upgrade its sensors, weapons and avionics but c'mon - you don't just sit on a 20-30 year lead in engine technology!

And yes, a lot of that tech was further developed in the F-135, but you're not going to let your top air superiority platform lag behind the times. It would also explain its huge increase in supercruise between the YF-22A and production F-22. I think the difference was between mach 1.25 and 1.8. At least that's what's available in the public domain..
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 16:02

mixelflick wrote: I think the difference was between mach 1.25 and 1.8. At least that's what's available in the public domain..


the requirement for the ATF program was to reach super cruise speeds of at least Mach 1.5, The YF-22 max super-cruise speed was clocked in at Mach 1.58 while the YF-23 was on Mach 1.62 (officially)
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 608
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 16:07

Mixelflick, yes, I agree.

We don't know the real numbers, on the F-22 or -35. Why would the USAF want to show all its cards?


Another thing, yesterday when I came home. About 20 min later. 2 F-35's took off in a brute force climb out. The thing is my home is located basically at the point where the pilots pull up out of "ground effect" and start pivot for the vertical. And I kid you not, these F-35's both pulled up into the vertical and seemingly in the blink of an eye they disappeared high up into the blue sky. And I can tell you that in all the years I watched F-16's do that since 1990 (Block 10/15ADF/30/and Toledo's Block 42 w/229IPE); The F-35 matched them or probably beat them. All I saw was a giant afterburner plume and that was it. It was an incredible climb out.

So what are we to believe from these published aircraft figures? Well, as I said about the F-22's engines probably holds true for the F-35's. The USAF is just not going to seemingly divulge all its secrets to the general public and potential enemies.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1967
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post18 Sep 2018, 16:55

The published thrust figures are always sea level uninstalled thrust.

At low altitude the F-16's 229 engines can go to as high as 37,000 lbs at certain speeds due to Ram air effects.
What I noticed with the F-22/35 is that they have gigantic air intakes. More air = more thrust

I wouldn't be surprised if the Raptor can pump out close to 100,000 lbs at certain speeds in low altitude, full AB.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5209
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 00:43

blah blah blah.....In the real world at combat weights. The F-22 and even F-35 are going to crush either of the Euro-Fighters. (i.e. Typhoon/Rafale)



Honestly, whole debate is a waste of time! :doh:
Offline

firebase99

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 63
  • Joined: 03 May 2017, 21:47

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 02:03

Corsair1963 wrote:blah blah blah.....In the real world at combat weights. The F-22 and even F-35 are going to crush either of the Euro-Fighters. (i.e. Typhoon/Rafale)



Honestly, whole debate is a waste of time! :doh:



I agree and you do have a point. While fun to debate air shows its the real world where it counts.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3082
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 06:54

mixelflick wrote:I too, don't believe the F-119 has remained stagnant in thrust in the more than a decade it's been serving. I'd bet my IRA the real thrust is closer to 40,000 vs 30. I understand the real money is going to upgrade its sensors, weapons and avionics but c'mon - you don't just sit on a 20-30 year lead in engine technology!

And yes, a lot of that tech was further developed in the F-135, but you're not going to let your top air superiority platform lag behind the times. It would also explain its huge increase in supercruise between the YF-22A and production F-22. I think the difference was between mach 1.25 and 1.8. At least that's what's available in the public domain..

I used to regularly see claims of 37k to 39k for the F-119, in years past.
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 15 Mar 2017, 14:57

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 10:50

In the real world...

In the real world, the only Rafale the US Air Force could face are those of minor air force, and it was really stupid to spend 1500 billions dollars in the F35 program for that...

Improved F15, F16 or F18 are largely enough for the Air Force or the Navy in order to Fight let's say the Qatari or the Egyptian air force... wich are your allies by the way.

And Same for a SU 35 or even the SU 57 in the hands of small air forces.

Meanwhile, the russians and the chinese are working on new hypersonic missiles like the Kinjal...

In the real world, the Rafale conducted war missions all over the world since 15 years, for a total program cost of 50 billions.

Moreover, in case of an attack against our national territory conducted by stealth plane ( like a mix force of F22 and F35 or SU 57 or even some chinese plane), the Rafale would be an efficient element of our defense system.

A good strategy would have been to buy more F22 with extended ground strike capabilities and some Silent Eagle or F18...

And to save the remaining money of the F35 for other programs.

Well sorry, i'm off topic, but sometimes, it's hard to understand how the US Defense is run.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 967
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 11:06

Is this some parallel real world you live in where stealth fighters are easily detected and intercepted by Rafales ?
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests