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

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 11:30

No sure... The prove of it, the SCAF program we are working on is about designing a stealth plane. So Dassault, EADS and the French air force are well aware of Stealth fighters advantage.

The classic design of the Rafale is a limitation, we all know it, just, sometimes, you got to be realistic about your basic needs and your capacity.

I just say, combined with a good network of ground and airborne radars ( designed to follow stealth planes) and perhaps even satelitte detection, there's a way to have a good picture of the tactical situation.

The next challenge is to reduce the distance enough in order to lock them wether it is with optoelectrical devices or with an AESA Radar ( as i said, 20 NM could be fine).

Wich mean to jam their Radar in order to avoiding being shot at long range. Or to surprise them by a flank attack.

Hard to do, but not impossible.

Sure you can suppose your opponent would be clever enough to use proper tactics, so clearly, the stealth design is an advantage. But it's not being invincible.

1500 billions for the F35 was really too much... Believe it or not, it's 30 YEARS of total french military spendings. Our army is small sized compared to yours, but 30 years... for one plane... it's madness!
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 11:39

I believe I just proved rafale has poorer lift to drag ratio than raptor, from french source, right?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 11:40

gta4 wrote: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.


This.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 11:43

niafron wrote: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


Why do you keep ignoring your mistake that you compare raptor's energy bleeding rate at high AOA with rafale's at smaller AoA?
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 738
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 12:19

1500 billions for the F35 was really too much... Believe it or not, it's 30 YEARS of total french military spendings. Our army is small sized compared to yours, but 30 years... for one plane... it's madness!


The unit cost at this early rate of production is already under Rafale unit cost. All the legacy US teen fighters have to be replaced this century and only F-35 is cheap enough to do it one on one for a quantum jump in capability. Stop using simplistic troll arguments and look at what the cost is actually buying you for so many nations outside the small 250 fighter force of France where the total replacement requirement is in the many thousands !
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 12:41

gta4 wrote:
niafron wrote: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


Why do you keep ignoring your mistake that you compare raptor's energy bleeding rate at high AOA with rafale's at smaller AoA?


I already answered about your "french source"... wich wasn't one but just an US source in a french magazine...

Concerning the Lift and drag ratio, i answered as well, it is exeptionnaly good on the Rafale cause of the close coupled canard ( nothing to do with the long arm canard of the Typhoon) and their effect on the airflow above the wing. Follow the link i posted, read, and we could discuss that if you want so ( read at least the conclusion page 55).

And i don't ignore your remark about AOA, there's different parameters to manage energy in a Dogfight.

marsavian wrote:
1500 billions for the F35 was really too much... Believe it or not, it's 30 YEARS of total french military spendings. Our army is small sized compared to yours, but 30 years... for one plane... it's madness!


The unit cost at this early rate of production is already under Rafale unit cost. All the legacy US teen fighters have to be replaced this century and only F-35 is cheap enough to do it one on one for a quantum jump in capability. Stop using simplistic troll arguments and look at what the cost is actually buying you for so many nations outside the small 250 fighter force of France where the total replacement requirement is in the many thousands !


...

0K, math wasn't my speciality, but seriously...

So 44 billions for 250 units : 176 millions/unit.

1,500 billions for (let's hope) 3000 units: 500 millions/unit.

And quantum jump in capability... well, your opinion.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 738
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 12:49

You are comparing apples to oranges, bundling in operating costs for one and not the other so yes Math is not your specialty. Also why not try using real figures instead of made up troll ones.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tagon-says

The total acquisition cost for the advanced fighter is projected at $406.1 billion, virtually unchanged from the $406.5 billion estimated last year, according to the Defense Department’s latest Selected Acquisition Report, which will be sent to Congress this week. The projections were obtained in advance by Bloomberg News.

Within the total -- which includes research, development and initial support such as spare parts and military construction -- the estimated cost to procure 2,456 U.S. aircraft has ticked down to $345.4 billion from $346.1 billion, or a 0.2 percent decline.


Actual unit procurement cost over all three variants is 345,400/2456 = $140m.
Last edited by marsavian on 19 Sep 2018, 13:23, edited 4 times in total.
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2624
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 12:52

niafron wrote:0K, math wasn't my speciality, but seriously...

So 44 billions for 250 units : 176 millions/unit.

1,500 billions for (let's hope) 3000 units: 500 millions/unit.

And quantum jump in capability... well, your opinion.


False premises leads to false results.... :roll:
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 13:18

marsavian wrote:You are comparing apples to oranges, bundling in operating costs for one and not the other so yes Math is not your specialty. Also why not try using real figures instead of made up troll ones.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... tagon-says

The total acquisition cost for the advanced fighter is projected at $406.1 billion, virtually unchanged from the $406.5 billion estimated last year, according to the Defense Department’s latest Selected Acquisition Report, which will be sent to Congress this week. The projections were obtained in advance by Bloomberg News.

Within the total -- which includes research, development and initial support such as spare parts and military construction -- the estimated cost to procure 2,456 U.S. aircraft has ticked down to $345.4 billion from $346.1 billion, or a 0.2 percent decline.


Actual unit procurement cost over all three variants is 345,400/2456 = $140m.


44 billions is the TOTAL cost for the Rafale program. Including development, construction, operation, retrofit and maintenance.

The flyaway cost is 70 millions per unit.

To be fully honnest, i speak in euros, depending of the ratio euro/dollar, there could be some variations. Right now, you got 1.17 dollars for one euro.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 738
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 13:22

Did you not read the link I posted and just highlighted, the F-35 procurement cost also includes these things and therefore it is cheaper than your beloved Rafale.
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 13:39

As you said, oranges and apples... Your link is about acquisition cost (read it again).

The total cost ( the same i used for the Rafale):

https://breakingdefense.com/2012/03/f-3 ... s-program/

EDIT: guys, we're well off topic and anyway i'm not a US taxpayer, you do what you want with your money, i stop there with the F35.
Offline

marsavian

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 738
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 13:43

Don't be absurd, that includes personnel maintenance and running costs over 55 years i.e part of running the US military which is always there regardless of fighter, WTH is that included in your Rafale number, show me your Rafale source. You would have to add Armie de Air total fighting running costs over the decades to get the same comparison, stop using troll numbers, it's 406bn for the aircraft, equipment, spares and R and D. When Rafale is sold for export the total support package (not even running costs) makes the Rafale cost over 200m which is why it has so few exports. Stop with this cheap Rafale BS because the export price does not lie !
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 743
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 18:50

niafron wrote:44 billions is the TOTAL cost for the Rafale program. Including development, construction, operation, retrofit and maintenance.

The flyaway cost is 70 millions per unit.

Wow, so France has like 628 and a half Rafale!

Cool story bro.
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 7953
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post19 Sep 2018, 19:15

niafron wrote:44 billions is the TOTAL cost for the Rafale program. Including development, construction, operation, retrofit and maintenance.

The flyaway cost is 70 millions per unit.

Internal (and obviously subsidized) numbers are close to meaningless. What a 3rd party has to pay for one is the "true" cost.
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 559
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post20 Sep 2018, 01:18

Niafron, not everything Aero-engineers ascertain should be held as gospel. I will go into this later.

First, in this paper, it does not seem that the author is using for the wing/tail example; at least one with a large LERX like the F/A-18 Hornet (a stable design (legacy anyway), or the F-16 (RSS design). Because he goes on to state that a "conventional tail " trims with the nose down (aka a traditionally stable design) tail subtracts from total lift. That is not the case with a RSS tailed jet in subsonic flight, because the tail is actually adding to lift. And there is no nose down trim.


In his introduction he refers to the EFA as a close coupled design. It is not. And he goes on to state that close coupled canard jets such as the IAI Lavi, Saab Gripen, and EFA allow for continued maneuvering while a conventional aircraft may depart from controlled flight. Tell that to the F/A-18 Hornet pilot. Neither the Lavi, Gripen, Eurofighter Typhoon, or Rafale can attain Hornet like angles of attack. The Rafale limits to 29.9, the Gripen nearly the same, the Typhoon less. There are HUD images of Hornets at 41-50 AOA. The canards (close coupled or long arm aka EF) cannot even come close. In fact, the Rafale's is only a bit better than the F-16's. And the F-16's(AOA limit) was originally placed there for energy conservation. Wind tunnel tests have shown the F-16 can fly up to 35 AOA, any more it will start to lose directional stability. And I am thinking the same will happen to the single tailed euro-canards. My point is none of the euro-canards have an impressive high alpha, certainly nothing like the Hornet. And if you cannot even match the Hornet's, just how do you think the euro-canards will fair in slow maneuvers against a Raptor or F-35; principally the thrust vectored Raptor that has even better alpha than the F-18 (legacy or super hornet)?


Using the Viggen as an example is basically pointless. Because all modern close coupled canard designs are RSS and FBW. In fact it was FBW that resurrected the canard delta. The Viggens's canard was more like a front elevator, and remember, the Viggen was not particularly agile to begin with. Does a Viggen's high alpha slow flight match an F/A-18A-C, NOPE-


The author calls the close coupled jets "super maneuverable" in his introduction. That is incorrect. None of those jets fly at or can attain very high alpha's (are any of them able to perform a maneuver like a J-turn?). Hence, they are more agile than super-maneuverable. To be super maneuverable they would ALL need thrust vectoring.


As far as close coupled canards adding infinite vortex generation and re-energizing the main wing and rear elevons. How is it that the original (very light) Saab Gripen A can be easily out turned by a Block 25 F-16C? Remember the Block 25 has only a 23,800lbs engine while weighing nearly 17,000lbs (it was always considered (along with the Block 32 and 42 w/PW 220) not the most agile of the Viper blocks). The original Gripen A was basically 13,000lbs (give or take) mated together with a 18,000lbs engine. According to GD test pilot Neil Anderson (his words at the 1985 Paris Airshow) the Block 25 can enter a turn at 350KCAS and end at 250KCAS, while only taking 13.5-15 seconds. The Gripen cannot even come anywhere close to those numbers. And both jets have a nearly identical thrust to weight ratio. Also, a few months back, I posted a Lavi EM diagram. And for being a close coupled design (like Gripen), there is not anything particularly impressive about its numbers.


As far as the Rafale is concerned. If the Rafale has already conceeded the slow speed aspect of dog-fighting to the Raptor. (Remember, Rafale is limited to 29.9 Alpha, Raptor is not.) In addition (according to GTA4's article), just how on earth is Rafale able to compete with F-22, when its pilots are complaining about available thrust as compared to a Block 60 F-16? I'm sorry but Rafale's airshow demos are hardly any more impressive than Solo Turks's. If you have any Rafale EM diagrams, please post them and we would be able to settle this pointless argument once for all. And I am saying this as a Rafale fan, and one who thinks Dassault jets are absolutely beautiful (Rafale, Mirage F1, Mirage IV).


Lastly, as I said, not everything Aero engineers say is infallible. For example, Northrop designer Lee Begin, miscalculated the actual drag for the YF-17. His "estimated" numbers did not match actual flight data derived from the LWF competition. And the Cobra turned out to be more draggy at higher speeds than originally envisioned. And his turn numbers above .7IMN were over estimated for the earlier P530 and YF-17 also-
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests