F-22 vs Rafale dogfight results - French souce

[gta4]

The paper presented by the french guy is clearly using a stale configuration of tail trim, which generates negative lift. My posted paper uses an unstable tail configuration, which generates positive trim. So it is clearly that my paper represents the real scenario.

And, the super hornet is actually unstable.

[gta4]

I will post later a flight test report showing F16's tail generates positive lift.

[F-16ADF]

Here is a Czech source for original Gripen A empty weight: http://www.army.cz/scripts/detail.php?id=6100

[wrightwing]

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.

The US hasn't spent $1.5 trillion on the F-35. The total R&D and acquisition cost is ~$400 billion, which won't have been spent till some time in the 2040s.

The F-22 can't be modified significantly, to improve its A2G capabilities. It will always have smaller weapon bays (limiting the aircraft to 1000lb weapons,) and a shorter range. No 4th generation aircraft can be upgraded enough, to deal with A2AD environments with non-permissive air space (SAMs are the primary threats.)

[wrightwing]

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!

There is no such thing as radars designed to track stealth aircraft. All radars are subject to the laws of physics. The best that can be hoped for, are gradual increases in detection ranges. This will never offset the situational awareness advantages, the stealthy aircraft enjoy, as they'll always see emitters long before the emitters see them. To completely overcome a stealth threat, would result in an unaffordable redundancy and overlap of radars, and sufficient missiles to overcome decoys and saturation attacks.

[niafron]

Well lads, in fact, we aren't so far to say the same thing.

Le'ts listen to Paul Metz:

"Thrust-vectoring is often thought of in terms of the classic 'dogfight' where one aircraft is trying to out-turn his opponent at ever decreasing airspeeds. Whether a pilot should ever engage in these slow speed fights is a matter that is hotly debated within the fighter pilot community. Certainly, there is general agreement that it is best to not get slow - ever. With the advent of the helmet mounted sight, 4th generation heat seeking, off-boresight missiles the slow dogfight becomes even more dangerous. 'To slow or not to slow' are questions of tactics and best left to the expert fighter pilots of the future. The F-22's thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. "

A high alpha could be criticaly efficient in some circumstances... and very dangerous in others. To quickly turn at moderate AOA keeping a good speed is still fundamental. And the Rafale do that pretty well...

[charlielima223]

Well lads, in fact, we aren't so far to say the same thing.

Le'ts listen to Paul Metz:

"Thrust-vectoring is often thought of in terms of the classic 'dogfight' where one aircraft is trying to out-turn his opponent at ever decreasing airspeeds. Whether a pilot should ever engage in these slow speed fights is a matter that is hotly debated within the fighter pilot community. Certainly, there is general agreement that it is best to not get slow - ever. With the advent of the helmet mounted sight, 4th generation heat seeking, off-boresight missiles the slow dogfight becomes even more dangerous. 'To slow or not to slow' are questions of tactics and best left to the expert fighter pilots of the future. The F-22's thrust-vectoring can provide remarkable nose pointing agility should the fighter pilot choose to use it. "

A high alpha could be criticaly efficient in some circumstances... and very dangerous in others. To quickly turn at moderate AOA keeping a good speed is still fundamental. And the Rafale do that pretty well...

don't stop there... lets finish up what he has to say...

What is not widely known is that thrust-vectoring plays a big role in high speed, supersonic maneuvering. All aircraft experience a loss of control effectiveness at supersonic speeds. To generate the same maneuver supersonically as subsonically, the controls must be deflected further. This, in turn, results in a big increase in supersonic trim drag and a subsequent loss in acceleration and turn performance. The F-22 offsets this trim drag, not with the horizontal tails, which is the classic approach, but with the thrust vectoring. With a negligible change in forward thrust, the F-22 continues to have relatively low drag at supersonic maneuvering speed. . But drag is only part of the advantage gained from thrust vectoring. By using the thrust vector for pitch control during maneuvers the horizontal tails are free to be used to roll the airplane during the slow speed fight. This significantly increases roll performance and, in turn, point-and-shoot capability. This is one of the areas that really jumps out to us when we fly with the F-16 and F-15. The turn capability of the F-22 at high altitudes and high speeds is markedly superior to these older generation aircraft. I would hate to face a Raptor in a dogfight under these conditions.

[mixelflick]

But that isn't the whole story, is it?

The F-35 has a fixed engine nozzle, but it can perform thrust vector like maneuvers (without thrust vectoring). For that matter, so can the Super Hornet (and some legacy Swiss hornet demo's I've seen).

Certainly LM could have used thrust vectoring in the F-35 had they wanted to. They didn't, presumably because its advantages vs. cost just wasn't there. The Raptor does have it, so I can only surmise TV is useful/warranted in the supersonic realm?

[mk82]

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.

Do you even have any comprehension skills? Read Marsavian’s source again........the F35’s TOTAL acquisition cost includes research and development costs etc etc etc. Just like the Rafale total cost you like bang on about. As others have asked, where is your source for the $44 billion cost?

[mk82]

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

Lol!!!

[zero-one]

Certainly LM could have used thrust vectoring in the F-35 had they wanted to. They didn't, presumably because its advantages vs. cost just wasn't there. The Raptor does have it, so I can only surmise TV is useful/warranted in the supersonic realm?

Right, the F-35 was always meant to match and combine the kinematic abilities of it's predecessors the F-16 and F/A-18, not necessarily to surpass them which was the case for the F-22.

So high supersonic maneuverability as well as extreme high altitude maneuverability was not a requirement. It was considered in the design phase though, however the extra weight could possibly degrade the F-35's ability to match the high energy characteristics of the F-16. Plus the extra cost was also a factor.

However I'll add that though the F-35, F/A-18 and Su-27 are capable of some amazing post stall capabilities, they do not match the capabilities of TVC equipped aircraft. Just an observation, not sure if it has any tactical value.

[mk82]

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.

Looks like you pulled that $1500 billion figure out of your derrière. Marsavian has taught you good! Moving on....

You are a pretty one dimensional guy I have to say. In the real world....you don’t just engage enemy fighters.....you have to deal with surface to air threats too (SAMs, AAA....you get the idea). Even some “small” air forces are now acquiring advanced surface to air systems as part of an advanced IADS. If anything, networked enemy SAMs/SHORADs are the bigger threat to aircraft (since the Vietnam War). The F35 has been specifically designed (including VLO airframe and superb situational awareness) to penetrate and/or destroy an advanced/near peer IADS (air to air and surface to air threats) effectively and efficiently. Warmed up 4th generation fighters just ain’t going to cut it against a current advanced/near peer IADS....unless you don’t mind heavy losses (i.e. playing the attrition game). On that note, let’s see the Rafale go up against a truly advanced and competently run IADS (SU 35, S400, S300, Buk, Pantsir, Tor etc etc....all networked together) “alone” and “unafraid”......Good Luck! Because the Rafale really needs it!!

Adding the F35’ s air to surface capability to the F22 would be nice....but that would make the F22 even more expensive (its already pretty expensive in its current guise). Good luck procuring meaningful numbers of this super F22

And the last time I heard (pretty recently)....the Rafale didn’t do too crash hot against F22s in the most recent trilateral exercise (Rafales, Typhoons, F22s and a smattering of F35s)....especially BVR wise. Just saying....

[F-16ADF]

Interesting article about Gripen (a close coupled canard delta); it starts to lose directional stability once in the low 30's AOA. Rafale is probably not far off. F-16 once at 35 AOA in the wind tunnel starts to lose directional stability too. Obviously close couple canards cannot perform a miracle here; these jets are only "carefree" up until they reach their hard limit (which is not particularly impressive). So it is safe to say that while many close coupled canard deltas are very agile (Lavi, Gripen, Rafale, even J-10), it is probably incorrect to call them "super maneuverable".

[gta4]

Certainly LM could have used thrust vectoring in the F-35 had they wanted to. They didn't, presumably because its advantages vs. cost just wasn't there. The Raptor does have it, so I can only surmise TV is useful/warranted in the supersonic realm?

Right, the F-35 was always meant to match and combine the kinematic abilities of it's predecessors the F-16 and F/A-18, not necessarily to surpass them which was the case for the F-22.

So high supersonic maneuverability as well as extreme high altitude maneuverability was not a requirement. It was considered in the design phase though, however the extra weight could possibly degrade the F-35's ability to match the high energy characteristics of the F-16. Plus the extra cost was also a factor.

However I'll add that though the F-35, F/A-18 and Su-27 are capable of some amazing post stall capabilities, they do not match the capabilities of TVC equipped aircraft. Just an observation, not sure if it has any tactical value.

Su27 should not be on the list. It does not have yaw/row authority at higher AOA (so no J-turn or pirouette maneuver). Cobra is on pitch axis only and is bounced back to original pointing immediately after pitching up, neutralizing the total angle of pointing.

[gta4]

Proof why niafron make a mistake to use a configuration that does not represent F-16:
this is part from his cited paper:

a "conventional tail " trims with the nose down (aka a traditionally stable design) tail subtracts from total lift.

However, F-16 employs RSS and the tail generates positive lift most of the time (tailing edge down = positive lift):

What if we compare RSS-optimized tail-plane configuration against a RSS-optimized canard configuration?


Maneuvering L/D ratio: 6.9 vs 6.7.