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 post27 Sep 2018, 11:37

mk82 wrote:
niafron wrote: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 :roll:

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....



I'm sorry, i'm just a foreigner, i'm not sure to understand... Is it custom in the US to hide things in his "derrière"?

Well anyway, here's the numbers you want about the Rafale ( report of the French Senate):

http://www.senat.fr/rap/a17-110-8/a17-110-817.html

Part A.3.: "L'avion Rafale".

It's in french, but for a multi dimensional fellow like you, will not be a problem...

( And if you want to continue the discussion, i'm always happy to speak with our american friends... perhaps with a little bit more of courtesy, and in the right topic if you got a link.)
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post27 Sep 2018, 12:06

gta4 wrote: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):
F-16 lift increase RSS.jpg


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

Maneuvering L/D ratio: 6.9 vs 6.7.


The link i gave wasn't about demonstrating the superiority of the Rafale over F16 or F22, just to give the basic idea of the close coupled Canard.

The real efficiency in combat of this conifiguration is far more complicated. Another US Source, Eugene Tu, a Nasa research center director:

https://arc.aiaa.org/doi/abs/10.2514/3. ... nalCode=ja

So you see ( and there's the problem with your figure who say not much about that), it's not about having canard or not, it's about their exact location, the caracteristics of the wing, the quality of the FCS and so on...

The FCS for instance is of prime importance, cause if badly moved, the Canard could even decrease the L/D ratio.

This is why you could have huge differnce between two planes in the close coupled canard configuration ( which also limit the comparison with the Gripen).
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post27 Sep 2018, 13:13

Whether you decide to closely couple your canards or not is a design choice. The Typhoon designers chose not to to prioritize supersonic lift/drag and maneuverability rather than low speed AoA handling. Every time an angles fighter wants an ACM they seem to insist the dogfight starts at 350knots or lower to ensure the energy fighter already starts at a disadvantage below its corner velocity. Real combat just would not go down like that. High energy fighters would come in full military power and just over their corner velocity close to supersonic and the angles fighter would have to survive the initial turns where it normally bleeds more energy any way.

You would have to get the energy fighter down to 250 knots or lower in the first place to start having an advantage using your fancy pointing. F-22 does both equally well anyway so it is not fussed anyway and if any Typhoon owners were bothered they can implement the low speed high AoA AMK package or even fully develop the working 3D TVC nozzle (check YouTube) that has already been demonstrated. The reason high energy fighters indulge cocky angles fighters in these exercises is for the practice so they can work on tactics to counter their natural disadvantages in this area. Frankly if even given a choice now in 2018 between Rafale and Typhoon I would still pick Typhoon for its greater supercruise, higher speed/altitude and supersonic/transonic maneuverability/acceleration and 210 degree more powerful AESA and chuck in the AMK package as a free low speed bonus. You French really have to get away with your obsession with closely coupled canards ! ;)
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post27 Sep 2018, 13:58

No problem with that, it's effectively a choice and i got nothing against the Typhoon you know...

Still, the Rafale defeated it at each open evaluation by foreign customers and in exercise, it was a butchery, so i guess the Rafale is not so bad...

I agree to say it got a great potential however and many of these defeats were due to some delay in the program. The TVC would have been a good idea for it, but it's a long gone one... and it still have to wait for the CAPTOR E ( since how many years now? 10?).

In fact, aside of logistic costs issues, i would have find attractive the idea to have both the plane for each country in the UE: the Rafale as an attack fighter and the Typhoon ( in an upgraded version) as a superiority fighter.

In France the Typhoon could have replaced the M 2000-5 and in Germany, the Rafale would have been a good succesor to the Tornado IDS.

UK could have choosed the Rafale for the Royal Navy, the Typhoon could have been choosed over F16 in eastern Europe to protect the border with Russia, etc...

Unfortunatly, european leaders consider more logic to dispute with each other and to buy F35 at the end... like the seven years war never ended!

P.S: putting aside what i said about the cost, i got nothing either against the F35, just you must understand my point of view, the point of view of an european, we are proud, old and independant nations, and the capcity to design and produce combat planes is tremendous for sovereignty. So i prefer to see the countries of Europe reaching an agreement for a common industrial project rather than buying planes to a distant country, even an old ally like the USA.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 748
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post27 Sep 2018, 14:53

That first page does not say anything different than the prior paper.

It is relatively easy to connect the dots here. You have 5 close coupled canard deltas here (Gripen, J-10, Rafale, Lavi, and Mirage 4000) are they agile? YES. Are they super-maneuverable? NO.

All their airshow demos are basically the same, nothing special. With the Mirage 4000 being the worst out of the group.


As I said earlier, if close couple canards are the apex of modern fighter design, than why did Dassault limit max Rafale AOA to just 29.9 degrees? I already know the answer, because like the Gripen and others, above 30 AOA the Rafale starts to lose directional stability.


So according to the ADA WSO, Rafale has already lost to Saudi F-15C a few times. Here are another couple losses for Rafale in WVR. Starting at 4:22 Defeat no. 1 to an F-18C Hornet. Hornet is at 380KIAS and about 16,000ft. Defeat no. 2, Hornet is at 250KIAS and about 12,000ft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3b-b762QRY


So just how does a jet that has the invincible close coupled canard design lose to a jet that has a stable conventional tail design?


Any thoughts about this?
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post27 Sep 2018, 15:21

niafron wrote:No problem with that, it's effectively a choice and i got nothing against the Typhoon you know...

Still, the Rafale defeated it at each open evaluation by foreign customers and in exercise, it was a butchery, so i guess the Rafale is not so bad...


If you lurk around this forum you'll find that most members agree that Rafale is best of euro-canards save for "hotrod" intercept missions.

niafron wrote:I agree to say it got a great potential however and many of these defeats were due to some delay in the program. The TVC would have been a good idea for it, but it's a long gone one... and it still have to wait for the CAPTOR E ( since how many years now? 10?).


When was AESA announced for Rafale and when is F4 variant coming to France?

niafron wrote:In fact, aside of logistic costs issues, i would have find attractive the idea to have both the plane for each country in the UE: the Rafale as an attack fighter and the Typhoon ( in an upgraded version) as a superiority fighter.


That's dandy, but unfortunately neither was available when European countries were searching for replacement. You also pathologically ignore the fact european gear is more expensive than american, e.g. Finnish or Swiss evaluations.

niafron wrote:UK could have choosed the Rafale for the Royal Navy, the Typhoon could have been choosed over F16 in eastern Europe to protect the border with Russia, etc...


You must have been joking here!

niafron wrote:Unfortunatly, european leaders consider more logic to dispute with each other and to buy F35 at the end... like the seven years war never ended!

P.S: putting aside what i said about the cost, i got nothing either against the F35, just you must understand my point of view, the point of view of an european, we are proud, old and independant nations, and the capcity to design and produce combat planes is tremendous for sovereignty. So i prefer to see the countries of Europe reaching an agreement for a common industrial project rather than buying planes to a distant country, even an old ally like the USA.


What you said about the cost of F-35 is wrong, deal with it. One can continue ad nauseum that F-35 is "the most expensive fighter ever" and quote French senate documents that Rafale is "60 million" but the reality is a little different.

There is nothing more pround and independent that investing in defence and being self-sufficient in that area. Unfortunately most european countries took a big dump on that after the fall of Iron Curtain. France, BTW, is the only european country that maintained national military even after 1991, largely due to its decades long operations in Sub-Sahara. If you are French then you should know that. However, it is not a matter of origin of your gear, but rather of grand strategy and polity of the consecutive governments.

I am also a european, and I prefer that European countries have strong, capable Air Forces that look into the future (5th gen) instead of buying eurocanards that were 20 years late to the game and more expensive/less capable than F-35. "reaching an agreement for a common industrial project" is what set back so many of common european industrial projects. In addition, JSF is also a common industrial project - and now such "dwarfs" defense industry like the Netherlands or Danmark produce parts for the most advanced and most numerous fighter of next several decades. There's no chance in hell they could have bargained the same in some "common european industrial project". French were smart to abandon both Tornado and Eurofighter projects. The only caveat is that they should have done so much sooner and offered a "souvereign" european option when it mattered.
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post27 Sep 2018, 17:03

hythelday wrote:
niafron wrote:No problem with that, it's effectively a choice and i got nothing against the Typhoon you know...

Still, the Rafale defeated it at each open evaluation by foreign customers and in exercise, it was a butchery, so i guess the Rafale is not so bad...


If you lurk around this forum you'll find that most members agree that Rafale is best of euro-canards save for "hotrod" intercept missions.

niafron wrote:I agree to say it got a great potential however and many of these defeats were due to some delay in the program. The TVC would have been a good idea for it, but it's a long gone one... and it still have to wait for the CAPTOR E ( since how many years now? 10?).


When was AESA announced for Rafale and when is F4 variant coming to France?

niafron wrote:In fact, aside of logistic costs issues, i would have find attractive the idea to have both the plane for each country in the UE: the Rafale as an attack fighter and the Typhoon ( in an upgraded version) as a superiority fighter.


That's dandy, but unfortunately neither was available when European countries were searching for replacement. You also pathologically ignore the fact european gear is more expensive than american, e.g. Finnish or Swiss evaluations.

niafron wrote:UK could have choosed the Rafale for the Royal Navy, the Typhoon could have been choosed over F16 in eastern Europe to protect the border with Russia, etc...


You must have been joking here!

niafron wrote:Unfortunatly, european leaders consider more logic to dispute with each other and to buy F35 at the end... like the seven years war never ended!

P.S: putting aside what i said about the cost, i got nothing either against the F35, just you must understand my point of view, the point of view of an european, we are proud, old and independant nations, and the capcity to design and produce combat planes is tremendous for sovereignty. So i prefer to see the countries of Europe reaching an agreement for a common industrial project rather than buying planes to a distant country, even an old ally like the USA.


What you said about the cost of F-35 is wrong, deal with it. One can continue ad nauseum that F-35 is "the most expensive fighter ever" and quote French senate documents that Rafale is "60 million" but the reality is a little different.

There is nothing more pround and independent that investing in defence and being self-sufficient in that area. Unfortunately most european countries took a big dump on that after the fall of Iron Curtain. France, BTW, is the only european country that maintained national military even after 1991, largely due to its decades long operations in Sub-Sahara. If you are French then you should know that. However, it is not a matter of origin of your gear, but rather of grand strategy and polity of the consecutive governments.

I am also a european, and I prefer that European countries have strong, capable Air Forces that look into the future (5th gen) instead of buying eurocanards that were 20 years late to the game and more expensive/less capable than F-35. "reaching an agreement for a common industrial project" is what set back so many of common european industrial projects. In addition, JSF is also a common industrial project - and now such "dwarfs" defense industry like the Netherlands or Danmark produce parts for the most advanced and most numerous fighter of next several decades. There's no chance in hell they could have bargained the same in some "common european industrial project". French were smart to abandon both Tornado and Eurofighter projects. The only caveat is that they should have done so much sooner and offered a "souvereign" european option when it mattered.


Feel free to consider the french senators as a bunch of liars ( it's not totaly false by the way), but these numbers are confirmed by "la cour des comptes" ( the court of audit), which is higly respected in France ( unfortunatly, the politics almost never listen to it, but we far from the subject...).

You are also free of your political opinions, but sorry, i beg to differ. Just an example, we french are actually in trouble with the Egyptian Rafale deal, cause the international traffic arms regulation ( ITAR) prevent us to sell some amunitions ( french or European like the SCALP/STORM SHADOW, but with US components) to the egyptians.

No matter what do you think of that deal, these kind of things didn't happen we you build alone your own weapon systems.

And selling weapons isn't only about money, it's about strategicals alliances. As you know we not always agree with the USA in that particular domain...

Now about the RBE 2 AESA: the first contract to develop it was signed in 2004, the first prototype was tested in 2010 and the first to enter in service was delivered in 2012 ( it's part of the F3 standard, not the F4 wich isn't expected until 2025). As there is no need to rush the production, only 32 are in service in France now, but the Egyptians Rafale ( 12 delivered) already got it ( we are now producing 2 per month, which will probably make laugh our US friends, but that's enough for our needs).

Yes i was jocking ( or crying, not sure) about European countries buying european planes, not a chance to happen, i perfectly know it.

f-16adf wrote:That first page does not say anything different than the prior paper.

It is relatively easy to connect the dots here. You have 5 close coupled canard deltas here (Gripen, J-10, Rafale, Lavi, and Mirage 4000) are they agile? YES. Are they super-maneuverable? NO.

All their airshow demos are basically the same, nothing special. With the Mirage 4000 being the worst out of the group.


As I said earlier, if close couple canards are the apex of modern fighter design, than why did Dassault limit max Rafale AOA to just 29.9 degrees? I already know the answer, because like the Gripen and others, above 30 AOA the Rafale starts to lose directional stability.


So according to the ADA WSO, Rafale has already lost to Saudi F-15C a few times. Here are another couple losses for Rafale in WVR. Starting at 4:22 Defeat no. 1 to an F-18C Hornet. Hornet is at 380KIAS and about 16,000ft. Defeat no. 2, Hornet is at 250KIAS and about 12,000ft.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k3b-b762QRY


So just how does a jet that has the invincible close coupled canard design lose to a jet that has a stable conventional tail design?


Any thoughts about this?


To be perfectly honest, i doubt that ADA WSO exist... Camille Jolly... it's like an US air force captain called John Smith, a bit too typical to sound true... and sure, he ( or she, it's an unisex first name) accepted to be quoted with his name saying " They gave us rough time! We had 3 planes down!". Honnestly, do you ever heard a fighter pilot admitting such things in that fashion? Furthermore, he would have been fired the next morning.

So sorry, i don't believe a word of it.

For the F18, can't see the vid where i am, will answer tomorow ( and i never said the Rafale is invicible! :D )
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 748
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post27 Sep 2018, 19:34

All Rafale fans (Halloween, Cavok, Picard, Degrasse) have used a YT video (Rafale kills F-22) because they have no EM diagrams, or anything of actual intrinsic value to point out Rafale supposed superiority (and close coupled canard design advantage).

So it is rather hypocritical for them to use a video to buttress their argument; when conversely, a video exists (this time of F-18C killing Rafale twice) to point out that Rafale is not invincible. Rafale fans are silent about that. I have not heard any comments from them. Why is that?

Here is why I believe the RSAF F-15C claims. The Hornet's best turn rates and radii are mach .66 and under. At .76IMN I can tell you that an F-16 (any block) has better turn rates/radii than a Hornet. And the F-15 at that speed is not far behind. So it is entirely possible.


Fine, if you want to believe the opinions of your countrymen and your ADA pilots (whom I'm sure you have spoken to) about Rafale being the best thing since the invention of the wheel, that's great. But that viewpoint is no more provable than me going to an airshow and asking USAF Raptor pilots (which I have done) if the F-22 is better than Rafale. And their answer was it is-

So when it comes down to it, you cannot prove your point anymore than I can prove mine.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 01:12

*If* a 4th gen picks up a stealth fighter's radar on its RWR it will have a rough idea where it is.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1406
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 02:01

lrrpf52 wrote:The Rafale would get crushed up against a Raptor or F-35.

In staged WVR BFM to maintain as much DACT opportunities as possible, anything can happen with competent pilots at the controls. It's good that we continue to pursue DACT with coalition partners and allies at every opportunity, because it adds that much more confidence to the crews that get those chances to fight something with dissimilar capabilities.

The chances of those WVR encounters in typical 3rd and 4th Gen set-ups happening in an F-22 or F-35 solely depend on the 5th Gen pilot chasing to go there, not the other way around.

Imagine trying to fight an aircraft you can't see, who can see you from way over the horizon, then chose to set up its approach on its terms, remaining outside of your detection envelope.

It's not a fair fight, by design.

WVR DACT is a fair fight arena for worst-case and pilot proficiency.


I rode fast sports bikes for years but learned how to ride motorbikes in an old quarry at low speeds with my mates, and that was all about balance and being fit enough to use the machine fully, so that you could then 'become one' with the machine as an extension of abilities, and that made us all much better (and safer) on fast sport bikes.

As far as I'm concerned present-day close-quarters ACM and DACT is nothing more than that.

The pilot becomes quickly familiar with the jet and gets the sensory 'feel' for the machine far more quickly (and cheaply) than any other means, and see's its relative performances, and how to use them to keep the optimal energy balance, and become fit enough to use the machine fully, and 'become one' with it as an extension of person. So you'll be much better within a high-radius fight where you won't be going slow or choosing to use guns, almost ever, i.e. to become fighting-fit. ACM and DACT is "exercise" of the whole combat pilot, not just their body, and not just an exercise". ACM is the most efficient way to get to the feel for the machine and the fitness and airman proficiency needed to fight. But it's not the way of tactical A2A fighting, of that pilot, or that jet, are going to use. The quarry riding was the exercise and long-term skill development I needed and it was fun, but I applied it to actually riding a totally different way.

So particulars and minutia of ACM at gun-range misses the point, the skills developed are the point, and if the whole-pilot fighting-fitness develops and a feel of direct connection with the machine as an extended body, and how that feel, skill, and performance is then able to be applied to fighting tactics, which are actually intended for that machine.

It's wonderful to read about F-35A, F-22A, rafale, etc., going at it in ACM, in Norway or elsewhere, but it begins to miss the point to read too much into it. That's just the ACM 'gym'. It's not the capability. So why get snagged-on or read too much into the more-or-less irrelevant minutia of how the respective gym exercise-machines work at close-quarters? :D

2c
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

hythelday

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 586
  • Joined: 25 Jul 2016, 12:43
  • Location: Estonia

Unread post28 Sep 2018, 11:42

niafron wrote:
Feel free to consider the french senators as a bunch of liars ( it's not totaly false by the way), but these numbers are confirmed by "la cour des comptes" ( the court of audit)...


I am saying NOBODY except for French MoD will ever buy Rafale at that price.

niafron wrote:You are also free of your political opinions, but sorry, i beg to differ. Just an example, we french are actually in trouble with the Egyptian Rafale deal, cause the international traffic arms regulation ( ITAR) prevent us to sell some amunitions ( french or European like the SCALP/STORM SHADOW, but with US components) to the egyptians.


I fail to see how this example is relevant in US - European NATO relations. Are you implying Americans would sabotage European self-defence? That is laughable. As for export to third countries - UK would have blocked Gripen sale to Argentina, and Rheinmetall created a special entity based in Holland IIRC to co-develop future Euro-MBT along with France specifically to circumnavigate possible export bans by their own Bundestag. Such policies are not exclusive to "evil" Americans.

niafron wrote:Now about the RBE 2 AESA: the first contract to develop it was signed in 2004, the first prototype was tested in 2010 and the first to enter in service was delivered in 2012 ( it's part of the F3 standard, not the F4 wich isn't expected until 2025)


I was not aware of that, I stand corrected.
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post01 Oct 2018, 10:03

f-16adf wrote:All Rafale fans (Halloween, Cavok, Picard, Degrasse) have used a YT video (Rafale kills F-22) because they have no EM diagrams, or anything of actual intrinsic value to point out Rafale supposed superiority (and close coupled canard design advantage).

So it is rather hypocritical for them to use a video to buttress their argument; when conversely, a video exists (this time of F-18C killing Rafale twice) to point out that Rafale is not invincible. Rafale fans are silent about that. I have not heard any comments from them. Why is that?

Here is why I believe the RSAF F-15C claims. The Hornet's best turn rates and radii are mach .66 and under. At .76IMN I can tell you that an F-16 (any block) has better turn rates/radii than a Hornet. And the F-15 at that speed is not far behind. So it is entirely possible.


Fine, if you want to believe the opinions of your countrymen and your ADA pilots (whom I'm sure you have spoken to) about Rafale being the best thing since the invention of the wheel, that's great. But that viewpoint is no more provable than me going to an airshow and asking USAF Raptor pilots (which I have done) if the F-22 is better than Rafale. And their answer was it is-

So when it comes down to it, you cannot prove your point anymore than I can prove mine.


Fair point.

And for the vid, it give not much details, but will not argue with you about that, we got some report in France about the pilots of our navy being "disapointed" by their first test against F18 ( it was Super Horner however). What does mean "disapointed", i let you figure that out.

In fact, we really agree about one thing: it's first the pilot's skills, then the plane.

I guess you seen that broadcast of a french network showing the first participation of the ADLA with Rafale at the airflag?

The score was 6-2 for the Rafale against F16, a clear victory, but still, Viper's pilots managed to have the upper hand 2 times with an older plane.

So a F18 C locking on a Rafale is perfectly possible.

So there's my point, the Rafale is certainly not invicible, like all planes ( including the F22...), it could be defeated.

And to be perfectly clear, i DO consider the F 22 is the best air superiority fighter in the world today.

I'm just tired time to time to heard the disdain of some of your countrymen about the Rafale ( which isn't your position, your were also crystal clear about that).
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post01 Oct 2018, 10:38

hythelday wrote:
niafron wrote:
Feel free to consider the french senators as a bunch of liars ( it's not totaly false by the way), but these numbers are confirmed by "la cour des comptes" ( the court of audit)...


I am saying NOBODY except for French MoD will ever buy Rafale at that price.

niafron wrote:You are also free of your political opinions, but sorry, i beg to differ. Just an example, we french are actually in trouble with the Egyptian Rafale deal, cause the international traffic arms regulation ( ITAR) prevent us to sell some amunitions ( french or European like the SCALP/STORM SHADOW, but with US components) to the egyptians.


I fail to see how this example is relevant in US - European NATO relations. Are you implying Americans would sabotage European self-defence? That is laughable. As for export to third countries - UK would have blocked Gripen sale to Argentina, and Rheinmetall created a special entity based in Holland IIRC to co-develop future Euro-MBT along with France specifically to circumnavigate possible export bans by their own Bundestag. Such policies are not exclusive to "evil" Americans.

niafron wrote:Now about the RBE 2 AESA: the first contract to develop it was signed in 2004, the first prototype was tested in 2010 and the first to enter in service was delivered in 2012 ( it's part of the F3 standard, not the F4 wich isn't expected until 2025)


I was not aware of that, I stand corrected.



Indeed, nothing exlcusive to the americans, France could perfectly do the same things ( and did it in fact), there's no morality in international relations.

It's just the traditionnal french position: to be an ally ( and a good one) doesn't mean to be a vassal. Time to time, our interest doesn't match, like in this famous deal.

So there's two options, first to be self sufficient, with our own planes, our own missiles, our own tanks, and so on... second, to buy everything in the USA and to say good bye to any possibility to disagree with them in some occasions.

Another example: as you know, in 2003, my country refused to go to Irak. One more time, you think what you want about that, we're not here to comment political events.

But after that, we were in great trouble, cause the USA threatened us to stop many common programs, like the formation of our naval fighter pilots ( the second and third years of the cursus take place in Texas and California).

This is what happen when you do not have the tools to be on your own.

Let's admit the F 35 is the best plane ever designed and we european have no chance to produce something like that. To buy it would mean having more stronger air force, 0K. But it also mean we would not be masters of our own destiny anymore.

And this is a final choice. Cause if you lose the Knowledge of building planes, good luck to find it back, you could try for decades without results.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1723
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post01 Oct 2018, 11:17

Rafale supposedly doing well against Typhoon/Viper implies it tries to drag high energy fighters slow where supposedly it handles better and quicker. Against Hornet/F-22/F-35 and their excellent low speed handling this is a plan which is not going to succeed. It also has to get high energy fighters slow in the first place which is fine if you start off with artificial ROE which dictate that from the beginning but less likely in real combat where opposition is not going to give up speed/altitude advantage for free. Moral of the story, counter closely coupled canards with twin tails that allow higher alpha ;).
Offline

niafron

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post01 Oct 2018, 14:07

Well in real combat, as i said, a WVR encounter isn't likely to happen.

The French pilots even discarded the HMD designed for the Rafale by Sextant Avionique for they find it too heavy ( 1.4 KG) and not really usefull considering the TV camera of the OSF can clearly identify an opponent somewhere between 15 an 30 NM ( Qatar however want an HMD, and selected the israeli TARGO II).

But well, speaking of that, it's another interesting point.

To lock on an opponent in training is a thing, to shoot him down in combat is another story, for the missile still have to reach the target.

So i'm not sure about this whole High alpha story. Perhaps not the best position to take a shot isn't it?

We lack of data about true combat for that matter, so even if modern missiles looks impressive, i'm still sceptical.

It's certainly better to be behind and above your opponent with a good speed, a slow moving target and a modertate AOA if you want to hit something ( a pilot do have the right to dream)...

And some time, you must have the temptation to shoot as soon as possible.

So according to you, how fare a Sidewinder X when shooted in excess of 30°AOA?
PreviousNext

Return to General F-22A Raptor forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests