4th vs 5th gen differences

Military aircraft - Post cold war aircraft, including for example B-2, Gripen, F-18E/F Super Hornet, Rafale, and Typhoon.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3116
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 20:49

zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
wrightwing wrote:How about beating clean F-16s, while carrying a GBU-12, and enough fuel to head to the bombing range after BFM. It's like the Favorite F-35 quotes thread never existed, for those with goldfish memory.



Sounds like somebody has a selective memory??? :wink:


No, because that statements speaks more about the pilot's competence than the F-35's maneuverability.

Lets analyze the statement shall we. the F-35 beat a CLEAN F-16 while carrying GBU-12s and lots of fuel. Does that mean the F-35 with all those bombs and fuel has better performance than a CLEAN F-16? Didn't we always say that the F-35A turns slightly inferior to a CLEAN F-16.

So are we gona throw that out the window and say that an F-35 with GBU-12s and Fuel to burn turns better than a Clean F-16?
Nope, that statement simply implied that even with bombs and fuel the F-35 still had enough performance to turn and burn with a clean F-16. It may have been inferior, but the gap was close enough for a competent pilot pull out a win.

So yeah, thats more about the pilot than the F-35


Nope. What that says is that the F-35 has sufficient kinematics, even in that condition, to best an F-16. Dolby Hanche has stated repeatedly, that the F-35 sticks to the F-16 Like glue, and easily puts the F-16 on the defensive. Other F-35 pilots have used terms like eye watering performance. Whatever advantages the F-16 has, are insufficient to gain the offensive/shake the F-35 that is offensive. This is after starting from the neutral, defensive, and offensive. I suggest you revisit the Favorite F-35 quotes and Out of the Shadows threads, again.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 21:21

They appear to be very old F-16MLU's with the Pratt F100 motor. There are many HUD images from Rafales and Typhoons having a field day with the same ancient MLU's on google. For instance the AdA even boasted a few years ago about the Rafale achieving a 6-2 kill/loss at Nellis against the F-16. Lo and behold the F-16's that they 'so beat up on' were under-powered Pratt Block 25 or 32's. Which is completely unimpressive-
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post22 Jan 2019, 23:55

f-16adf wrote:They appear to be very old F-16MLU's with the Pratt F100 motor. There are many HUD images from Rafales and Typhoons having a field day with the same ancient MLU's on google. For instance the AdA even boasted a few years ago about the Rafale achieving a 6-2 kill/loss at Nellis against the F-16. Lo and behold the F-16's that they 'so beat up on' were under-powered Pratt Block 25 or 32's. Which is completely unimpressive-



While, the F-35 is doing over 20 to 1 against those same F-16's.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 00:46

I really don't think there is anything special about any jet beating a MLU that came out in 1981. Be it a Rafale, EF, Grip-hen, Raptor, or F-35.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 02:19

f-16adf wrote:I really don't think there is anything special about any jet beating a MLU that came out in 1981. Be it a Rafale, EF, Grip-hen, Raptor, or F-35.



Those early F-16's still have excellence flight performance with good thrust to weight. Remember, later models of the F-16 had more powerful engines. Yet, they also had more weight.



So, I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the older F-16's in the Aggressor Role.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3116
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 02:29

Corsair1963 wrote:
f-16adf wrote:I really don't think there is anything special about any jet beating a MLU that came out in 1981. Be it a Rafale, EF, Grip-hen, Raptor, or F-35.



Those early F-16's still have excellence flight performance with good thrust to weight. Remember, later models of the F-16 had more powerful engines. Yet, they also had more weight.



So, I wouldn't so quickly dismiss the older F-16's in the Aggressor Role.

Exactly. They're flying clean with no pylons. That's still a pretty nimble adversary.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2010
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 07:23

wrightwing wrote:
Nope. What that says is that the F-35 has sufficient kinematics, even in that condition, to best an F-16. Dolby Hanche has stated repeatedly, that the F-35 sticks to the F-16 Like glue, and easily puts the F-16 on the defensive. Other F-35 pilots have used terms like eye watering performance. Whatever advantages the F-16 has, are insufficient to gain the offensive/shake the F-35 that is offensive. This is after starting from the neutral, defensive, and offensive. I suggest you revisit the Favorite F-35 quotes and Out of the Shadows threads, again.


You're preaching to the choir here. I know those statements and use them frequently to defend the F-35 against the Pierre Spray club.

The only time I go against the F-35 is when people compare it to the F-22 and somehow make it seem like its just as good or even better than the Raptor in A-A. Well I'm sorry, the admin, Gen. Mike Hostage and I, all have the same opinions about that. It's a great A-A platform, but its not as good as the Raptor.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 07:26

I don't dismiss the MLU, but as I said comparing a jet that has probably easily over 8-10,000 hours on it to a basically brand new jet really does not say much. If you look in the "F-22 v Rafale" thread it was that Cavok/Halloween kid who tried to say his beloved Rafale came to Nevada and had a field day with our Nellis based Vipers. Yes, the Rafale did come out the victor. But as I was trying to tell him. A 2005 model Rafale beating an under-powered Viper with FY 84.... or 85... stamped on its tail makes for a near laughable comparison.


And if we are going to use this Combat Aircraft article as a criterion we must also include on the fourth pg (33) what this pilot (Lt. Colonel Knight) also said, he states: "I typically tell new pilots that the F-35 sits somewhere in between the F-16 and the F/A-18 when it comes to visual range maneuvering."

This statement is very similar to what the F-35A pilot said on Jello's Fighter Pilot Podcast video (which was quoted on the first page of this thread).

And it also basically matches what the 2 Eglin F-35 pilots had to say when posed the near identical question.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5310
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 08:46

I have my doubts about Rafales having a field day against F-16's at "Red Flag"??? Do you have a source???


Also, you have to consider many factors when judging an Air Exercise. For example do we know the ROE and the specific numbers and types??? Which, is just for starters....
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 645
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 12:30

The AdA Rafale/F-16 thing is a video (in French).

There also may be a written encounter, but the final score was 6-2 I think. Need a little time to find both links.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2010
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 14:00

I really don't agree with the whole Generations comparison.
Because realistically if war were to break out right now. The USAF would deploy F-22s and F-35s as the tip of it's offensive spear while Russia and China would be comprised of advanced Flanker variants, France would deploy Rafale's and Britain would go with Typhoons.
They are all from the same era.
It's more realistic when you get to a war scenario.

Going back to the Rafale vs F-16. The Rafale is France's 21st century Era fighter. (2000 - Present). the F-22, Typhoon, F-35, Su-35 and Gripen all take advantage of technologies within the same era. Some, better than others.

Using the Generations method, comparing the Rafale to the F-22 would be unfair because its a 5th gen against a 4th gen.
comparing the F-16 to the Rafale would be fair because they're both 4th gens.

Using the Era method, comparing the Cold War Era F-16 block 30 or 50 to the 21st century Rafale shows you why the Rafale will have the upper hand.

Remember the Rafale is France's answer to the Su-27 just as the F-22 is the USAF's answer to it. It had a development budget only slightly lower than the ATF program. So for the Rafale to have a 6 - 2 win record against the F-16 is actually quite disappointing. With just a bit more money, the USAF produced a plane that can get 244-0 kill records against F-15s and F-16s.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 992
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 15:30

Come on guys.

When comparing aircraft results you absolutely need to know the load-out.

In the 1980-1990's period all Belgian F-16A flew clean while the F-16B flew with CLT.
(These days it is rare to find a clean bird.)

When the Mirage 2000 came over on DACT, the F-16 clean and Mirage 2000 with wing bags had the same fuel reserve when rejoining the pattern after a partol.

In A2A scenario's when both where clean, the F-16 always had the upper hand because they could play more and longer with their fuel.

In a A2A with a clean F-16 and a Mirage 2000 with bags the ROE limited the F-16 to military power. (And they still won)

Mirage 2000 had the upper hand in RWR and Jammers.

Compare a Rafale and an F-16 when they both have wing bags and eggs. It will be close, and up to pilot capability and fuel state.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 359
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 16:26

zero-one wrote: It had a development budget only slightly lower than the ATF program.


Are you sure about this?

Well the Rafale is a top notch 4 gen fighter. And at least the best Russian/European plane in Air to Air and air to ground.

And i would put an F-15/SH with AESA over the Su-35. The Grippen E is not even delivered to the Swedish AF. IIRC that will be in 2021 at best.

vilters wrote:Compare a Rafale and an F-16 when they both have wing bags and eggs. It will be close, and up to pilot capability and fuel state.


The Rafale has 50% more internal Fuel. So the F-16 have to use 1 bag to have the same amount of fuel.
Offline

vilters

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 992
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 16:54

"Amount of fuel" is an non significant number.

Combine "amount" with "fuel burn rates" over mission types.

F-16A clean (6.700 lbs) could be empty in 5 minutes flat ( Cdt B.G. airshow), or take pretty close to 3 hrs (Maj E.V.) both around 1985 if my memory is still OK.
Last edited by vilters on 23 Jan 2019, 17:42, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

zero-one

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2010
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2013, 16:19
  • Location: New Jersey

Unread post23 Jan 2019, 17:15

swiss wrote:
zero-one wrote: It had a development budget only slightly lower than the ATF program.


Are you sure about this?


Wikipedia lists the program cost at $62.7B slightly lower than the ATF's $66B.
It also notes that the Typhoon program cost was 37B pounds according to the National Audit office. That translates to around $70B in 2007 dollars when the audit was made.

If you have more accurate figures than please share.

The Grippen, Typhoon, Rafale and F-22 were all responses to the alleged threat the Su-27 presented. The British and French claimed that the Typhoon and the Rafale were in the same class as the F-22 in overall capabilities. I still remember watching a Discovery channel documentary where a Typhoon pilot said "While the Americans invested in Stealth technology, we decided a different approach, super agility" They really wanted to make it seem like their 21st century planes were in the Raptor's league. So why not.
Attachments
Capture1.PNG
Last edited by zero-one on 23 Jan 2019, 18:37, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to Modern Military Aircraft

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests