F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 17:29

gta4 wrote:GE132 in F-16 block 60 produces almost as much thrust as 2 x M88-2s, but F-16 block60 (without CFT) is still vastly lighter than Rafale.

What is block 60 empty weight? (with and without CFTs?)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 17:51

monkeypilot wrote:
gta4 wrote:GE132 in F-16 block 60 produces almost as much thrust as 2 x M88-2s, but F-16 block60 (without CFT) is still vastly lighter than Rafale.

What is block 60 empty weight? (with and without CFTs?)


According to this:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... rogram.pdf

The F-16 Block 60 empty weight is 20,300 lb (don't know if it includes the CFTs) while the CFTs should add 4,160 lb of weight fuel wise (not the weight of CFTs empty).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 18:15

So same weight ball park as Rafale. (9500-10000 kgs)
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 20:54

ricnunes wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:
gta4 wrote:GE132 in F-16 block 60 produces almost as much thrust as 2 x M88-2s, but F-16 block60 (without CFT) is still vastly lighter than Rafale.

What is block 60 empty weight? (with and without CFTs?)


According to this:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... rogram.pdf

The F-16 Block 60 empty weight is 20,300 lb (don't know if it includes the CFTs) while the CFTs should add 4,160 lb of weight fuel wise (not the weight of CFTs empty).


You can check page 487 : https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF ... lement.pdf

21,200lb for the F-16C Block 52+ with CFTs empty, so the 20,300lb figure for the Block 60 is most likely without CFT's. Also note that on page 15, there's a 20,200lb figure without CFTs if I read it right. A rough calculation with *empty* aircraft and static thrust figures gives nearly the same thrust to weight ratios for CFT-less Block 60 and Rafale, so the UAE pilots' comment seems to suggest there's something different with dynamic thrust or drag.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2765
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 21:16

viper12 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:According to this:
http://aviationweek.com/site-files/avia ... rogram.pdf

The F-16 Block 60 empty weight is 20,300 lb (don't know if it includes the CFTs) while the CFTs should add 4,160 lb of weight fuel wise (not the weight of CFTs empty).


You can check page 487 : https://info.publicintelligence.net/HAF ... lement.pdf

21,200lb for the F-16C Block 52+ with CFTs empty, so the 20,300lb figure for the Block 60 is most likely without CFT's. Also note that on page 15, there's a 20,200lb figure without CFTs if I read it right. A rough calculation with *empty* aircraft and static thrust figures gives nearly the same thrust to weight ratios for CFT-less Block 60 and Rafale, so the UAE pilots' comment seems to suggest there's something different with dynamic thrust or drag.


I suspected that the 20,300lb figure would be without the CFTs however I wasn't sure of it. Thanks for confirming this :)
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

splittingatoms

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 18
  • Joined: 07 Dec 2017, 17:46

Unread post04 Jan 2018, 21:27

viper12 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:21,200lb for the F-16C Block 52+ with CFTs empty, so the 20,300lb figure for the Block 60 is most likely without CFT's. Also note that on page 15, there's a 20,200lb figure without CFTs if I read it right. A rough calculation with *empty* aircraft and static thrust figures gives nearly the same thrust to weight ratios for CFT-less Block 60 and Rafale, so the UAE pilots' comment seems to suggest there's something different with dynamic thrust or drag.


I wonder what the as-installed thrust is for both aircraft. It would seem to me than two smaller intakes would be more restrictive than a single one due to wall drag, all-else being equal. However, that's a gross simplification of the problem.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 996
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post05 Jan 2018, 15:57

"Too beautiful to be true" Belgian Defense Minister Steven Vandeput has described the French offer as a thorough partnership between France and Belgium for the replacement of the Belgian F-16s who will reach the end of their life from 2023. Dassault et al. its partners thus promise an economic return of 100% of the purchase price, which amounts to about 20 billion euros over 20 years and more than 5,000 high-tech jobs in Belgium's choice of the Rafale.

And France to emphasize that the non-compliance with the tender procedure set up by Belgium is justified by the fact that France and Dassault actually intend to offer more economic compensation to Belgian industry than this. which is possible within the framework established by the Belgian Government. The arguments are very sensitive Charles Michel, Prime Minister, close to Emmanuel Macron and defender of a Belgian industry (mainly French) who would be the first beneficiary of an agreement with France. All the opposite of his defense minister, from the Flemish nationalist party and legalistic as well as flattering.


Google translated from: http://www.air-cosmos.com/le-ministre-b ... ise-105227
Offline

viper12

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post05 Jan 2018, 19:01

loke wrote:
"Too beautiful to be true" Belgian Defense Minister Steven Vandeput has described the French offer as a thorough partnership between France and Belgium for the replacement of the Belgian F-16s who will reach the end of their life from 2023. Dassault et al. its partners thus promise an economic return of 100% of the purchase price, which amounts to about 20 billion euros over 20 years and more than 5,000 high-tech jobs in Belgium's choice of the Rafale.

And France to emphasize that the non-compliance with the tender procedure set up by Belgium is justified by the fact that France and Dassault actually intend to offer more economic compensation to Belgian industry than this. which is possible within the framework established by the Belgian Government. The arguments are very sensitive Charles Michel, Prime Minister, close to Emmanuel Macron and defender of a Belgian industry (mainly French) who would be the first beneficiary of an agreement with France. All the opposite of his defense minister, from the Flemish nationalist party and legalistic as well as flattering.


Google translated from: http://www.air-cosmos.com/le-ministre-b ... ise-105227


Google translate is a tad inaccurate ; it should rather be (changes in bold) :

"Too good to be true". That's how Belgian Defense Minister Steven Vandeput has described the French offer as a thorough partnership between France and Belgium for the replacement of the Belgian F-16s who will reach the end of their life beginning in 2023. Dassault and its partners thus promise an offset of 100% of the purchase price, which amounts to about 20 billion euros over 20 years and more than 5,000 high-tech jobs in case Belgium chooses the Rafale.

And France to emphasize that the non-compliance with the tender procedure set up by Belgium is justified by the fact that France and Dassault actually intend to offer more economic compensation to Belgian industry than possible within the framework established by the Belgian Government. Arguments to which Charles Michel, Prime Minister, close to Emmanuel Macron and defender of a Belgian industry (mainly French-speaking) who would be the first beneficiary of an agreement with France, is very sensitive. All the opposite of his defense minister, who is from the Flemish nationalist party and is as much legalistic as Atlanticist.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post06 Jan 2018, 04:05

Yep, Rafale did trash the F-14D Tomcat in 2002. F-18C according to the FAF was a more difficult opponent.

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/pages/do ... fMyo.99:if


Translated from French:

Faced with the F-14 and F-18C (USS Stennis and Roosevelt) in 2002
image: http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/i ... =r_250_250

F-14 in the HUD of a Rafale
Just operational in the Flotilla 12F, the Rafale battle against the F-14 Tomcat and F-18 Hornet in Basic Fighter Maneuvering (BFM) measurements:

"... Against the Tomcat, it's a real butcher's shop ... The Rafale is incomparably more manageable than the heavy F-14 and we take advantage of the commitment ..."

"... in the face of the F-18, the task is more complicated but thanks to the flight controls, the weight / thrust ratio and its low wing load, it quickly shows its superiority ... The fighting often starts at 10000 ft and 400 kts to finish at 5000 ft and 150 kts ... The Rafale is very agile, especially at low speed ... "

Source Air Fan n ° 282
Online

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4930
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Nashua NH USA

Unread post06 Jan 2018, 04:23

Thanks ADF, that link provides enough info that I may be able to build a performance model for it.
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 456
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post06 Jan 2018, 23:16

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Thanks ADF, that link provides enough info that I may be able to build a performance model for it.


Great. Cant wait for it. :D

@ F-16 adf. Thanks also for the link. Very interesting site.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post07 Jan 2018, 07:02

The outcome of this air combat (against the US Navy) was also in an article from Combat Aircraft magazine (from late 2002). I just totally forgot that it was against French Marine Rafales and not the lighter Rafale C.

Ugh,....I wish I still had that issue-
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 24776
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post07 Jan 2018, 08:25

f-16adf wrote:The outcome of this air combat (against the US Navy) was also in an article from Combat Aircraft magazine (from late 2002). I just totally forgot that it was against French Marine Rafales and not the lighter Rafale C.

Ugh,....I wish I still had that issue-

Back issues of Combat Aircraft that you require may be available. However as I don't really know what I'm looking for (I've looked already and given up as being too tedious) you may find what you seek. Start here perhaps:

http://www.magazineexchange.co.uk/comba ... ?&cat=2969
OR:
http://www.magazineexchange.co.uk/comba ... -magazine/
OR:
http://www.magazineexchange.co.uk/comba ... ?&cat=2969

E-BAY Mags: https://www.ebay.com.au/sch/i.html?_nkw ... noapp=true

VOLUME 4 is 2002 : https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/-j8AAOSw ... -l1600.jpg

THIS PAGE for VOL.4 2002 magazines: http://www.magazineexchange.co.uk/Comba ... lumes-3-5/

http://www.magazineexchange.co.uk/image ... _Large.jpg
Attachments
CombatAircraftOLD.jpg
CombatAircraftVOL4is2002.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6448
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post07 Jan 2018, 15:27

viper12 wrote:
Google translate is a tad inaccurate ; it should rather be (changes in bold) :

"Too good to be true". That's how Belgian Defense Minister Steven Vandeput has described the French offer as a thorough partnership between France and Belgium for the replacement of the Belgian F-16s who will reach the end of their life beginning in 2023. Dassault and its partners thus promise an offset of 100% of the purchase price, which amounts to about 20 billion euros over 20 years and more than 5,000 high-tech jobs in case Belgium chooses the Rafale.

And France to emphasize that the non-compliance with the tender procedure set up by Belgium is justified by the fact that France and Dassault actually intend to offer more economic compensation to Belgian industry than possible within the framework established by the Belgian Government. Arguments to which Charles Michel, Prime Minister, close to Emmanuel Macron and defender of a Belgian industry (mainly French-speaking) who would be the first beneficiary of an agreement with France, is very sensitive. All the opposite of his defense minister, who is from the Flemish nationalist party and is as much legalistic as Atlanticist.


They aren't going to let themselves get "India-ed"
Choose Crews
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post07 Jan 2018, 16:33

Spaz,

Thank you for all the info here. I found that issue with the F-16C cockpit on the cover (has the 16pg Rafale supplement). That's from December 2000. I think i'm going to email a few ebay sellers and see if they can do anything.

All I remember is that I was shocked on just how bad the US fighters performed (F-14D took a VERY bad beating, F-18C faired somewhat better, but Rafale M was superior).


Thanks again for the effort.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: zero-one and 17 guests