F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2540
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 10:12

loke wrote:Danish competition was probably quite fair although there were some strange things in there:

1. For some reason they insisted on SH Fs only; whereas for Typhoon and F-35 they had only on-seaters of course -- this increased the SH costs compared to if they had chosen the E model (it would also mean more operators of course).

2. For some reason they did not accept the Boeing numbers for airframe life, but used the numbers that the USN are using on their carriers -- due to shorter estimated life they concluded that they would need more SH than Typhoon or F-35. This is a bit odd since Denmark does not operate any aircraft carrier, and operating the SH from land will allow them to operate the SH for more hours, due to much less strain and less corrosion on the airframe.

3. Eurofighter complained about some other things, cannot remember much of their complaints but I think they asked why the Danes used the latest targeting (?) pod for the F-16 in their comparison, but not for the Typhoon.

I find the two first points to be a bit odd I must admit. On the other hand those issues will mainly affect the cost of operating the SH, and the SH would probably in any case lose vs the F-35 on cost, even with fewer and cheaper airframes.


1. I think this is because F-model is most numerous Super Hornet and it also has operational advantages as it has been designed for WSO and combat duties. Australia for example uses F-model only. In Eurofighter Typhoon the two seater is designed for pilot training and not for WSO. So this point is not strange at all. F-model meant slightly higher costs, but also better operational capabilties especially in air-to-ground missions which comprised most of the missions in Danish eval.

2. Like others have said, land based aircraft can actually see more stressful life than carrier based ones. Besides, they used 6,000 hours for EF Typhoon and SH and 8,000 hours for F-35. These are the numbers the manufacturers have stated for their aircraft. If 6,000 hour aircraft like Super Hornet would last 9,500 hours like stated by Boeing, then F-35 would last over 12,500 hours. So nothing would really change.

3. Have not heard or seen such claims. Maybe you can find a reference to this as I can't.
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 886
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 10:20

Looks a little like "analytical conservativeness" fortuitously geared itself to meet the declared preferred parallel withdrawal date's flight hour needs, to perfection ... re Euchre, cut the deck. ;-)
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

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

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 12:03

(i) about Danish evolution (ex danish officer testimony to austarlian senate)
"We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. Inthe afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no waygive a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a performance than those who we were g iven permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.
We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command."


About Rafale weight and MTOW (will prevent some to post wrong data, antiquated schemes etc.)

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/defense/rafale/caracteristiques-et-performances/
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21726
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 12:23

'hornetfinn' will know more about this - I'm just linking these two posts to the unnamed DANISH above:

My question: is the quote from retired Danish Lt. Colonel Anker Steen Sørensen? to Australian Senate Inquiry about simulator work some 12 years ago? - he now represents the DAFFY RAFFY Typhoid EuroTrash Fiter?

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=316187&hilit=Danish#p316187
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=316208&hilit=Danish#p316208
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2540
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 12:33

ricnunes wrote:
swiss wrote:
Active electronic scanning makes it possible to switch radar modes quickly, thereby enabling operational functions to run simultaneously



Well, switching radar modes quickly is not the same thing as using modes simultaneously!
And what are those "simultaneous operational functions"?? From what I gather these could even be "basic stuff" (note the quotes) such as using a radar scan mode (such as TWS) together with IFF.

Anyway and please don't get me wrong, but this is hardly an evidence which proves the use of simultaneous use of air-to-air and air-to-ground radar modes.


To be fair, all current fighter AESA radars use interleaving (switching modes) to achieve simultaneous operation. When the radar switches between modes tens or hundreds of times a second, it practically achieves simultaneous operation with several modes. AN/APG-79 for example use interleaving of different modes:
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa

With its active electronic beam scanning — which allows the radar beam to be steered at nearly the speed of light — the APG-79 optimizes situational awareness and provides superior air-to-air and air-to-surface capability. The agile beam enables the multimode radar to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously.


It's possible to use diffent modes truly simultaneously when producing several different radar beams simultaneously, but there might not be much of an advantage there as significantly less modules would be used simultaneously for transmitting and receiving.

It's true that we don't know what modes can be run simultaneously with each radar and if there are any real restrictions. I would not be surprised if AN/APG-79 and RBE2 AESA were quite comparable in this area and AN/APG-81 was clearly better than the two (because of having most advanced sensor fusion system).
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2540
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 13:10

spazsinbad wrote:'hornetfinn' will know more about this - I'm just linking these two posts to the unnamed DANISH above:

My question: is the quote from retired Danish Lt. Colonel Anker Steen Sørensen? to Australian Senate Inquiry about simulator work some 12 years ago? - he now represents the DAFFY RAFFY Typhoid EuroTrash Fiter?

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=316187&hilit=Danish#p316187
&
viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=316208&hilit=Danish#p316208


Good catch, I was just wondering where I've seen that before... :)

So it was definitely not part of Danish evaluation like monkeypilot claimed above. At best it was about 12 years before that evaluation and there are some strange claims in that original text. I don't think there even was suitable simulator in existence at the time to do what was claimed.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1534
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 13:24

optimist wrote:It's the same with all the DOT&E reports, context is everything. There is a reason why the mission results are similar. Half the time, the people who review the info provided to them, don't know what it means and go off on a tangent, climbing the wrong tree. The DOT&E reports on the f-35 are another example of being corrected after the fact. They really don't understand what the JPO has given them. They don't do any of their own data.


Precisely!
The DOT&E reports are usually blown out of proportion when it comes to criticism and like you said the F-35 is a perfect example of this.
Another example is another SH criticism by the DOT&E which found during the SH development that the pylons suffered from vibrations which would severely limit the lifetime of any weapons carried on the pylons (and not expended). The DOT&E report on this subject stated that it would take years to solve this problem, however this same problem was solved in a couple of months.

Moreover and about the APG-79 (SH Radar). Like it was mentioned in one of the links previously posted, SH pilots have "expressed delight" regarding the APG-79.
My interpretation of the English language is that "delight" is not something "disappointing/mediocre", neither "average" or slightly better than the previous radar (APG-73) and even, neither "simply good" but instead it's something which is "EXCELLENT".
So don't believe that something that the actual pilots say is "excellent" (using the word "delight") to match all that criticism from DOT&E - And knowing the (mediocre) record of DOT&E, I prefer to take the pilot's words as granted.
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 847
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 14:18

monkeypilot wrote:(i) about Danish evolution (ex danish officer testimony to austarlian senate)
"We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. Inthe afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no waygive a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a performance than those who we were g iven permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.
We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command."


About Rafale weight and MTOW (will prevent some to post wrong data, antiquated schemes etc.)

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/defense/rafale/caracteristiques-et-performances/


In addition to what Spazinbad and Hornetfinn noted...... simulations dingellations! There is something much better than these ye olde simulations. It’s called RED FLAG! And the F35 did pretty well in the air to air component of all Red Flag exercises operational F35 squadrons (both USAF and USMC) participated in.....the most recent result at this point in time.....USAF F35As achieving a kill-ratio of 20:1! And the USAF Aggressors really brought their A game to the exercise when 5th generation platforms such as the F35 were involved in Red Flag....no artificial restriction of Aggressor/Red Force tactics here!
Offline

michaelemouse

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 10:29

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 14:46

hornetfinn wrote:To be fair, all current fighter AESA radars use interleaving (switching modes) to achieve simultaneous operation. When the radar switches between modes tens or hundreds of times a second, it practically achieves simultaneous operation with several modes. AN/APG-79 for example use interleaving of different modes:
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa


It's possible to use diffent modes truly simultaneously when producing several different radar beams simultaneously, but there might not be much of an advantage there as significantly less modules would be used simultaneously for transmitting and receiving.

It's true that we don't know what modes can be run simultaneously with each radar and if there are any real restrictions. I would not be surprised if AN/APG-79 and RBE2 AESA were quite comparable in this area and AN/APG-81 was clearly better than the two (because of having most advanced sensor fusion system).



Couldn't a PESA achieve that same kind of practically simultaneous operation by switching as often? I keep hearing simultaneous operation in different modes as an AESA advantage but never as a PESA one.

If a PESA can switch modes as often, then do the AESA's advantages over the PESA all stem from spreading emissions over many frequencies (in a truly simultaneous way this time)?
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3639
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 15:30

michaelemouse wrote:Couldn't a PESA achieve that same kind of practically simultaneous operation by switching as often? I keep hearing simultaneous operation in different modes as an AESA advantage but never as a PESA one.

If a PESA can switch modes as often, then do the AESA's advantages over the PESA all stem from spreading emissions over many frequencies (in a truly simultaneous way this time)?

No.

A PESA is a single transmitter with hundreds of modules used to steer the beam. An AESA is hundreds of transmitters that work together as needed. A PESA has to "switch" between air and ground, and AESA can have part of the antenna making a SAR map while another part looks for moving ground targets while another part tracks the identified enemy aircraft while another part continues to scan the sky all at the same time. It can do all of this because of the greatly improved gain for improved signal to noise ratios which allows it to have better range with less power emitted. The back end software also makes a huge difference but we are speaking of the antenna portion right now.
"Spurts"

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

michaelemouse

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 52
  • Joined: 12 Sep 2017, 10:29

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 16:22

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:No.

A PESA is a single transmitter with hundreds of modules used to steer the beam. An AESA is hundreds of transmitters that work together as needed. A PESA has to "switch" between air and ground, and AESA can have part of the antenna making a SAR map while another part looks for moving ground targets while another part tracks the identified enemy aircraft while another part continues to scan the sky all at the same time. It can do all of this because of the greatly improved gain for improved signal to noise ratios which allows it to have better range with less power emitted. The back end software also makes a huge difference but we are speaking of the antenna portion right now.


According to what was said upthread by Finn, current fighter AESAs also have to switch between air, ground, SAR etc, they just do it so fast that it's practically simultaneous. That leaves me wondering why a PESA couldn't switch as fast. Are you saying that this is inaccurate and that current fighter AESAs can be truly simultaneous, not relying on very fast switching?


Improved gain for improved SNR: Does this come from being an AESA specifically or simply from having lower noise receivers/amplifiers (and better processing)s? If it comes from lower noise receivers/amplifiers, you could give those to a PESA and get the improved SNR.

I would have thought that transmitting over several frequencies at the same time would decrease the SNR since you pick up the noise from every frequency you transmit on. Having 100s of frequencies/transmitter modules as opposed to 1 improves the SNR?
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1534
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 16:49

hornetfinn wrote:To be fair, all current fighter AESA radars use interleaving (switching modes) to achieve simultaneous operation. When the radar switches between modes tens or hundreds of times a second, it practically achieves simultaneous operation with several modes. AN/APG-79 for example use interleaving of different modes:
https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa

With its active electronic beam scanning — which allows the radar beam to be steered at nearly the speed of light — the APG-79 optimizes situational awareness and provides superior air-to-air and air-to-surface capability. The agile beam enables the multimode radar to interleave in near-real time, so that pilot and crew can use both modes simultaneously.



Ok, I understand that. Thanks for the heads up.


hornetfinn wrote:It's possible to use diffent modes truly simultaneously when producing several different radar beams simultaneously, but there might not be much of an advantage there as significantly less modules would be used simultaneously for transmitting and receiving.

It's true that we don't know what modes can be run simultaneously with each radar and if there are any real restrictions. I would not be surprised if AN/APG-79 and RBE2 AESA were quite comparable in this area and AN/APG-81 was clearly better than the two (because of having most advanced sensor fusion system).


That's more what I had in mind regarding my previous posts about the AESA/simultaneous modes subject.

I don't know if you agree with me or not, but I would also add that Software also plays a major part in the capability of an AESA radar to perform simultaneous modes since in order for that you'll need to reprogram each or groups of TR modules in order to perform those interleaved/"simultaneous" modes/operations, a task usually done via Software I imagine.
I would also say, add or argue that in order to run "simultaneous" modes in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes that a "better" or more advanced Software is needed compared with a Software that allows an AESA radar to run "simultaneous" modes but all of them exclusively in air-to-air (for example RWS+TWS+IFF) or exclusively in Air-to-Ground (for example SAR+GMT).
Do you concur with this?

And if yes, my point is: How is the Rafale software in this regard?
We know that the SH APG-79 AESA Radar performs both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes "simultaneously" with a 100% or if some prefer with a 99.999% sure/confidence. The same applies to the F-35. Can we say the same regarding the Rafale? (or at least with the same level of certainty/confidence?)

Also and as you said which I fully agree and makes all sense, the number of TR modules or a lower number of TR modules will limit an AESA radar usefulness when using both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes "simultaneously".
From what I've read the RBE2 AA radar has something like 800-odd TR modules while the APG-79 has something like 1300-odd TR modules which IMO seems to be quite a big difference I must say.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1534
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 17:00

michaelemouse wrote:According to what was said upthread by Finn, current fighter AESAs also have to switch between air, ground, SAR etc, they just do it so fast that it's practically simultaneous. That leaves me wondering why a PESA couldn't switch as fast. Are you saying that this is inaccurate and that current fighter AESAs can be truly simultaneous, not relying on very fast switching?


My interpretation is the following:
An AESA radar is composed by T-R modules which are programmable and thus can be programmed to perform different roles (scanning in 'A' mode with 'X' Frequency, scanning in 'B' mode with 'Y' frequency, perform jamming in 'Z' frequency and so on).
Also and technically each T-R module can or could be programmed individually or in groups so that you can have a group of T-R modules doing one task while another group of T-R modules would do another completely different task and so on... This allows an AESA radar to actually perform some of the different tasks (or different kinds of scans if you prefer) in actual real time.

Regarding PESA radars, their modules if I'm not mistaken are merely a set of miniaturized antennas so compared to a "traditional" MSA radar which has a single antenna dish, the PESA radar has several (and smaller) antennas. But all they do is to send signals sent by the radar and receive those same signals. They cannot be re-programmed to perform different tasks. That's at least my interpretation of PESA radars.
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 55
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 17:50

For PESA, It can't do simultaneous radar modes because of its hardware. For AESA, It can't do simultaneous radar modes because of software. The hardware by its nature can do simultaneous radar modes. PESA is hardware limited and the AESA is software limited. Of course there are con on doing something simultaneously vs switching.
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

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

Unread post13 Mar 2018, 20:07

mk82 wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:(i) about Danish evolution (ex danish officer testimony to austarlian senate)
"We also simulated Joint Strike Fighter against Russian fighter aircraft where we flew two against two.
In the forenoon I and the Danish test pilot was flying Joint Strike Fighters against two Russian fighters. Inthe afternoon we swapped, so we flew Russian fighter aircraft against the Joint Strike Fighter.
In the afternoon the first thing the test pilot and I noticed was that the Russian fighters was not loaded with the best air-to-air missiles as the Russians have in real life. We therefore asked about getting some better. It was denied us. We two pilots complained but it was not changed.
My test pilot and I decided in our simulated Russian combat aircraft to fly “line abreast”, but with 25 nautical miles distance. Then at least one of us could with radar look into the side of the Joint Strike Fighter and thus view it at long distance. The one who “saw” the Joint Strike Fighter could then link the radar image to the other. Then missiles could be fired at long distance at the Joint Strike Fighter.
It was also denied us, although we protested this incomprehensible disposition.
It was now quite clear to us that with the directives and emotional limitations simulations would in no waygive a true and fair view of anything. On the other hand, it would show that the Joint Strike Fighter was a good air defense fighter, which in no way can be inferred from the simulations. We spoke loudly and clearly that this way was manipulating with the Joint Strike Fighter air defence capability.
Because of these circumstances, I would not let the Danish Air Force be included as part of the totally misleading/non-transparent results, which alone would show Joint Strike Fighters superiority in the air defence role, which it would not have been against an opponent with missiles with a performance than those who we were g iven permission to. Also there was given major obstacles in the way flying tactically against the Joint Strike Fighter.
We therefore left simulations, returned to Denmark and complained to the Chief of Staff Tactical Air Command and technical manager Air Material Command."


About Rafale weight and MTOW (will prevent some to post wrong data, antiquated schemes etc.)

https://www.dassault-aviation.com/fr/defense/rafale/caracteristiques-et-performances/


In addition to what Spazinbad and Hornetfinn noted...... simulations dingellations! There is something much better than these ye olde simulations. It’s called RED FLAG! And the F35 did pretty well in the air to air component of all Red Flag exercises operational F35 squadrons (both USAF and USMC) participated in.....the most recent result at this point in time.....USAF F35As achieving a kill-ratio of 20:1! And the USAF Aggressors really brought their A game to the exercise when 5th generation platforms such as the F35 were involved in Red Flag....no artificial restriction of Aggressor/Red Force tactics here!


Wow 20:02 at red flag vs antiquated unsupported by awacs F-15 Great deal "A class" agressors? How many AESA amongst them? Let me laugh.?
What Spazsinbad and Hornetinn say is interesting things to build on. Speculating the uber efficiency of F-35 on a Red Flag (probably tailor designed, logical choice as immature plane and need to sell more, no pun intended) vs antiquated 15C is well. (except itf they had been AµESA upgraded). Atm,how many AESA equipped fighters did F-35 meet in exercise? (my bet is near 0, but i may be wrong).
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: citanon, dat_boi and 11 guests