F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5601
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 05:08

steve2267 wrote:Damn! Now we learn the French navy can conduct NEITHER air-to-air intercepts NOR air policing missions! :doh:


Man that's embarrassing. And the plan is to have nothing but Rafale in France eventually...


Can they outsource their air policing to the Germans? I can site past precedent
Choose Crews
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 719
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 05:48

It would be bearable for UK or germany to send their eurocanards, but god forbid them sending the f-35 when they get them. we know they aren't fast enough.
we are going back years on the rafale m1.6 restriction. I've got egg timers disease and forget after 2 minutes. I thought it was fleet wide, because of engines at the time? They were talking of an upgrade. So it is still in place and is it only navy now?

okay. I googled the air force still has them at 1.8, so it would be interesting to see how the limitaion was put in and taken off the air force
http://www.defense.gouv.fr/air/technolo ... sse/chasse
Aussie fanboy
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2458
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 06:59

RAF also says that EF Typhoon has top speed of Mach 1.8

https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.cfm
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 719
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 08:52

personally I prefer the Rafale vs F-22 threads. They were all the rage at one point in time. They took over from the rafale vs f-15/16/18 jets.

Let's face it the rafale is a design from the 80's and there has been several generations of fan boys during the last 30 years."The Rafale A demonstrator 4 July 1986 and the program was launched on 26 January 1988: the single-seater Rafale C flew on 19 May 1991"

But a LER of 18-0 doesn't seem too bad for the rafale vs f-35.

Image
Last edited by optimist on 12 Oct 2017, 09:22, edited 3 times in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2458
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 09:04

geforcerfx wrote:Here you go
Fighters 1-4 fuel t-w.jpg


Rafale is in the pack, typhhoon win's hands down and the F-35 and F-22 have there usual disadvantages (sensors built in, weapons bays), though the F-35 and Su-35 win fuel fraction for sure.


I think those numbers are a bit off. EF Typhoon and Rafale and SH seem to be fairly correct, but the weight for F-35A and F-22 seem to be quite a bit higher than official numbers. EJ200 manufacturers (RR and MTU) give it slightly lower thrust (20,000lbs) though which would give T/W of about 1.48 but still very impressive. LM figures for F-22 give it weight of about 47,850lbs (with 1/4th fuel) which brings the T/W to 1.46 with thrust of 35,000lbs per engine which might well be on a low side. Anyway F-22 and EF Typhoon definitely have the best T/W out of all those aircraft.

I get F-35A weight with 1/4 fuel to be about 33,600lbs (empty weight of 29,000 lbs as per DOT&E report) and thus T/W is about 1.28. With FF of 0.1 it gets to 1.34, being equal to Rafale. So EF Typhoon has about 10 percent higher T/W ratio to Rafale and F-35A in light configurations.

Of course if we top the tanks in F-35A, others need several large EFTs to come even close in range/endurance and will have serious performance reductionsa.
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 09:37

optimist wrote:personally I prefer the Rafale vs F-22 threads. They were all the rage at one point in time. They took over from the rafale vs f-15/16/18 jets.

Let's face it the rafale is a design from the 80's and there has been several generations of fan boys during the last 30 years."The Rafale A demonstrator 4 July 1986 and the program was launched on 26 January 1988: the single-seater Rafale C flew on 19 May 1991"

But a LER of 18-0 doesn't seem too bad for the rafale vs f-35.

Image


*hilarious article. (i) F-35were NOT present during 1st week of exercise (when took place BFM "heat up"). (ii) F-35 were never pitted against EF or Rafale. Easy to check, there are several articles about Trilat exercise.
Please think a little before spamming such BS.
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 09:43

steve2267 wrote:Damn! Now we learn the French navy can conduct NEITHER air-to-air intercepts NOR air policing missions! :doh:


Pretty stupid comment. I did not say that due to top speed being mach 1.6, but due to extremely poor transsonic and supersonic performances. See above (Majumdar quote) how long it takes for a F-35B to accelerate?
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 09:46

hornetfinn wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:Here you go
Fighters 1-4 fuel t-w.jpg


Rafale is in the pack, typhhoon win's hands down and the F-35 and F-22 have there usual disadvantages (sensors built in, weapons bays), though the F-35 and Su-35 win fuel fraction for sure.


I think those numbers are a bit off. EF Typhoon and Rafale and SH seem to be fairly correct, but the weight for F-35A and F-22 seem to be quite a bit higher than official numbers. EJ200 manufacturers (RR and MTU) give it slightly lower thrust (20,000lbs) though which would give T/W of about 1.48 but still very impressive. LM figures for F-22 give it weight of about 47,850lbs (with 1/4th fuel) which brings the T/W to 1.46 with thrust of 35,000lbs per engine which might well be on a low side. Anyway F-22 and EF Typhoon definitely have the best T/W out of all those aircraft.

I get F-35A weight with 1/4 fuel to be about 33,600lbs (empty weight of 29,000 lbs as per DOT&E report) and thus T/W is about 1.28. With FF of 0.1 it gets to 1.34, being equal to Rafale. So EF Typhoon has about 10 percent higher T/W ratio to Rafale and F-35A in light configurations.

Of course if we top the tanks in F-35A, others need several large EFTs to come even close in range/endurance and will have serious performance reductionsa.


Well, as Hallow gave you a link, a Rafale with 3 drop tanks can reach Mach 1.7. And it is not relevant for aitr policing missions. The fact that a plane (F-35) with such T/W ratio is unable to properly supercruise should alert you about its aerodynamics (while others do easily)? (although it is also due to engine conception)
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 10:07

cavok wrote:*hilarious article. (i) F-35were NOT present during 1st week of exercise (when took place BFM "heat up")

The article talking about BVR combat, which happened on the second and third week. It is likely that the author mistakenly wrote April 12 - 18 instead of the correct dates of Atlantic Trident (April 12 - 28).
The first week focused on basic fighter maneuvers, the second on defensive counter air operations, and the third on offensive counter air.


cavok wrote:F-35 were never pitted against EF or Rafale.

we know that F-35 and Eurocanard were in the same side for offensive counter air, but i wouldn't be so sure about defensive counter air on second week
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 10:18

cavok wrote:Well, as Hallow gave you a link, a Rafale with 3 drop tanks can reach Mach 1.7

F-16 with 3 tanks and CFTs can do that too, but what are their accelerations in that situation?

cavok wrote:And it is not relevant for aitr policing missions. The fact that a plane (F-35) with such T/W ratio is unable to properly supercruise should alert you about its aerodynamics (while others do easily)? (although it is also due to engine conception)

While i agree that F-35 design isn't focused on supersonic I should remind you that F-15, F-16, Su-27, Mig-29/35, Gripen NG, Mig-31 can't supercruise. Doesn't mean their aerodynamic is bad, engine and inlet design are important.
Offline
User avatar

mas

Banned

  • Posts: 344
  • Joined: 31 Aug 2017, 13:16

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 10:33

hornetfinn wrote:RAF also says that EF Typhoon has top speed of Mach 1.8

https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.cfm


Strange, the manufacturer claims Mach 2 ...

https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft#airframe

The Luftwaffe claim Mach 2.35 ...

http://tinyurl.com/y8hdou3w
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 11:00

we know that F-35 and Eurocanard were in the same side for offensive counter air, but i wouldn't be so sure about defensive counter air on second week


We know they were purposedly NOT pitted against EF and Rafale. (Many reports...). And why is it likely the author mistakenly wrote a wrong date?

Strange, the manufacturer claims Mach 2 ...

again, operational speed vs max speed.

While i agree that F-35 design isn't focused on supersonic I should remind you that F-15, F-16, Su-27, Mig-29/35, Gripen NG, Mig-31 can't supercruise. Doesn't mean their aerodynamic is bad, engine and inlet design are important.


My point. exactly. Aerodynamic may not be bad, but frontal surface is huge.
Offline

barrelnut

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 50
  • Joined: 06 Mar 2015, 00:05

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 11:09

hornetfinn wrote:
geforcerfx wrote:Here you go
Fighters 1-4 fuel t-w.jpg


Rafale is in the pack, typhhoon win's hands down and the F-35 and F-22 have there usual disadvantages (sensors built in, weapons bays), though the F-35 and Su-35 win fuel fraction for sure.


I think those numbers are a bit off. EF Typhoon and Rafale and SH seem to be fairly correct, but the weight for F-35A and F-22 seem to be quite a bit higher than official numbers. EJ200 manufacturers (RR and MTU) give it slightly lower thrust (20,000lbs) though which would give T/W of about 1.48 but still very impressive. LM figures for F-22 give it weight of about 47,850lbs (with 1/4th fuel) which brings the T/W to 1.46 with thrust of 35,000lbs per engine which might well be on a low side. Anyway F-22 and EF Typhoon definitely have the best T/W out of all those aircraft.

I get F-35A weight with 1/4 fuel to be about 33,600lbs (empty weight of 29,000 lbs as per DOT&E report) and thus T/W is about 1.28. With FF of 0.1 it gets to 1.34, being equal to Rafale. So EF Typhoon has about 10 percent higher T/W ratio to Rafale and F-35A in light configurations.

Of course if we top the tanks in F-35A, others need several large EFTs to come even close in range/endurance and will have serious performance reductionsa.


I once calculated the T/W ratios on different fighter planes in Excel using similar fuel loads compared ht the empty weights using the Gripen as a base for calculations. I tried to use as accurate data as possible.

Like this:

Gripen NG: Empty Weight 8000 kg, Fuel load 3400 kg

F-35A: Empty Weight 13200 kg (which is 65% greater than that of Gripen), Fuel load 5610 kg (again 65% greater than that of Gripen)

After calculations I found that the F-35A is better than the Gripen (both C and E), Super Hornet, Su-30 etc. And if you increased the thrust of the F135 by 15% (which is what P&W was promising at that time for future upgrades) it would (without any weight increases) make the F-35A the top dog beating Typhoon and F-22 etc. in T/W ratio.

Also naturally, using similar weapon loads on all planes will affect lighter planes more, i.e. adding 1000 kg of A2A missiles and pylons will decrease the T/W ratio of the Gripen more than it will decrease the T/W ratio of the F-35A.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1444
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 11:17

cavok wrote:And why is it likely the author mistakenly wrote a wrong date

12-18 instead of 12-28, it would be a big coincident if it wasn't
On the other note, i can't find the report that F-35 wasn't there in first week, even though i vaguely remember reading about it on some forum


cavok wrote:My point. exactly. Aerodynamic may not be bad, but frontal surface is huge.

Not as huge as a Mig-31, Su-27 or F-15. Its frontal surface is around the size of Mig-29 if i recall correctly.
F-35 frontal cross section vs some aircraft in clean configuration.
Capture.PNG

Capture2.PNG

Capture3.PNG
Last edited by eloise on 12 Oct 2017, 11:28, edited 2 times in total.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 719
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 11:25

cavok wrote:*hilarious article. (i) F-35were NOT present during 1st week of exercise (when took place BFM "heat up"). (ii) F-35 were never pitted against EF or Rafale. Easy to check, there are several articles about Trilat exercise.
Please think a little before spamming such BS.


me spamming BS :doh: ... as I said there has been several generations on rafale fan boys over the last 30 years, your name is a new one. Who can remember Bluewings, now there was a persistent little fanboy. You have a ways to go to reach his status.
sometimes I miss the good old days
https://www.strategypage.com/militaryfo ... ofcomments
Last edited by optimist on 12 Oct 2017, 11:39, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: steve2267 and 5 guests