F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1524
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 11:27

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


That link that YOU gave doesn't prove anything!
That link is an edited video with some different and totally unrelated footage!

Moreover, even if that video was the real deal (which again I doubt), was the Rafale in a (shallow) diving when it attained Mach 1.7?
You know that an aircraft in a dive (even if shallow) accelerates and thus gains speed faster than flying in a straight line (you know, that "thing" called the Laws of Physics which revolves around gravity)?

Besides and again even if that video was the real deal (which again I doubt) it used the "Supersonic tanks" which carries much less fuel (1250L) than the "more regular" external fuel tanks (2000L).
Offline

vanshilar

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 394
  • Joined: 26 Aug 2015, 11:23

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 11:56

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.


That's funny, yet an article dated April 19 says:

"For the past week, U.S. Air Force F-22 Raptor and F-35A Lightning II pilots have flown combat training missions with Royal air force Typhoon Eurofighter and French air force Dassault Rafale pilots to develop tactics, techniques and procedures to defeat adversaries around the world."

http://www.acc.af.mil/News/Article-Disp ... abilities/

It doesn't say they flew against each other, but they were clearly there during the first week (it even includes a video of an F-35 landing on April 16).
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 13:34

I need to remind Mr. cavok 3 things:

1) T/W ratio has noting to do with supercuise. A lot of aircraft with low T/W ratio could super cuise pretty well (i.e. SR71, Mig-25/31, concord airliner...).

2) Flying fast could not prove the aircraft's T/W ratio, becasue T/W ratio has almost nothing to do with aircraft's top speed.

Go check F-16's flight manul. At gross weight 24000 lb, the top speed is Mach 2.05. Guess what it becomes at 28000lb? Still Mach 2.05.

3) T/W is not everything. F-35 has a solid (not best) T/W ratio, but it could out-accelerate a clean Su-27/35 at subsonic, because it is HIGHLY efficient in aerodynamics:
http://www.dept.aoe.vt.edu/~mason/Mason ... ownS03.pdf
This is CFD analysis of X-35 but the result is much applicable to F-35. Take a look at its L/D ratio and drag polar, you can compare it against Mig-29's published aerodynamic coefficients (from Mig-29 aerodynamic manual), F-35 is superior in most aspects.

With a high T/W ratio and a high L/D ratio, you can imagine what the performance would be once the maneuver restrictions are removed.
Offline

cavok

Banned

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

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 15:12

1) T/W ratio has noting to do with supercuise. A lot of aircraft with low T/W ratio could super cuise pretty well (i.e. SR71, Mig-25/31, concord airliner...).


exactly! and those are very efficient aircrafts.(well ahem... Are you sure Mig 25 is a supercruiser?). F-35 has a huge thrust and cannot. Guess why? It is NOT intended to do so. As it is NOT intended to be an interceptor.

T/W is not everything. F-35 has a solid (not best) T/W ratio, but it could out-accelerate a clean Su-27/35 at subsonic, because it is HIGHLY efficient in aerodynamics:


There is no clue about that. The chosen 1.44 coefficient is purely arbitrary and do not reflect the efficiency of different engines at different pressures. maths are ok, but too many approximations in prerequisites.

This is CFD analysis of X-35 but the result is much applicable to F-35

No. And the analysis is made with which hard data? btw eloise where do your plane profiles come from? Rafale wings aren't canted down (but slightly twisted) neither canards are canted up (wiki image)

me spamming BS

Yes, and i'm positive. There were no confrontation between F-35 and Rafale or EF. First days were devoted to some BFM (the usual familiarization) and 5g limited F-35 did not participate (i do not know why they had such a limitation, but they did).
And there were all the time blue (the three of them). That is exactly the aim of Atlantic Trident exercises. You should understand easily checking what are the trilateral strategic initiatve goals.
A F-35 can perectly arrive the 16 to Langley without participating that very day to exercises.

There are numerous articles bout this exercise. Citing the shortest one which is probably the only one NOT specifying that F-35 were always working in coalition will not change that.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 815
  • Joined: 10 Feb 2014, 02:46

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 15:18

For those interested in the weights I used (Hornetfinn), I didn't do empty weight + 1/4 fuel I did loaded wieght minus 3/4 of fuel load. I show the fuel fractions so yes at 1/4 fuel the vast majority of 4 gen aircraft are at 10% fuel fraction the F-35 (and Su-35) are 13% but both aircraft at 37% at loaded weight. If you minus fuel load from empty weights you will find the american jets always have moe weight on top of empty weight, idk what it all is but it will give them a slight disadvantage in t/w. The bottom number is the F-35 at the 10% fuel fraction.
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5666
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 16:11

cavok wrote:
1) T/W ratio has noting to do with supercuise. A lot of aircraft with low T/W ratio could super cuise pretty well (i.e. SR71, Mig-25/31, concord airliner...).


exactly! and those are very efficient aircrafts.(well ahem... Are you sure Mig 25 is a supercruiser?). F-35 has a huge thrust and cannot. Guess why? It is NOT intended to do so. As it is NOT intended to be an interceptor.
.


When was the last time the West built an aircraft "intended to be an interceptor"???

How many pages are we into this bull crap? 4 or 5? Thats Troll level "expert" there folks

Cavoks claims are absolutely false and clearly demonstrated by the many air forces that are buying exclusively F-35 have no problems using it for any air to air role.
Last edited by XanderCrews on 12 Oct 2017, 16:35, edited 1 time in total.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5666
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 16:17

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

Image


Classic Cavok!!

F-35 has "huge" frontal surface= F-35 and Rafale have same frontal surface

F-35 cant do "air policing" because it can only do Mach 1.6! = Rafale is operationally limited to same speed Mach 1.6


Can't wait to tell us The F-35 sucks because its made in France, unlike the Rafale :D

cavok wrote:Yes, and i'm positive.



And you've been so accurate so far!


Image
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5666
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 16:23

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


That link that YOU gave doesn't prove anything!
That link is an edited video with some different and totally unrelated footage!

Moreover, even if that video was the real deal (which again I doubt), was the Rafale in a (shallow) diving when it attained Mach 1.7?
You know that an aircraft in a dive (even if shallow) accelerates and thus gains speed faster than flying in a straight line (you know, that "thing" called the Laws of Physics which revolves around gravity)?

Besides and again even if that video was the real deal (which again I doubt) it used the "Supersonic tanks" which carries much less fuel (1250L) than the "more regular" external fuel tanks (2000L).



Yep!! Its like hes allergic to credibility.

Doesn't even know what air policing entails, but he sure knows the F-35 can't do it! because its only as fast as a Rafale
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 5666
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 16:38

cavok wrote:. See above (Majumdar quote) how long it takes for a F-35B to accelerate?


LOL wow. If you knew anything about aviation you would understand that quote, but you don't so instead you try to use it to prove something.
Choose Crews
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1765
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 16:43

XanderCrews wrote:
cavok wrote:. See above (Majumdar quote) how long it takes for a F-35B to accelerate?


LOL wow. If you knew anything about aviation you would understand that quote, but you don't so instead you try to use it to prove something.


Quoting Majumdar to try to prove / win an argument about aircraft performance... :doh:
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 16:53

" but frontal surface is huge."


.....The reason why the F-35 and F-22 have a rather boxy (or, yes, i'll dare to say it "large") frontal surface is because of the NEEDED area for the weapons bays! :doh:


Compare the drag of a F-35 (carrying weapons internally) to a Rafale (carrying weapons externally, (the only way it can)) ...see the difference. The F-35 will generally have less drag.



A clean Rafale is only good for airshows. :D
Offline

cavok

Banned

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

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 17:04

steve2267 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
cavok wrote:. See above (Majumdar quote) how long it takes for a F-35B to accelerate?


LOL wow. If you knew anything about aviation you would understand that quote, but you don't so instead you try to use it to prove something.


Quoting Majumdar to try to prove / win an argument about aircraft performance... :doh:


Still better than quoting xander demonstrating frontal surface of planes using wiki image... DAve qute someone, instead of inventing hazy theories based on few mistypes or high school level "analysis" of aerodynamics or RCS...

F-35 cant do "air policing" because it can only do Mach 1.6! = Rafale is operationally limited to same speed Mach 1.6


Again i did not say that. i said that its "fat" shapes prevent him from being good at air policing or interception. It is a choice made by design, but a fact. Oh and AdA Rafale aren't limited to mach 1.6...

Btw, will not answer to a negligible quantity i chose to ignore. I do not know how some who do not speak french do understand french documentaries than natives. Really funny (exactly as to be astonished that a journalistic movie is edited... :doh: )

I'm just astonished i've not been shouted at as heretic yet, simply because i say F-35 is not the best at "everything"
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 17:08

cavok wrote:There is no clue about that. The chosen 1.44 coefficient is purely arbitrary and do not reflect the efficiency of different engines at different pressures. maths are ok, but too many approximations in prerequisites.


The factor 1.44 is proven mathematically. All assumptions are very accurate approximation. Guess what, in another forum the auther used this theory to verify F-15E's acceleration, and it matches perfectly (200+% vs 217% in acceleration/altitude conversion)

Admit it, F-35's subsonic acceleration and energy retention is among the world's best.
Last edited by gta4 on 12 Oct 2017, 17:14, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 726
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 17:12

We are comparing speed, and Mach number is not speed, right?
What is the speed of F-35 on official data sheet? 1930 km/h.
And what is the Rafale that reached M2 in flight test?
It was an experimental Rafale which is 1000 kg lighter than the mass production version! (9000 kg vs 10000kg) :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 509
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post12 Oct 2017, 17:16

Yet according to you, the Rafale is the best at everything. So can you tell me what mission the Rafale is NOT the best at? And what jet is superior to it? Because by your estimations you are just as guilty of what you accuse others here of-
Last edited by f-16adf on 12 Oct 2017, 17:47, edited 1 time in total.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests