F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 13:54
by Sagikor
Well? :)

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 16:03
by skrip00
F-35 by a very long shot.
1. Stealthy.
2. Agile.
3. HOBS and HMS.
4. Internal weapons carriage.
5. More internal fuel? (maybe more range as well).
6. DAS and integrated ECM systems.
7. AESA radar.
8. CTOL, CV, and STOVL.

Ummmm...

Out of the three Eurocanards, I think that one is the worst.

The better argument should be F/A-18E/F vs Rafale.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 16:28
by Purplehaze
It's not even fair to compare the two.....F-35

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 17:44
by toan
EF-2000 v.s RAFALE C

1. Dimensions:
# Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C
A. Length: 15.96 m / 15.27 m
B. Span: 10.95 m / 10.80 m
C. Height: 5.28 m / 5.34 m
D. Wing area: 50.00 m2 / 45.70 m2

2. Weights:
# Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C
A. Empty weight: 10,995~11,150 kg / 9,400~9,850 kg (*1)
B. Internal fuel: 4,996 kg / 4,700 kg (*2)
C. Max. ext. fuel: 4,000 liters / 9,375 liters
D. Max. ext. load: 7500~8,000 kg+ / 9,500 kg+ (*3)
E. Max. take-off weight: 23,500 kg / 24,500 kg (*4)
*1: EF-2000 is about 11~19% heavier than Rafale C.
*2: EF-2000's fuel is also about 6% more than Rafale C's.
*3: Rafale C's Max. ext. load can be 19~27% more than EF-2000's.
*4: Dassault may increase the MTOW of Rafale to 27,200 kg-class after 2010.

3. Flight Performance:
# Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C
A. Max. speed, high level: 2.0 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+ (*5)
B. Max. speed, low level: 1.15 Mach / 750 kts
C. Operating altitude: 65,000 fts / 55,000 fts+
F. Climb rate, sea level: > 315 m/sec / > 305 m/sec
G. Normal G-limit: -3.0~+9.0G / -3.2~+9.0 G
H. Max. upper G-limit: +12.0~+15.0 G / 11.0 G+
I. Normal FCS AoA limit: 33 degrees / 32 degrees (*6)
J. Wing-load: 297.0~300.0 kg/m2 / 281.2~291.0 kg/m2 (*7)
K. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 1.22~1.24 / 1.15~1.19 with A/B ( *8 )
L. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 0.81~0.83 / 0.77~0.79 with max. mil. (*9)
*5: The normal upper limit of Rafale's FCS for speed is 1.8 Mach.
*6: Once cancelling the normal restriction of FBWs, Rafale's AoA could reach more than 100 degrees. As for EF-2000, I've only heard the information that EF-2000 had performed the maneuver with the AoA > or = 40 degrees during the flight test.
*7 and *8: EJ-200 already has had the potential to increase 5.5~10% more A/B thrust, and 15% more Max. A/B thrust during the war time, while M88-2 hasn't declared such a capability up to now. Therefore, the difference of T/W ratio between EF-2000 and Rafale C may become much more significant during the war time.
*7~*9: The fighter's weight for air combat = empty weight + 50% internal fuel + MRAAM*6 + SRAAM*2 + pilot and gun shells.

4. Ferry range:
# Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C
A. Ferry range: 2,600 km / > 2,100 km (*10)
B. Ferry range: 3,700 km / 3,704 km+ (*11) (*12)

*10: clean fighter with internal fuel only.
*11: Ferry range of EF-2000 with two tanks --> 3,700 km
*12: Ferry range of Rafale C with four tank (6,600 L) + MICA*8 --> 3,704 km


5. Combat radius:
# EF-2000
A. Strike:650km (4 BVRAAM, 2WVRAAM, and 7,000Ib bombs, lo-lo-lo)
B. Strike: 1390Km (Basic loading for air-combat + LGB*3 + ARM*2 + pod*1, hi-lo-hi)
C. Air-combat: 750 nm (1389 km)
D. Air-combat: 100 nm (185 km), 3hrs CAP
E. Combat endurance: 2 h 15 min with six AAMs and external tanks, 280 km from the carrier.

# Rafale C:
A. 1,100 km with three tanks (4,300 L), four MICA AAMs, and twelve 1,000 Ib bombs.
B. 1,480 km with three tanks (6,000 L), four MICA AAMs, and four 500 Ib GBU-12 LGBs
C. 1,830 km with two CFTs (2,300 L), three tanks (5,700 L), two SCALP-EG and two MICA AAMs.
D. CAP: More than 2 hours (Rafale M with six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 185 km away from the carrier)

6. Others:
# Fighter: EF-2000 / Rafale C
A. Frontal RCS: 0.1~0.5 m2 / 0.1 to 0.3 m2 (*13)
B. Pylonst: 13 and 3 / 14 and 5, all and wet (*14)
C. Prices: 154 million USDs / 148.5 million USDs (*15)
D. Prices: 80.1 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs (*16)
E. Maintenance: 8 / 7 Man-hours per flight hour.

*13: Dassault declared the frontal RCS of Rafale is 1/10 of Mirage-2000 in 1998~1999.
*14: Wet pylon means the pylon that can carry and use the tank.
*15: The cost of the whole plan / the number of procured fighters.
*16: Fly-away costs of EF-2000 Tranch II for Austria AF during 2007~2009 and Rafale F3 for French governement during 2008~2012.

7. Engine:
  • Engine: EJ-200 turbofans / M88-2 turbofans
  • Weight: 990~1,035 kg / 897 kg
  • Thrust: 20,250~21,370 Ib / 16,840~17,000 Ib (A/B) (*17)
  • Thrust: 13,500~15,525 Ib / 11,240~11,250 Ib (Max. Mil.)
  • T/W ratio: 8.9~9.8 : 1 / 8.5~8.6 : 1
    # Compression ratio: 26 : 1 / 24.5 : 1
  • SFC: 1.66~1.73 / 1.80 (A/B)
  • SFC: 0.74~0.81 / 0.80 (A/B)
*17: Eurojet declared that with minor modification, the maximal A/B thrust of EJ-200 could reach 22,275 Ib class theoretically.

8. Radar:
  • Radar: CAPTOR radar / RBE-2 PESA radar
  • Detective range: 185 km+ / 130~148 km ( *18 )
  • Search angle: +/-70 degrees / +/-60 degrees (Horizontal)
  • Targets of TWS: 20 targets+ / 40 targets
  • Targets of engagment: 6~8 targets / 8 targets
*18: EADS and the UK pilot have declared or hinted that CAPTOR radar could "track" the MIG-29 (RCS = 5m2 class) at the distance of more than 161~185 km away, while Frenchman declared that RBE-2 has the similar detective range as RDY.

9. IRST:
  • IRST: PIRATE IRST / FSO IRST + TV + Laser range-finder
  • Detective range: 148 km+ / 130~148 km (Maximal range)
  • Search angle: +/-90 degs / +/-90 degs (IIR), +/-60 degs (TV)
  • Multi-targets of tracking: 200 targets / Unknown
  • Effective range for image identification : unknown / 55 km
  • Effective range for range measuring : - / 30~40 km (*19)
*19: FSO system has the laser range-finder for range measuring, while PIRATE IRST doesn't have it.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 17:49
by toan
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

French Air Force Enters New Era with First Rafale Squadron
(Source: Rafale International; issued July 3, 2006)

One of the more challenging aspects of Rafale operations is how to fully exploit its capabilities, and especially its range of passive sensors. Pilots, for example, can use its TV/thermal imaging observation system (dubbed Optronique Secteur Frontal, and similar in principle to infrared scan and track) to visually identify other aircraft at ranges of more than 50 kilometres (approx. 30 nautical miles), and transmit this and other tactical data to other aircraft using their MIDS datalink.

Another unique capability, according to Col. François Moussez, the French Air force’s Rafale program officer is that it can fire missiles at targets detected and designated by its integrated Spectra countermeasures suite, again without any need for active transmissions that can give away its position.



http://www.flightglobal.com/Articles/19 ... eiled.html

Studies are under way, however, to reduce the aircraft's external load radar cross-section using cocoon techniques. Some additional work is also due to assess the benefit of active radar cross-section reduction devices.

The cocoon concept is based on placing pylon-mounted stores inside radar absorbent or deflective casings that would be shed before weapon engagement.

The casing would ideally blend the weapon with the aircraft wing to eliminate radar cross-section returns generated by the pylon.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 18:06
by skrip00
It has no real useful capabilities. It's outclassed the the SuperHornet in almost every respect.

Also, altogether, there are barely 50 of them available in all of France.

Toan, nice spec work... as always. Can you make one of a comparison between the SuperHornet-E with an AN/APG-79 AESA and IDECM suite and the currently available Rafale M?

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 18:40
by toan
1. Stealthy:

While Rafale shall not as stealthy as F-35, it may still have the smallest frontal RCS among the three Eurocanards. According to the declaration from a Dassault's engineer in the end of 1990s, its frontal RCS is about the 1/10 of Mirage2000-5's frontal RCS.

In addition, in order to make Rafale become more stealthy, France has begun several projects for RCS reduction such as active cancellation, cocoon technigues, plasma techonology and so on; and some of them (such as active cancellation) may have been incorporated into Rafale.


2. Agility:
Impossible to make comparision now since F-35 hasn't made its maiden flight right now. Besides, Rafale may equip M88-3 engine (which will provide 20% more thrust comparing with the M88-2 engine today) and get a significant improvement in maneuverability and agility after 2012.


3. HOBs and HMS: Rafale will get them after 2008.


5. Yes, F-35 will have much more internal fuel (F-35A: 8,391 kg; F-35B: 6,300 kg; F-35C: 8,901 kg) than Rafale (Rafale C and M: 4,700 kg; Rafale B: 4,300 kg).


6. DAS and integrated ECM systems: Rafale has these kind of equipment right now (FSO and Spectra).

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bi ... le=release

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/s ... fox3_1.pdf

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/s ... fox3_5.pdf

http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/s ... fox3_6.pdf


7. AESA radar:

http://www.aviationnow.com/avnow/news/c ... 0306p2.xml
PROGRAM MANAGERS indicate the Post-F3 improvements will be introduced on a staggered basis between 2009 and 2012 in return for the deferral of eight Rafale deliveries in the batch-three purchase. The goal is to introduce the GBU-24 laser-guided bomb capability by 2009, and the active-array antenna and the MWR by the time the last of the 120 Rafales now on order are delivered in 2011-12.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 18:46
by toan
F/A-18E v.s RAFALE M

1. Dimensions
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Length: 18.38 m / 15.27 m
B. Span: 13.68 m / 10.80 m (*1)
C. Height: 4.87 m / 5.34 m
D. Wing area: 46.45 m2 / 45.70 m2

*1: The wing span of F/A-18E is 9.32 m with folded outer wings.



2. Weights:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Empty weight: 13,865~14,007 kg / 9,900~10,460 kg
B. Internal fuel: 8,060 litres / 5,750 liters
C. Max. ext. fuel: 9,080 liters / 9,375 liters
D. Max. ext. load: 8,050 kg+ / 9,500 kg
E. Max. take-off weight: 29,937 kg / 24,500 kg (*2)
F. Max. recovery payload: 4,226 kg / 4,804 kg (*3)
G. Max. recovery payload: 2,268 kg / 2,989 kg, night ~ 3,444 kg, day (*4)

*2: Dassault may increase the MTOW of Rafale to 27,200 kg-class after 2010.
*3: External stores + internal fuel
*4: External stores only



3. Flight Performance:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Max. speed, high level: 1.6 Mach+ / 1.8 Mach+
B. Max. speed, low level: < 1.0 Mach / 750 kts (*5)
C. Mini. flying speed: 125 ~ 135 kts / 100 ~ 115 kts
D. Approaching speed: 142 kts / 120 kts
E. Max. operating altitude: > 15,240 m / 18,400 m
F. Climb rate, sea level: > 254 m/sec+ / > 305 m/sec
G. Normal G-limit of FCS: -3.0 ~ +7.5G / -3.2 ~ +9.0 G
H. Maximal upper G-limit: +10.0 G / > or = +11.0 G
I. Normal AoA limit: 45~60 degrees / 32 degrees (*6)
J. Wing-load for air combat: 398.3~401.3 kg/m2 / 291.0~303.3 kg/m2 (*7)
K. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 1.05~1.08 / 1.10~1.15 with A/B ( *8 )
L. T/W ratio for air combat, sea level: 0.67~0.69 / 0.73~0.77 with max. mil. (*9)

*5: F/A-18 E/F's maximal speed is less than 1.0 Mach at the height below 10,000 fts.
*6: Once cancelling the normal restriction of FBWs, Rafale's AoA could reach more than 100 degrees.
*7 ~ *9: The fighter's weight for air combat = empty weight + 50% internal fuel + MRAAM*6 + SRAAM*2 + pilot and gun shells.



4. Ferry range:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Ferry range: 2,346 km / > 2,100 km (*10)
B. Ferry range: 3,054 km / 3,704 km (*11) (*12)

*10: clean fighter with internal fuel only.
*11: Ferry range of F/A-18E with 1,800L tank*3 + AIM-9*2 --> 3,074 km
*12: Ferry range of Rafale M with four tank (6,600 L) + MICA*8 --> 3,704 km



5. Combat radius:

# F/A-18E:
A. 720 km hi-lo-lo-hi attack profile with two 480 gallon tanks and four 1000 lbs bombs plus two Aim-9.
B. 855 km on interdiction mission with three 480 gal tanks.
C. 1230 km hi-hi-hi profile with two AIM-9, four Mk.83 bombs, three tanks, two sensor pods.
D. 800 km for fighter escort with two AIM-9 and two AMRAAMs, internal fuel only.
E. Combat endurance: 2 h 15 min with six AAMs and external tanks, 280 km from the carrier.

# Rafale M:
A. 1,100 km with three tanks (4,300 L), four MICA AAMs, and twelve 1,000 Ib bombs.
B. 1,480 km with three tanks (6,000 L), four MICA AAMs, and four 500 Ib GBU-12 LGBs
C. 1,830 km with two CFTs (2,300 L), three tanks (5,700 L), two SCALP-EG and two MICA AAMs.
D. CAP: More than 2 hours (Rafale M with six AAMs and three 1,250L tanks, 185 km away from the carrier)



6. Others:
# Fighter: F/A-18E / Rafale M
A. Frontal RCS: 0.1 m2 / 0.1 to 0.3 m2 (*13)
B. Pylonst: 11 and 5 / 13 and 5, all and wet (*14)
C. Prices: 57 million USDs / 69.5 million USDs (*15)
D. Maintenance: 15 / 7 Man-hours per flight hour.

*13: Dassault declared the frontal RCS of Rafale is 1/10 of Mirage-2000 in 1998~1999.
*14: Wet pylon means the pylon that can carry and use the tank.
*15: The price of F/A-18 E is 57 million USDs per fighter in 2003, while the average price of Rafale F3 during 2008~2012 is 69.5 million USDs per fighter.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 18:48
by boff180
This is where I agree with Skrip! (first time ever)

The F-35 by a LONG shot over the Rafale.

Primarily due to its very poor (by current standards even compared to the apg-80 and captor) pesa radar. In air combat... well I highly doubt its ability to hold its own in bvr against previous generation aircraft let alone current.

It may have a good (current) A2G fit however its thrust is also lacking compared to the F-35 and the Typhoon.

Rafale is capable of supercruising... however not in the true sense of the word... it can fly supersonically on mil power, but cannot break through the barrier using just mil power and requires a burst of reheat (unknown for how long) in order to breach the barrier before returning to mil power.

Andy

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 19:13
by skrip00
Toan, I dont think the F/A-18E/F has an AoA limiter... just a warning if you are about to leave controlled flight. I think.

The other thing is max external load for the SH. It could possibly be 9686kg total with max internal fuel... I think. GlobalSecurity says I'm wrong... but (Max TO) - (Max Int Fuel) - (Empty Weight) = 9686kg...

Unless there are other reasons (like Pylon loading) that the SH doesnt lug the extra 1500kg.

But performance wise... it seems to close to call. Lots of unknowns too. Especially:
*4: Rafale M's Max. ext. load can be 18% more than F/A-18 E's.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 19:28
by LordOfBunnies
The Rafale seems to be a very capable bomb truck, but I wouldn't want it for much outside that. If it gets the upgrades stuff that was talked about, it will be a pretty competent fighter. If it gets the AESA, better engines, etc. It may even become a very potent fighter bringing it up to the level of other 4.5 gen fighters. It will probably not be as good as the 5th gen fighters (I'm assuming F-35 qualifies, but the requirements for 5th gen are wonky). This is especially true if the 5th gen fighters get some of their upgrades. Is it as good as Tiffy? I think it's a better bomb truck, but probably not a better fighter.

Toan, some questions. Are the max G-loads you quoted instantaneous loads or sustained loads? They seem a bit high for sustained loads. Also, the ranges you quote for the Rafale missions, what form were they (like lo-lo-lo, hi-lo-hi, etc)?

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 19:32
by toan
The effective detecting / tracking range of RBE-2 today is roughly equal to, or a little better than RDY radar, while the frontal RCS of Rafale is around 1/10 of Mirage2000-5's frontal RCS. Therefore, I don't think the Rafale's A-A capability today is so poor as you mentioned above.

However, when facing with the competitors like F-15 + APG-63V3, F/A-18E + APG-79, F-16E + APG-80, EF-2000 + CAPTOR, Su-30/35 + N0-11M or Irbis, and / or MIG-35 + NG Russian AESA radar, it is true that the relative short detecting / tracking range of RBE-2 today is a disadvantage. Therefore, Dassault and THALES are planning and trying to equip modified RBE-2 AESA radar (with 1,000~1,200 T/R modules) to Rafale at the end of 2011, which may make Rafale to become the first Eurocanards that equips AESA radar formally.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 19:52
by skrip00
The F-35 is a 5th gen aircraft because it reflects the latest in design theory. Full datalinks, massive sensor integration, and a design philosophy around maximum performance while having an airframe designed around being stealthy and easy to maintain.

4th generation refelcts aircraft designs from the 1970s and up. 4.5th gen is basically these same conventional designs when upgraded with avionics of the 1990s.

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 19:58
by JCSVT
toan wrote:*9: F/A-18 E/F's maximal speed is less than 1.0 Mach at the height below 10,000 fts.


I don't know about this one. INO says the SH has broken Mach 1 at low levels but I don't know the exact numbers or how long it took to get there.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Aug 2006, 20:29
by toan
As for lacking of thrust...........

Empty weight:
F-35A: 12,000 ~ 12,500 kg
EF-2000: 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg
Rafale C: 9,400 ~ 9,850 kg

Internal Fuel:
F-35A: 8,391 kg
EF-2000: 4,996 kg
Rafale C: 4,700 kg

Thrust (AB/Max. Mil) at Sea-Level:
F-35A: 40,000~43,000 Ib / 28,900 Ib*1
EF-2000: 20,250~22,275 Ib / 13,490~15,525 Ib*2
Rafale C: 16,860~17,000 Ib / 11,245 Ib*2

Weight of Standard A-A configuration:
F-35A: 12,000~12,500 kg + 5,000 kg (internal fuel) + 1,500 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 18,500~19,000 kg
EF-2K: 10,995~11,150 kg + 5,000 kg (internal fuel) + 1,500 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 17,500~17,650 kg
Rafale: 9,400~9,850 kg + 4,700 kg (internal fuel) + 1,300 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 15,400~15,850 kg


T/W ratio at Sea-Level (A/B / Mil):
F-35A: 0.96~1.05 / 0.69~0.71
EF-2K: 1.04~1.15 / 0.69~0.80
Rafale: 0.97~1.00 / 0.64~0.66

Personally, I think the difference of T/W ratio among the three fighters with standard A-A configuration is not very significant.........

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 12:11
by locum
'The F-35 by a LONG shot over the Rafale'.
Huh huh huh ha ha... (laugh of Statler & Waldorf of the Muppets Show)
The RNLAF started in 1998 a Defense Material Choice Process, it started researching the performance, capabilities and life-cycle cost of: F-35, Typhoon Tr.3, Rafale F4, JAS-39C, Advanced F-16 (improved version of the block 60) and F-18 SuperHornet as a swing-role fighter replacement for the aging Viper.

The JAS-39 is very capable, has very good life-cycle costs, but lacked the desired payload-range so it was dropped off the shortlist.
The F-18 E/F was too large and too heavy and less capable then Rafale F4 and Typhoon Tr.3 and dropped.
The Advanced F-16 was also less capable then the F-35, Rafale & Typhoon and dropped.
So they ended up with a final shortlist of 3 warplanes:
1. The F-35, the best
2. Rafale F4, second-best. It was stated that the F4 was almost as good as the 'Triple Ugly'. The difference between the 2 was because off the Stealth capabilities of the F-35.
3. Typhoon Tr.3, Nr.3 because the Rafale is better in A2G missions and can be employed in more rolles than the Typhoon.

The RBE-2 radar, Toan says that the detection range is 130~148 km 70nm~80nm, because the RBE-2 has similar or a little bit better performance than the RDY. The RDY, which is being used in the Mirage 2000-5F, has a maximum detection range of 220 km/ 119nm and can detect 24 fighter-sized targets. In the track-while-scan mode, the range is 140km/ 80nm and can track 8 fighter-sized targets.
A Dutch exchange pilot who flew the Mirage 2000-5F, described the RDY radar as very good, he also said that the integrated ECM systems are better than in US fighters.
The RBE-2 radar is not the prime sensor of the Rafale, that is the passive SPECTRA, this system is the most expensive and most compex device in the Rafale with a maximum dectection range of 500 km/ 270nm.

'Boff180 said that the Rafale is not a true supercruiser, because it has to use its afterburners to cross the M1.0 barrier', well even a Raptor will use his afterburners for a short period because it takes to much time and gas to break the Mach barrier.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 14:52
by skrip00
The F-18 E/F was too large and too heavy and less capable then Rafale F4 and Typhoon Tr.3 and dropped.

HAHAHAHA!

Rafale F4??? Shoot man, F2 aint anywhere yet. Tr. 3??? It may not even be built.

The F/A-18E/F is here already dude, with an AESA radar and IDECM goodies. It carries a hefty weapons load a good distance, has the lowest RCS of the three, and so on...

I love when people compare what is out now, to what will possibly, hopefully, maybe, be out later.

If your going to do that, give the F/A-18E an upgraded AN/APG-79 (with better signal processing and more power = more range) and improved 414 engines which have further increased thrust (25% increase), higher efficiency, less weight, easier maintainability, and maybe even TVC. Because that is in the works as well.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 17:27
by locum
'Shoot man, F2 ain't anywhere yet, Tranche 3 It may not even be built.'

"Ain't anywhere yet", hiii yaaa, 27 June 2006, AirBase 113, Saint Dizier, Squadron 01.007 "Provence" EC 1/7 was inaugurated with the first 10 Rafales F2.2 and at the end of this year, this squadron will have 5 Rafale Cs & 15 Rafale Bs F2.2 standard. The first F2 was allready delivered in June 2005 and theAeronavale will receive its first F3 in 2007. Yes, I agree, the Tr. 3 may not even be built.
The RNLAF took into account performance, capabilities and life-cycle costs of 4.5 and 5th generation fighters, Skrip00 do you have all this information too in order to make a good comparison between the F-18E and the Rafale?.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 17:40
by skrip00
Oh wow. 15? +5? Thats a whole ummm, 20 aircraft? Compared to the hundreds in USN service with AESA radars going online in the next few months?

All I know is that plans are in the works to introduce a further variation of the GE F414-400 Engine. This new engine would have similar dimensions (as to be used on current airframes), but will have 30% less parts and maintenence time, 25% increase in thrust. And due to this increase in thrust, you can add TVC and still get a net gain in thrust, even though TVC has a thrust penalty built in.

In addition to this, the APG-79 will be, without a doubt, upgraded with newer signal processing (software change) and maybe even newer generation T/R modules which can handle higher power output. This is being done right now with the F-22A APG-77, so its logical to assume the APG-79 will be upgraded in a similar manner.

Furthermore, the SuperHornet will also see upgrades in RCS reduction. Possibly with the addition of improved RAM coatings to leading edges and pylons to reduce frontal RCS. (RAM is probably not seen on the F/A-18E/F yet due to the fact they are waiting on the JSF program to produce more durable RAM coatings which can survive long periods in corrosive ocean environments.)

The only one of these upgrades which I cannot be sure of is the TVC one. It is possible... but I havent seen much on it.

But this is a very real possibility for the SuperHornet series. More real than Tranche 3, of even Rafale F4s.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 17:46
by skrip00
Remember, the F/A-18E/F is the US Navy's equivalent to the F-22A in terms of hi-lo mix. Also, Block II has been initiated. Block III is in the works.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 18:03
by locum
Off topic, A F414 with 27,500 lbs thrust, upgraded APG-79, reduced RCS, possible TVC! Ssssss, don't wake up the Democrats. They maybe start thinking: Heee we don't need that F-35C, a block 3 Rhino will do the job.
Skrip00, you think that the F-18E is the best, I think that the Rafale (squall) is better, even the F2 and F3, we are probably both hard'head'/'a$$'. The F-18 and Rafale have allready flown exercises against each other so maybe a Rhino driver (clown_shoes ?)who posts at this site can give some comments, period.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 18:36
by skrip00
Off topic, A F414 with 27,500 lbs thrust, upgraded APG-79, reduced RCS, possible TVC! Ssssss, don't wake up the Democrats. They maybe start thinking: Heee we don't need that F-35C, a block 3 Rhino will do the job.

It'll be a beast in the AtA domain, but the F-35 will have the monopoly on AtG and any mission where stealth is needed. Which in these days means: AtA and most AtG. There is a reason both types will be working hand in hand for many decades to come.

Also, I dont think its the "best". I just don't like it being counted out so quickly. Especially in comparisons to aircraft types which dont even fly yet. Like the F3 or F4. THERE IS NO F4 SPECS YET! F3 maybe, but its funding is a bit iffy.

The Rafale F2 is just taking its baby steps and isnt near the operational readiness the F/A-18E/F is right now. The USN has hundreds of aircraft already flying. Many of them Block II (with AESA).

Compare fairly.

Wanna compare F4 to the F/A-18F? Compare it to a Block III.

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 18:57
by Raptor_One
boff180 wrote:Rafale is capable of supercruising... however not in the true sense of the word... it can fly supersonically on mil power, but cannot break through the barrier using just mil power and requires a burst of reheat (unknown for how long) in order to breach the barrier before returning to mil power.

Andy


But this is what all aircraft capable of supercruising do to get supersonic anyway. This is what the F-22 does to get up to its supersonic cruise speed. That's what the Concord did. Are you going to tell me that the Concord wasn't a true supercruising aircraft because it had to use its blowers to get up to Mach 2 (at which point it would turn them off and maintain that speed). You have a number of rapidly changing variables (lift, drag, thrust, pitching moment, inlet performance, etc) in the transonic regime that basically make acceleration difficult without reheat. You don't finesse the transonic regime... you simply do your best to bust right through it.

If you look at optimum climb profiles for some fighters, you'll see that part of the transonic leg at high altitude has them descending. This is to break through the transonic regime as fast as possible despite the fact that you're actually losing altitude in the process. Believe me... the F-22 doesn't reach Mach 1.7 from below the Mach using only MIL power. It would take too long and actually hurt your range performance. Even the F-22 might have trouble getting to its top supercruise speed using just MIL. If it did, you certainly wouldn't hear a peep about it. But it's honestly a moot point since nobody in their right mind would avoid lighting the AB in order to get up to supersonic cruising speeds.

The only aircraft in the world (known to the public at least) that maintained high supersonic speeds throughout its flight profile through continuous use of afterburner was the A-12/SR-71. Again though, max AB was used to get up to cruising speed and then throttled back to some lower AB stage. The only time max AB would be engaged during the flight profile was (I think?) to gain a bit more altitude and airspeed to avoid being intercepted by a SAM or enemy fighter interceptor. The SR certainly didn't cruise at max AB. But it could curise relatively efficiently in AB due to its unique engine/inlet design which bypassed all the moving parts in the turbojet's core past a certain Mach number. So it was basically a ram jet... not really fair. :)

Anyway... to sum things up, it is NOT a sin if you need to use AB to get up to a supersonic speed that can be maintained in MIL power. That's just how it's done.

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 19:03
by LordOfBunnies
skrip00 wrote:All I know is that plans are in the works to introduce a further variation of the GE F414-400 Engine. This new engine would have similar dimensions (as to be used on current airframes), but will have 30% less parts and maintenence time, 25% increase in thrust. And due to this increase in thrust, you can add TVC and still get a net gain in thrust, even though TVC has a thrust penalty built in.


Skrip, I'll tell you what I tell everyone. I don't believe the program is in place, but they are looking at changing some stuff on the engine because of the state of California sued the USN for pollution output. Now from an engineering perspective, you've got a cleaner process meaning more CO2, less CO, and less NOx. CO and NOx reduce the energy in the equation, so cleaner burning will get you more energy that can be used. This means one of two things, you can get more thrust, or burn less fuel. Maybe even both of them. And if you ask how I know this, my mother works for GE Aircraft Engines. And no, I won't tell you anymore.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 19:50
by skrip00
If I remember correctly though, new engines were always in the cards for the F/A-18E/F. Updating them and improving them is alot easier with time and offers immense performance yields.

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 22:06
by boff180
Raptor_One wrote:
boff180 wrote:Rafale is capable of supercruising... however not in the true sense of the word... it can fly supersonically on mil power, but cannot break through the barrier using just mil power and requires a burst of reheat (unknown for how long) in order to breach the barrier before returning to mil power.

Andy


But this is what all aircraft capable of supercruising do to get supersonic anyway. This is what the F-22 does to get up to its supersonic cruise speed. That's what the Concord did. Are you going to tell me that the Concord wasn't a true supercruising aircraft because it had to use its blowers to get up to Mach 2 (at which point it would turn them off and maintain that speed). You have a number of rapidly changing variables (lift, drag, thrust, pitching moment, inlet performance, etc) in the transonic regime that basically make acceleration difficult without reheat. You don't finesse the transonic regime... you simply do your best to bust right through it.

If you look at optimum climb profiles for some fighters, you'll see that part of the transonic leg at high altitude has them descending. This is to break through the transonic regime as fast as possible despite the fact that you're actually losing altitude in the process. Believe me... the F-22 doesn't reach Mach 1.7 from below the Mach using only MIL power. It would take too long and actually hurt your range performance. Even the F-22 might have trouble getting to its top supercruise speed using just MIL. If it did, you certainly wouldn't hear a peep about it. But it's honestly a moot point since nobody in their right mind would avoid lighting the AB in order to get up to supersonic cruising speeds.

The only aircraft in the world (known to the public at least) that maintained high supersonic speeds throughout its flight profile through continuous use of afterburner was the A-12/SR-71. Again though, max AB was used to get up to cruising speed and then throttled back to some lower AB stage. The only time max AB would be engaged during the flight profile was (I think?) to gain a bit more altitude and airspeed to avoid being intercepted by a SAM or enemy fighter interceptor. The SR certainly didn't cruise at max AB. But it could curise relatively efficiently in AB due to its unique engine/inlet design which bypassed all the moving parts in the turbojet's core past a certain Mach number. So it was basically a ram jet... not really fair. :)

Anyway... to sum things up, it is NOT a sin if you need to use AB to get up to a supersonic speed that can be maintained in MIL power. That's just how it's done.


I'm not saying they do.

What I'm stating is that both F-22 and Typhoon can breach the barrier using mil power... it may take a little while (long than ab for instance) but they can do it. Rafale however can't and must rely on AB power to breach the barrier.

Thats all I'm saying!
Andy

One thing...

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:19
by dwightlooi
We frequently CANNOT even use the combat radius numbers to compare aircrafts especially when it is from two different sources. The problem is that even when you declare the store type and the mission profile (say lo-hi-lo, lo-lo-lo, or whatever) different authorities have different standards as to what is considered combat reserve. That is ohter than the fuel need to fly in there with the stores, drop them and come back, want constitutes "enough" fuel to fight with while at the target area. This can range from "nothing" to 50% fuel reserve. Also, there is no standard as to what speed the ingress and egress has to be conducted at and so on and so forth. Differences in such standards can easily fudge the "combat radius" figures by up to 50% and making comparisons highly dubious.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:29
by dwightlooi
The only aircraft in the world (known to the public at least) that maintained high supersonic speeds throughout its flight profile through continuous use of afterburner was the A-12/SR-71. Again though, max AB was used to get up to cruising speed and then throttled back to some lower AB stage.

Actually, it is the opposite. the SR-71 is practically in continuous AB use during cruising. The J58 engine is not a typical turbojet or turbofan. The "turbo" part of the engine is basically to enable the aircraft to take off, fly to altitude and.. ahem... refuel with a tanker. The SR-71 then lights is AB and get past Mach 2.5. At around this speed, the airflow to the engine core is basically shut off while ram air is compressed by the intake, bypasses the core and introduced straight to the afterburner can where it is mixed and burned with fuel. In otherwords, once the SR-71 gets up to speed, the engine effectively becomes a RAM JET and the afterburner can is continuously in use.

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:29
by Raptor_One
boff180 wrote:I'm not saying they do.

What I'm stating is that both F-22 and Typhoon can breach the barrier using mil power... it may take a little while (long than ab for instance) but they can do it. Rafale however can't and must rely on AB power to breach the barrier.

Thats all I'm saying!
Andy


Right, and what I'm saying is that there's no reason to mention that as it's not an important capability. What is important is what speed you can maintain without afterburner. The reason why the F-22 can cruise as fast as it can is largely due to the F119-PW-100. When the F100-PW-100 was designed and mated to the F-15A, there was a similar revolution in performance, albeit more along the lines of maximum AB thrust. The F119's dry power is totally insane and is probably equal to, if not more than that of the original F100-PW-100 in AB at low speeds/altitudes. It's very difficult for an afterburning turbofan or turbojet to maintain efficiency above Mach 1.0 without the use of afterburning. My guess is that the F119 simply has a very high exit velocity in MIL power and, as a result, doesn't suffer too much from ram drag at high altitudes and airspeeds.

The question you should be asking about the Rafale is how fast it can cruise in MIL power... not whether it needs AB to get there. Another important thing is acceleration in AB. You want to be able to get up to cruising speed fast to minimize the use of afterburner, further increasing your supersonic cruise range/endurance. The Rafale has a relatively small engine compared to the F119, correct? That alone can limit thrust output. Engine diameter has a huge impact on the amount of thrust you can generate. So a small-ish fighter like the Rafale or EF-2000 can either have one really big, powerful engine (like the F-35) or two smaller, less powerful engines. Often two smaller engines are required for various reasons.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:30
by dwightlooi
The only aircraft in the world (known to the public at least) that maintained high supersonic speeds throughout its flight profile through continuous use of afterburner was the A-12/SR-71. Again though, max AB was used to get up to cruising speed and then throttled back to some lower AB stage.

Actually, the SR-71 not really in continuous AB use during cruising. The J58 engine is not a typical turbojet or turbofan. The "turbo" part of the engine is basically to enable the aircraft to take off, fly to altitude and.. ahem... refuel with a tanker. The SR-71 then lights is AB and get past Mach 2.5. At around this speed, the airflow to the engine core is basically shut off while ram air is compressed by the intake, bypasses the core and introduced straight to the afterburner can where it is mixed and burned with fuel. In otherwords, once the SR-71 gets up to speed, the engine effectively becomes a RAM JET and it is not using is "afterburner" because you are not "afterburning" anything previously burned in the engine core. You are a RAM JET plain and simple.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:32
by Raptor_One
dwightlooi wrote:The only aircraft in the world (known to the public at least) that maintained high supersonic speeds throughout its flight profile through continuous use of afterburner was the A-12/SR-71. Again though, max AB was used to get up to cruising speed and then throttled back to some lower AB stage.

Actually, it is the opposite. the SR-71 is practically in continuous AB use during cruising. The J58 engine is not a typical turbojet or turbofan. The "turbo" part of the engine is basically to enable the aircraft to take off, fly to altitude and.. ahem... refuel with a tanker. The SR-71 then lights is AB and get past Mach 2.5. At around this speed, the airflow to the engine core is basically shut off while ram air is compressed by the intake, bypasses the core and introduced straight to the afterburner can where it is mixed and burned with fuel. In otherwords, once the SR-71 gets up to speed, the engine effectively becomes a RAM JET and the afterburner can is continuously in use.


Something tells me you didn't read my whole post. I'm quite sure I said exactly what you just typed. I'll go check and get back to you though. :)

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:42
by Raptor_One
Raptor_One wrote:The only aircraft in the world (known to the public at least) that maintained high supersonic speeds throughout its flight profile through continuous use of afterburner was the A-12/SR-71. Again though, max AB was used to get up to cruising speed and then throttled back to some lower AB stage. The only time max AB would be engaged during the flight profile was (I think?) to gain a bit more altitude and airspeed to avoid being intercepted by a SAM or enemy fighter interceptor. The SR certainly didn't cruise at max AB. But it could curise relatively efficiently in AB due to its unique engine/inlet design which bypassed all the moving parts in the turbojet's core past a certain Mach number. So it was basically a ram jet... not really fair. :)


Ahhh... yes. Here we go Dwight. I'm not sure why you selectively quoted only a portion of the above paragraph. I clearly said that the SR-71 was the only plane to use AB continuously throughout its mission profile and that above a certain Mach number the thing essentially becomes a ramjet-powered aircraft, bypassing the engine core entirely. Perhaps you misread the part where I said that I don't think maximum AB was used throughout the entire flight. I remember reading (in Ben Rich's Skunkworks I think) that maximum AB was used to get up to crusing speed and to possibly climb higher and go a little bit faster in case of SAM or fighter-interceptor threat. You don't have it out for me, do you?

One more thing... throttling back to a lower AB stage should not be interpretted as turning off the afterburner. I assume the SR-71 had a number of AB "stages"... maybe more than 5 like an F-15 or F-16 has.

Unread postPosted: 11 Aug 2006, 23:49
by dwightlooi
I revised the post... go back and look at the updated one

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 00:17
by Raptor_One
dwightlooi wrote:I revised the post... go back and look at the updated one


Yeah, but that's what I said, basically. I said it becomes a ram jet and thus it's not really a fair comparison. Hence the "not fair" comment. Ben Rich himself wrote in Skunkworks that the A-12/SR-71 was the only aircraft to continuously use its AB in flight (regardless of whether the core flow was bypassed or not) to effectively perform its mission. He referred to it as afterburner and I'm not sure what else you would call it. The combustion still happens where it happens when the core flow isn't bypassed, so the afterburner is still being used. You wouldn't call it the burner (in a semi-technical sense) because that would too easily be confused with the combustor. Anyway, I don't believe the SR-71 is a typical ram jet. Doesn't the combustion process generally take place much earlier (in terms of distance from the inlet) in a ramjet? You don't necessarily see flame shooting out the back of a ramjet, or am I wrong? It's been a while since I studied ramjet propulsion.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 01:00
by LordOfBunnies
You are correct, usually the combustion for a ramject occurs far enough upstream that the flames won't shoot out the back. Another thing to think about, most of the pictures of the SR-71 are below design condition. Thus the backpressure changes and you'll get Mach disks from... um Underexpanded? (I'm not exactly sure at this time which it is, I'm out of school for the moment and don't care) flow. Now when you get up to altitude, I bet design condition prevails and you get perfectly expanded flow. Also, the combustion chamber of the SR-71 may not have been as long as it needed to be to act like a normal ramjet because of weight considerations. The engine was already big and heavy and needing to make a duel cycle or combined cycle engine means even more weight. Now your payload is two peole and a couple hundred pounds of camera equipment. So not much there. Too bad G didn't change much.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 01:56
by Raptor_One
I think it's underexpanded. Isn't overexpanded flow what you see from, say, the solid rocket boosters on the space shuttle just before they burn out and are jetisonned? I'm not exactly sure what under/over-expansion has to do with the visibility of the afterburner plume though. The shock disks, diamonds, or whatever you call them in the AB plume certainly make the plume more visable, but you can still see it if the lighting conditions are correct when it's perfectly expanded to atmospheric pressure. Anyway... good discussion LOB. Unless you're talking about a propulsion specialist, you probably know more now about propulsion than most practicing aerospace engineers. I would say that propulsion concepts are one of the first things to leave one's mind. You'd have to be a genius to remember how to perform a full engine cycle calculation years after taking a propulsion course. Hehehe. You did get open book/open notes for your propulsion course exams, right? That was standard practice at U of Michigan. :)

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 02:33
by LordOfBunnies
So uh yeah, I'm actually going to become a propulsion specialist :D.

Anyway, I thought of some more stuff. What causes normal jet exhaust to be less visible? Well you're sending it through turbines which cools and drops the pressure. That will change the spectrum that the exhaust puts out changing it possibly out of the visible spectrum. Now on a ramjet you've got nothing to change the temperature, thus more energy and a different spectrum. Wow, this is good for pulling out of my @$$. Anyway, you've got just your flame temp and the same pressure you combusted at. Speaking of which, how do you get higher pressure in a ramjet? Then you send it through a CD nozzle (which requires some higher pressures is the reason I say anything) which gives you lots of thrusties. The SFCs of ramjets are horrendous if I remember my homework but they work up to about Mach 7 or something. Scramjets are good above about Mach 5. Morphing engine technology, I may look at it as my master's thesis if I get the chance.

Open book exams? Hell yeah, when you have 8 different tau values in an equation and you start dealing with efficiencies it's just mean to make you remember that.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 02:57
by toan
http://new.isoshop.com/dae/dae/gauche/s ... fox3_8.pdf

"The Rafale is ideal for the job," stresses one of the two duty pilots. "It can climb to 40,000 feet in under two minutes and accelerate very rapidly to supersonic speed. More significantly, it can supercruise in dry power, even with four missiles and a belly drop tank (1,250L) ............"

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 03:14
by Raptor_One
You can actually measure thrust output by looking at the color of the exhaust plume given you know enough about the properties of the exhaust plume (which you generally should). You probably saw the same program on the History Channel, but that's how they indirectly measured the thrust output of that crazy nuclear-powered cruise missile engine in the late 1950s (Project Pluto and the Tory-IIA and Tory-IIC engines). There was no sensor rake that could withstand the conditions in the exhaust plume. :) I'm not saying that thrust has a color, but exhaust gas temperature was obviously the missing variable in their equations and they determined it from the color of the exhaust gasses. If you read more about that project, you begin to realize how practically insane some of our governments proposed weapons of mass destruction really were. That cruise missile was truly a doomsday device making ICBMs look like bunker busters. Just flying that thing over a populated area with the reactor turned on would fry the hell out of everyone. Sick stuff. Plus the thing had practically unlimited range and could loiter around for months on end waiting to strike. Very, very bad idea.

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 03:20
by toan
Unlike Eurofighter Tranch 3, the possibility of production of Rafale F4 after 2012 is near 100% ~ Up to now, French air-force and navy only buy 120 Rafale (F1 to F3) in total (This number may be reduced to 112 finally in order to provide the fund for the development of new equipments for Rafale F4, such as RBE-2 AESA radar, FSO upgrading, NG MAWs and so on.....) , and it should be obvious that the air-force requirement of a country like France can't be supported by just 112~120 fighters.

(As for UK, even the project of Eurofighter Tranch 3 is cancelled finally, it has procured 144 EF-2000, Tranch I&II + 138 F-35B...........)

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 05:11
by skrip00
Yes, the French did sacrifice airframes to secure more funding for the Rafale's future growth.

At this moment though... the aircraft isnt all that great in terms of overall capability.

The Typhoon and Rafale are like the PlayStation 3. You're buying future capability... jk. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 06:42
by LordOfBunnies
Skrip, that's actually not bad. If you can get the damn thing to work the way you want it too... it'll be bad @ss. But if you can't, you've got junk sitting around collecting dust. Actually the Tiffy looks to be pretty good. The French, I believe, still need a better fighter platform for fleet defense. The Rafale seems to be a great striker with massive weapons loads possible. It's also always been designed to be a striker so it should have better striking capability through its life (as it constantly develops) than the Tiffy (which is having to play catch up). The Tiffy will probably eat the Rafale for lunch in A2A. What do the recent competitions say about the strike capabilities of the different platforms (that's a real question not asking rhetorically or anything)?

Unread postPosted: 12 Aug 2006, 07:09
by skrip00
The Tiffy/Rafale IMO is basically everything too late. While I understand a work in progress... The Typhoon and Rafale both have alot of issues that have they need to work out. Alot.

Unlike teenagers, modern nations really cant wait for overly expensive future "potential". Hence why in alot of cases, a heavily upgraded new-build F-15E tends to be a way better deal.

The French, I believe, still need a better fighter platform for fleet defense

What Fleet? They barely have a carrier. Barely.

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2006, 00:22
by Corsair1963
skrip00 wrote:The Tiffy/Rafale IMO is basically everything too late. While I understand a work in progress... The Typhoon and Rafale both have alot of issues that have they need to work out. Alot.

Unlike teenagers, modern nations really cant wait for overly expensive future "potential". Hence why in alot of cases, a heavily upgraded new-build F-15E tends to be a way better deal.

The French, I believe, still need a better fighter platform for fleet defense

What Fleet? They barely have a carrier. Barely.



I think they real question is will the later models of the Rafale and/or Typhoon be superior to the forthcoming F-35B & C? Personally, I doubt that and both would be better off to secure as many sales as it can now. Because they may not be there in the future............. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 14 Aug 2006, 03:54
by skrip00
The F-35 will have stealth and alot of room for future technology. No matter how you cut it... thats an advantage.

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2007, 14:14
by end
No one here think that F-35 will be too much overweight? think about its size just similar with Rafale but its weight over than Rafale almost 1 ton!
This will be the disaster for its engaged performance.

Unread postPosted: 12 Sep 2007, 21:28
by dwightlooi
end wrote:No one here think that F-35 will be too much overweight? think about its size just similar with Rafale but its weight over than Rafale almost 1 ton!
This will be the disaster for its engaged performance.


Actually, the weight is ~3 tons more than the Rafale (~12.7 tons vs ~9.8 tons).

No, it will not be a disaster. The F-35 has 9000 lbs more thrust, it has sleeker aerodynamics when carrying a typical combat load (all internal), it has 3 tons more fuel to burn for speed if it needs to. It has much bigger control surfaces giving it superior control authority especially at high altitudes.

Let's put it this way... the F-35A is over a ton lighter than the F-18E, it has the same thrust for the most parts, it has much more fuel, and it flies clean with internal weapons. The F-18E has no problems whatsoever smashing Rafales so neither will the F-35A. In fact, it'll be a Turkey shoot.

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2007, 04:57
by Corsair1963
dwightlooi wrote:
end wrote:No one here think that F-35 will be too much overweight? think about its size just similar with Rafale but its weight over than Rafale almost 1 ton!
This will be the disaster for its engaged performance.


Actually, the weight is ~3 tons more than the Rafale (~12.7 tons vs ~9.8 tons).

No, it will not be a disaster. The F-35 has 9000 lbs more thrust, it has sleeker aerodynamics when carrying a typical combat load (all internal), it has 3 tons more fuel to burn for speed if it needs to. It has much bigger control surfaces giving it superior control authority especially at high altitudes.

Let's put it this way... the F-35A is over a ton lighter than the F-18E, it has the same thrust for the most parts, it has much more fuel, and it flies clean with internal weapons. The F-18E has no problems whatsoever smashing Rafales so neither will the F-35A. In fact, it'll be a Turkey shoot.


I just don't understand why it is soooo hard for people to get the F-22 and F-35 fly clean (i.e. internal weapons) during most missions. While, 4th or 4.5 generation types carry everything externally! Its not hard really............take a clean F/A-18 Hornet and fly it against a F-16 loaded with 2-PGM's, 2-External Tanks, 2 or 4 AAM's and a single jammer! Which, do you think will win in a purely WVR fight! That of course doesn't even touch the Stealth aspect of the 5th Generation Types nor Super Cruise in the case of the F-22.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Sep 2007, 05:03
by SnakeHandler
The US tried the delta wing idea back in the 70s and 80s. We learned, why hasn't Europe?

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 00:59
by Scorpion82
SnakeHandler wrote:The US tried the delta wing idea back in the 70s and 80s. We learned, why hasn't Europe?


There is a huge difference between a conventional stable delta design and an aerodynamically unstable delta/all moveable canard design.

RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 01:03
by SnakeHandler
They're still not as good.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 01:15
by Scorpion82
SnakeHandler wrote:They're still not as good.


Still not as good as what? Not as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35? Who wonders they weren't designed as allround covered stealth aircraft, they were designed with superior performance to the teen/teenski series in mind, next to other requirements.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 03:29
by Thumper3181
they were designed with superior performance to the teen/teenski


F-15s with the GE engines come to mind when it comes to raw performance and the Super Hornet when it comes everything else. Tiffie is a leap ahead when compared to Tornado. It just came 15 years too late.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 05:25
by dwightlooi
Scorpion82 wrote:
SnakeHandler wrote:They're still not as good.


Still not as good as what? Not as stealthy as the F-22 or F-35? Who wonders they weren't designed as allround covered stealth aircraft, they were designed with superior performance to the teen/teenski series in mind, next to other requirements.


No, not as good in that the performance of delta-canards do not exceed that of the wing tail arrangements. The US tried unstable canards in platforms like the HiMAT and it has been modeled extensively in CFD studies. They just do not perform better in the aspects which matters.

The are many areas where delta-canards are inferior to wing-tails, there are only a few areas where they offer an improvement. Delta-canards suck because:-

(1) In general, achievable instability is not greater. Reason: the main wing is further aft, meaning that it is more inconvenient place the center of gravity of the aircraft aft of the center of lift. It is easier to do if the wing is forward.

(2) In general, high AoA control characteristics is not better. Reason: To create a pitch up force the canard has to be deflected up whereas the tail is is deflected down. In a high AoA situation, the canard experiences more flow separation and earlier stall vs a tail and stops being able to create a pitch up force at a lower AoA than a tail.

(3) Lift efficiency is typically worse. Reason: In an unstable design, the Cg is very close to or is behind the center of lift without a canard or tail's input. The main advantage of a canard in stable designs -- that both the wing and the canard provide lift -- is negate or reversed in unstable design. If the Cg is behind the combined center of lift of the aircraft the tail provides lift to keep the aircraft stable the canard has to provide downforce to keep the aircraft from back flipping.

(4) High AoA lift characterisitics is not better. Reason: In general deltas, with their high sweep and wide chord is, are poor wings. On top of that, LEX and forebody shaping is as good or better at creating lift enhancing vortices than canards.

(5) Stealth characteristics is worse. Reason: planform alignment of the leading and trailing edges, as well as the hiding of pivoting joints are harder to do on a canard-delta design.

(6) Low speed handling is inferior. Reason: The delta is a lousy wing compared to other geometry for producing lift at lower speeds.

(7) Ordnance carriage layout is inferior. Reason: Again, long chord, short span deltas make it hard to place weapon stations and pylongs under the wing -- just look at the EF or Mirages with a full load.

Delta canards rocks because:-

(1) Drag at very high speeds can be lower. Reason: With a high sweep and short span it is easier to tuck a delta wing within the shock cones created by the nose and other discontinuities. However, it has been shown that the sweep angles required for efficient Mach 2 speeds can easily be accommodated without a delta wing.

(2) High speed drag reduction can be had without horrendous handling compromises everywhere else in the flight spectrum. Reason: The canards allow for good control authority to mitigate some of the handling problems of a traditional Delta.

(3) There are less wing twist issues. Reason: The span span of the delta means the wing twists less under load and especially with outboard control surfaces acting to provide roll forces.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 13:24
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:F-15s with the GE engines come to mind when it comes to raw performance and the Super Hornet when it comes everything else. Tiffie is a leap ahead when compared to Tornado. It just came 15 years too late.


All Typhoon pilots I spoke too and all interviews with Typhoon pilots I read/saw confirmed the Typhoon to be superior in flight performance to F-15, F-16, MiG-29 etc.. These pilots have a wide flying background and flew numerous types of aircraft including the teen series. According them you can already feel the difference and don't need to monitor the instruments and a stop watch to make out any difference as it was often the case when comparing teen series aircraft with each other. Comparing the Typhoon with the Tornado is basically a bad idea as they are totally different aircraft, designed for different missions.
Of course the Typhoon would have been better in comparison if it would have been there 15 years ago, but that applies to every new fighter.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 13:38
by Scorpion82
@dwightlooi
Both delta canards and wing/tailplanes have their pros and cons.
But you should take into account that different configurations are possible as well. The Rafale for example has a LEX like forward fuselage despite its delta canard layout. Typhoon has long coupled canards while all other fighters are close coupled canard designs. You have to see the entire aerodynamical layout as well. You claim inferior low speed and high AoA handling qualities, while the Rafale and Typhoon seem to speak against your arguments. Planform alignement can be achieved with delta canards as well, though this would have an impact on the aerodynamics and the wing/tailplane configuration is better suited for that. BTW aircraft like the Typhoon or Rafale has relative large deltas in comparison to earlier designs like the M2k etc..
BTW the ailerons don't move down in order to get the aircraft pitch up.

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 17:47
by Thumper3181
All Typhoon pilots I spoke too and all interviews with Typhoon pilots I read/saw confirmed the Typhoon to be superior in flight performance to F-15, F-16, MiG-29 etc.


First off, what are they supposed to say. "My ride is second only to xyz, and if we come up against them we are screwed". Not going to be said, ever.

Second care to give an example of one who has flown a late model F-15?

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 21:11
by johnwill
The worst problem a delta has is the drag polar, a plot of coefficient of lift vs coefficient of drag. In other words, to get the same lift at higher AoA, the drag is higher than for a conventional wing. At low AoA (Concorde) they are fine. Typhoon gets around that with lots of thrust, at a cost of lots of fuel.

Not at all sure the delta is stiffer in twist in all cases. The wing tip area (aileron location) has a very narrow structural chord, so twist becomes a serious problem in high speed rolls.

Deltas also develop a strong nose-up moment at high mach. low altitude flight. This moment requires either elevon down for non-canard deltas or a down load on the canard for those with canards. Either way, more drag results, and the down load on the canard means the wing has to develop more lift to compensate.

Re: RE: Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Oct 2007, 23:44
by dwightlooi
Scorpion82 wrote:@dwightlooi
Both delta canards and wing/tailplanes have their pros and cons.
But you should take into account that different configurations are possible as well. The Rafale for example has a LEX like forward fuselage despite its delta canard layout. Typhoon has long coupled canards while all other fighters are close coupled canard designs. You have to see the entire aerodynamical layout as well. You claim inferior low speed and high AoA handling qualities, while the Rafale and Typhoon seem to speak against your arguments. Planform alignement can be achieved with delta canards as well, though this would have an impact on the aerodynamics and the wing/tailplane configuration is better suited for that. BTW aircraft like the Typhoon or Rafale has relative large deltas in comparison to earlier designs like the M2k etc..
BTW the ailerons don't move down in order to get the aircraft pitch up.


Oh, nobody is claiming that the Typhoon and the Rafale are not more maneuverable than say an F-16. The point is that those level or maneuverability can be achieved or exceeded with wing tail layouts as well.

Basically, the Canard-Delta is a configuration used to mitigate the worst short comings of a Delta wing. The configuration, in and of itself, does not promote better maneuverability, agility or efficiency over unstable wing-tail layouts.

And, yes, the canards pitch up to effect a strong pitch up moment on an delta-canard and the tails pitch down to do the same. If the design is sufficiently stern heavy, the aircraft will pitch up slowly with level canards or tails. However, in such instances the canard will have to provide downforce and the tails will have to provide lift to keep the aircraft level. Such is the case on the Typhoon under some loadings and such is also the case for the F-35 during cruise.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 13:15
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:
All Typhoon pilots I spoke too and all interviews with Typhoon pilots I read/saw confirmed the Typhoon to be superior in flight performance to F-15, F-16, MiG-29 etc.


First off, what are they supposed to say. "My ride is second only to xyz, and if we come up against them we are screwed". Not going to be said, ever.

Second care to give an example of one who has flown a late model F-15?


And of course they would lie just to make their aircraft looking better :roll: I don't know why you discredit anything which might speak for the Typhoon, but according you we can't trust anything which is stated about this aircraft. Of course this just applies to the Typhoon and no other aircraft. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 16:38
by Thumper3181
And of course they would lie just to make their aircraft looking better Rolling Eyes I don't know why you discredit anything which might speak for the Typhoon, but according you we can't trust anything which is stated about this aircraft. Of course this just applies to the Typhoon and no other aircraft. Laughing


You are of course correct and I apologize.

I must add however that all the pilots I have spoken to say that the Typhoon is no match for their late model F-15, Super Hornet, Rafale, and SU-30MKI.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 17:17
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:
And of course they would lie just to make their aircraft looking better Rolling Eyes I don't know why you discredit anything which might speak for the Typhoon, but according you we can't trust anything which is stated about this aircraft. Of course this just applies to the Typhoon and no other aircraft. Laughing


You are of course correct and I apologize.

I must add however that all the pilots I have spoken to say that the Typhoon is no match for their late model F-15, Super Hornet, Rafale, and SU-30MKI.


So may I ask what's the background of these pilots and their expierience (which aircraft do they fly and have they flown against the Typhoon)? I think one of the problems for many might be the lack of information/data about the Typhoon. Of course there is ever a little bit pride for most pilots for the aircraft they are flying, some of them might not even be a good source at all especially when it comes to information about aircraft they are not flying. I'm willed to provide data/information and answer questions if a fair base is formed. Just making unback uped claims is of course no base to start with.

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 18:11
by Satorian
Thumper3181 wrote:I must add however that all the pilots I have spoken to say that the Typhoon is no match for their late model F-15, Super Hornet, Rafale, and SU-30MKI.


How many pilots have you met and spoken to that had the chance to evaluate all named types in depth?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 19:23
by Thumper3181
All Typhoon pilots I spoke too and all interviews with Typhoon pilots I read/saw confirmed the Typhoon to be superior in flight performance to F-15, F-16, MiG-29 etc..


All the pilots I spoke to said the same thing but the other way around. To paraphrase what they said, "gee the Typhoon sure is a nice plane but at 122 million a pop all we got is something that is merely competitive with an F-15 in A2A, but does not have the range. They also said that with the AESA radar, helmet mounted sight and Link 16 the Typhoon is not even competitive. They did say it had great handling qualities though. The Rafale pilot said similar things.

I have also read that Super Hornet pilots and SU-30 MKI pilots have said similar things.

How many pilots have you met and spoken to that had the chance to evaluate all named types in depth?

Several, how about you and/Scorpion?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 19:46
by Satorian
Thumper3181 wrote:Several, how about you and/Scorpion?


I'm not sure. Do you want me to count those I am unwilling to prove while claiming statements I'm unable to attribute?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 20:40
by Thumper3181
Well Satorian since you butted in why don't you ask Scorpion the same question? Maybe for once you should read the thread before you stick your two cents in?

Unread postPosted: 14 Oct 2007, 22:58
by Scorpion82
I haven't counted the number of pilots I spoke to. But there were at least 3 Typhoon pilots and a couple of other pilots as well.
In my humble opinion the Typhoon is superior to any F-15 in BVR and WVR combat, though the F-15 enjoys the edge in terms of range and endurance. For strike missions the F-15E is currently the better choice and it will remain so in the future as long as range and payload are concerned.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 08:59
by Pilotasso
Thumper3181 wrote:All the pilots I spoke to said the same thing but the other way around. To paraphrase what they said, "gee the Typhoon sure is a nice plane but at 122 million a pop all we got is something that is merely competitive with an F-15 in A2A, but does not have the range. They also said that with the AESA radar, helmet mounted sight and Link 16 the Typhoon is not even competitive. They did say it had great handling qualities though. The Rafale pilot said similar things.

I have also read that Super Hornet pilots and SU-30 MKI pilots have said similar things.

Several, how about you and/Scorpion?


122 million each?! :shock: :shock: What pilots have you been talking to?
LAst time I checked its more like 60 million, less than half you quoted.

I have been hearing other sources stating pilots saying the opposite you said.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 14:43
by Thumper3181
122 million each?

Perhaps you should have checked the link given and then done the math before sticking in your two cents. Yes $120 million dollars each.

What pilots have you been talking to?

Obviously the ones in the know.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 18:01
by Ozzy_Blizzard
Scorpion82 wrote:I haven't counted the number of pilots I spoke to. But there were at least 3 Typhoon pilots and a couple of other pilots as well.
In my humble opinion the Typhoon is superior to any F-15 in BVR and WVR combat, though the F-15 enjoys the edge in terms of range and endurance. For strike missions the F-15E is currently the better choice and it will remain so in the future as long as range and payload are concerned.


That doesn't surprise me. The typhoon should have superior kinematics, lower RCS, comparable weapons outfit and radar, better pitch, roll and possibly yaw rates not to mention turning radius due to that damn low wing loading, and comparable ECM, RWR & HI. In raw performance Typhoon is a better performer, has a lower RCS and comparable weapons load (in terms of systems). So in BVR i'd put my money on Typhoon.

In WVR, well the most important things are missile systems, HMCS and the man in the seat. However in this case were talking about AIM 9x vs IRIS-T/ASRAAM, so missile systems are comparable, and both sides should have a HMCS. So the most important thing in a knife fight when missiles are comparable is the ability to get your weapons on target faster, and Typhoon should be able to do this quicker because of that really low wing loading. So i'd give it to Typhoon in WVR too.

However not by much in either case.

Thumper3181 wrote:All the pilots I spoke to said the same thing but the other way around. To paraphrase what they said, "gee the Typhoon sure is a nice plane but at 122 million a pop all we got is something that is merely competitive with an F-15 in A2A, but does not have the range. They also said that with the AESA radar, helmet mounted sight and Link 16 the Typhoon is not even competitive. They did say it had great handling qualities though. The Rafale pilot said similar things.

I have also read that Super Hornet pilots and SU-30 MKI pilots have said similar things.


I agree there are more cost effective solutions on the market at the moment that provide comparable capability for a similar price, F/A 18E/F and SU 30Mk come to mind. However if you are going to compare an upgraded F15E, such as the "Block 2" versions sold to Singapore and South Korea, you have to compare it to a CAESAR/PIRATE, JTIDS, JHMCS tranche 2 Typhoon, if you want a fair comparison. I'm not sure F15E block 2 would fair so well in a one on one encounter.

What exactly did Rafale, SH & MKI pilots say about the typhoon that was similar to F15E drivers? That the typhoon was competitive, perhaps slightly better, for more money? Then that seems to be the gist of things and its hard to argue with. But i doubt they said "with new upgrades we'll chop em to pieces" as well, anyway typhoon will be a much more lethal platform in a couple of years as well.


As for the original question. F35 by a mile.....

Without venturing into things like tactical employment and raw performance, there are 3 simple things that mean F35 is a golden mile ahead of rafale inn practically every role.

VLO

APG 81

J Series PGMs....

Game over.

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 18:38
by elp
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
Without venturing into things like tactical employment and raw performance, there are 3 simple things that mean F35 is a golden mile ahead of rafale inn practically every role.

VLO

APG 81

J Series PGMs....

Game over.


Make it 4 with, low band and high band jamming support by Super G. :D

Unread postPosted: 15 Oct 2007, 19:38
by Scorpion82
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:That doesn't surprise me. The typhoon should have superior kinematics, lower RCS, comparable weapons outfit and radar, better pitch, roll and possibly yaw rates not to mention turning radius due to that damn low wing loading, and comparable ECM, RWR & HI. In raw performance Typhoon is a better performer, has a lower RCS and comparable weapons load (in terms of systems). So in BVR i'd put my money on Typhoon.


Comparable RWR and ECM? Typhoon features latest ECM systems and not just a simple RWR but ESM. Add MAWS, LWR and TRD to that and the fact that the EWS is fully integrated and automated. Captor is vastly superior to the MSA derivates of the AN/APG-63. Other things you forget to mention includes vastly superior MMI, PIRATE IRST/FLIR sensor with a performance similar to the F-16's radar and sensor fusion.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 04:05
by Thumper3181
That doesn't surprise me. The typhoon should have superior kinematics, lower RCS, comparable weapons outfit and radar, better pitch, roll and possibly yaw rates not to mention turning radius due to that damn low wing loading, and comparable ECM, RWR & HI. In raw performance Typhoon is a better performer, has a lower RCS and comparable weapons load (in terms of systems). So in BVR i'd put my money on Typhoon.


Partial agreement. Kinematics-if you take thrust to weight and wing loading as the two main factors (stop me here if I am wrong) then Typhoon by a very slight edge. Consider both thrust o weight is around 1.15 (F-15C with PW200s) and the difference in wing loading is about 50Kg. Comparable weapons-F-15. Do you really think (today) Saudi Arabia or other export customer is going to field the latest AMRAAM? Radar, again , today the F-15s in Alaska are flying with AESA and there is funding and plans to fit all (even ANG Eagles with AESA). I then agree up to your BVR conclusion. Reason, the F-15 has the better radar and better missile. WVR without HOBS I agree today's Typhoon beats todays F-15.

One other question before I go on. Who carries more fuel? Who will have fuel enough to fly their plane aggressively for a longer period of time? I admit I do not know the answer to that but I think that has to be considered right up there with everything else.

None of that is the point though. You mention it's not fair to compare the two. Well the point is all of the F-15s are now funded to receive AESA and a good portion of them are to receive a data link, AIM-9X, and helmet mounted sight. All of this should be complete by 2012. Keep in mind these planes will also carry AIM-120D.

Are all the goodies everyone is talking about for the EF going to be funded? When do we think they will get a working AESA out in the field? How about Meteor. Will it work as advertised and be ready by 2012 as promised? Who knows. Assume all this happens what is the incremental cost for these improvements? We are already talking about a $120 million/plane mind you. What kind of weight increase is there for these goodies. How does that effect its performance?

Lets take it further. What I described for the F-15 is only for US birds. Consider an export opportunity. Japan comes to mind. The competition is the EF. What is to stop Boeing from adding fast pack capability, the 29,000 lb thrust (there goes the kinematic advantage), AESA, helmet mounted sight, aim-9x, data link, and whatever other goodies they have been putting into the Super Hornet. Much of the development work has been done. There would be some integration testing of some of the newer items from the Super Hornet but that's it.

You see it is after all about exports. Sure the Eagle is an older airframe. McDonnell Douglas got it right (oh my has it been that long) 40 years ago. There is a lot of life left in her. Her size, the general excellence of her airframe, and powerful engines provide a good platform to add upgrade to keep her competitive all but the F-35 and F-22. IMHO.

What exactly did Rafale, SH & MKI pilots say about the typhoon that was similar to F15E drivers? That the typhoon was competitive, perhaps slightly better, for more money? Then that seems to be the gist of things and its hard to argue with.

Actually the other way around.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 10:37
by Pilotasso
Thumper3181 wrote:Partial agreement. Kinematics-if you take thrust to weight and wing loading as the two main factors (stop me here if I am wrong) then Typhoon by a very slight edge. Consider both thrust o weight is around 1.15 (F-15C with PW200s) and the difference in wing loading is about 50Kg. Comparable weapons-F-15. Do you really think (today) Saudi Arabia or other export customer is going to field the latest AMRAAM? Radar, again , today the F-15s in Alaska are flying with AESA and there is funding and plans to fit all (even ANG Eagles with AESA). I then agree up to your BVR conclusion. Reason, the F-15 has the better radar and better missile. WVR without HOBS I agree today's Typhoon beats todays F-15.

One other question before I go on. Who carries more fuel? Who will have fuel enough to fly their plane aggressively for a longer period of time? I admit I do not know the answer to that but I think that has to be considered right up there with everything else.

None of that is the point though. You mention it's not fair to compare the two. Well the point is all of the F-15s are now funded to receive AESA and a good portion of them are to receive a data link, AIM-9X, and helmet mounted sight. All of this should be complete by 2012. Keep in mind these planes will also carry AIM-120D.

Are all the goodies everyone is talking about for the EF going to be funded? When do we think they will get a working AESA out in the field? How about Meteor. Will it work as advertised and be ready by 2012 as promised? Who knows. Assume all this happens what is the incremental cost for these improvements? We are already talking about a $120 million/plane mind you. What kind of weight increase is there for these goodies. How does that effect its performance?



A bit of wishfull thinking here. You make alot of double standard considerations here:

First, you mention the wing loading of both aircraft to be similar but you forget how little that means when considering that the F-15 produces down force in turns as oppososite to the Eurofighters long armed up force cannards. Not exactly the same thing?

Second, you mention ANG units to be upgraded to AESA radars but you forget that AESA Captor has already being funded and in development, scheduled for service in 2015 probably to come out at the same time ANG F-15's pour out in quantities with their APG-63V3's as well. You got dates for these?

Thirldy: you mention AIM-120D ranges and the lack of latest gen AMRAAM for Euros. Well, Poles and Britsh, greeks are all on AIM-120C5, the time AIM-120D will be followed shortly by the Meteor, so wheres the disavantage here? It doesnt matter what the custumers missiles might be, in my book weapon compatibility and the possibility that any given time they can be loaded if needed is what matters.

Fourth: you mention the inferiority of the mechanical array Captor, compared to the F-15's radars, whatever models are you talking about? APG-70, AN/APG-63V1 or the APG-63v3?
Because last time I checked there were about 32 APG-63V3's in airframes and the MSA Captor has been recognized as the best sloted antenna in the world. Did the pilots told you classified figures for you to conclude otherwise?
Did you consider the fact that both the F-15 and all the likely adversaries have all RCS the size of a barn?

Fifth: you are comparing future of the F-15 with the present of the typhoon and future of typhoon only for minor considerations.


On additional notes, and further considering the agility of the Eurofighter, It has been designed to dispense the use of thrust vesctoring by putting the canards so much on front of the pit. Considering the few exercises that have been published featuring both the F-15 and the tiphy, it was said in these forums and written in magazines that the Euro had outmanuevered the Eagle confortably WVR.
Using a trained eye you can definatly spot the differences in live demos.

Eurofighter also posesses a much more complete missile defense system including active MAWS, decoys and real time incoming missile Time to impact estimation. Something f-15 pilots can only dream of. Also Im still waiting for you to clarify me in wich area does the Eurofighter typhoons avionics lack compared to the eagles. I have seen MFD flowcharts, and it has 3 of them. It makes F-15 look dated. Care to coment on this?

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 16:18
by Scorpion82
@Pilotasso,
where do you get the info that already 32 F-15s has been retrofitted with the AN/APG63V3? AFAIK only 18 F-15C of the 3rd FW at Elmsdorf are equipped with the V2 which is virtually the same as the V1 except for the MSA being replaced by an AESA. The V2 neither provides new modes, nor new capabilities. I read that the pilots weren't even much impressend by the V2. The V3 will for sure be much more capable, but details are unknown and it will not be fitted to any operational F-15 before 2008.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 16:32
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:
Partial agreement. Kinematics-if you take thrust to weight and wing loading as the two main factors (stop me here if I am wrong) then Typhoon by a very slight edge. Consider both thrust o weight is around 1.15 (F-15C with PW200s) and the difference in wing loading is about 50Kg.


Wing loading and TWR aren't the only factors and a very important factor to consider is the fact that engine thrust decreases with altitude. The question is how do both engines perform at various altitudes. Aerodynamics are highly important as well and you can add as much thrust as you wont, this won't improve aerodynamics. This means even with stronger engines the F-15 will never achieve the same performance as the Typhoon in some areas.

One other question before I go on. Who carries more fuel? Who will have fuel enough to fly their plane aggressively for a longer period of time? I admit I do not know the answer to that but I think that has to be considered right up there with everything else.


What a question. Look at the size of both and you shuld know who carries more fuel. But you have to consider the consumption and the need for using the AB as well.

None of that is the point though. You mention it's not fair to compare the two. Well the point is all of the F-15s are now funded to receive AESA and a good portion of them are to receive a data link, AIM-9X, and helmet mounted sight. All of this should be complete by 2012. Keep in mind these planes will also carry AIM-120D.

Are all the goodies everyone is talking about for the EF going to be funded? When do we think they will get a working AESA out in the field? How about Meteor. Will it work as advertised and be ready by 2012 as promised? Who knows.


And who knows if the AIM-120D will work as expected etc.? You seem to consider the worst cases for the Typhoon, but the best for the F-15.Really "good" and "fair" base to start with :roll:

Assume all this happens what is the incremental cost for these improvements? We are already talking about a $120 million/plane mind you. What kind of weight increase is there for these goodies. How does that effect its performance?


You still don't get he point of the costs and what they include. BTW is the F-15 really cheaper to purchase? And don't forget about the operational costs!

Lets take it further. What I described for the F-15 is only for US birds. Consider an export opportunity. Japan comes to mind. The competition is the EF. What is to stop Boeing from adding fast pack capability, the 29,000 lb thrust (there goes the kinematic advantage), AESA, helmet mounted sight, aim-9x, data link, and whatever other goodies they have been putting into the Super Hornet. Much of the development work has been done. There would be some integration testing of some of the newer items from the Super Hornet but that's it.


And what is stopping Eurofighter from adding stronger TVC engines etc.. :roll: Again you look at the things very one sided.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 16:55
by donk14N
Hmmm...

I thought this was a F-35 vs. Rafale topic. When did it become a F-15 vs. Eurofighter topic? For that matter, why does every topic seem to turn into that? Why don't you guys just create a damn Eurofighter vs. F-15, F-18, F-22, & F-35 topic already and argue there? Quit hijacking these threads by talking about non-topic aircraft. 'Cause, quite frankly, I could care less which is better between the F-15 and the Eurofighter (although by looking at all current and future capabilities it should be obvious), I came here to see a Rafale and JSF comparison, and read people's comments on that topic.

Unread postPosted: 16 Oct 2007, 22:12
by Scorpion82
@donk14n,
yes it was a F-35 vs Rafale thread :P . No honestly you are right about that and I admit a partitial responsibility for this development. It would probably be better to create a separate F-15 vs Eurofighter thread in the "other military aircraft" section, if there is any interest in continuing this debate.


About the F-35 vs Rafale, well what do you expect from an aircraft which is some 15 years younger, taking the date of the series prototypes first flights as reference. The F-35 provides stealth, a very sophisticated MMI, a highly advanced and comprehensive avionics suite and an impressive sensor package with an unmatched array of different systems. The F-35s flight performance is probably compareable to that of the F-16 maybe a little bit better here or there and maybe a little bit inferior in the one or other area. I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occassions, but it's the combat configuration that matters and here the F-35 has a good chance to close up. But the F-35s versatility and fire power is limited with internal weapons only, while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance. I'm not very optimistic about the F-35 being a low cost fighter as originally intended.
Where I completly disagree with some previous posters is that the F-35 will have a superior jamming capability. This might be the case, but it's not for sure and any claims in that direction are very bold as they are unproven and difficult to back up as well.
One should also take into account that the Rafale is in service right now, while the F-35 is still under development and some years away from entering service. At the time the F-35 will enter service, the Rafale will be further developed and not be the same aircraft as it is now.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2007, 04:14
by Thumper3181
The F-35s flight performance is probably compareable to that of the F-16 maybe a little bit better here or there and maybe a little bit inferior in the one or other area. I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occassions, but it's the combat configuration that matters and here the F-35 has a good chance to close up. while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance.


The F-35 carries her war load internally. So sure if you compare an F-16 (or any other non stealth fighter) to the F-35 you need to assume it is carrying a comparable payload and the F-35 is only carrying half of it's fuel. Do the math then. Do it for the Rafale or F-16. There is no comparison when you start carrying 5000 pounds of ordinance which is what the F-35 carries internally.

But the F-35s versatility and fire power is limited with internal weapons only,



5000 pounds is not exactly limited, especially when you take the amount of fuel it carries internally into account. The entire "limited" internal weapons argument is bogus. It carries enough fuel and ordinance internally when it need to.

while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance.


Isn't that true with any aircraft?

I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occassions,

Even when the Rafale has a full load of fuel and the F-35 only has around half of it's fuel on board? Are you really sure about that one? You do have to compare similar configurations don't you?

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2007, 12:19
by sprstdlyscottsmn
The other thing people need to realize is that the F-35, while having limited VARIETY of wepons in can carry on a single mission internally (two to the best of my knowlege) it will carry a great number of them. Two 2,000 lbs bombs seems like a small load, but very few a/c carry more than that operationally. Higher number of small bombs is the way warefare is going. Most sorties will likey be flown with 8 SDBs and 2 AAMs. so lets say a flight of 2 goes on a mission ( thats the minimum number). Two VLO a/c with currently the best SA and sensor fusion available that can defend themselves from up to 4 enemy a/c if needed and they have F-15 assisted by F-22 for A2A cover, so are therefor pretty much free to engage whatever 16 ground targets they need to. And this strike package has 18,000lbs of fuel.

Quick review: VLO, SA, A2A support, 16 PGMs, 4 AAMs, 9 tons of fuel each, on CLEAN airframes. Sounds pretty darn good to me. And once air defence assets are out of the picture there are now 8 pylons on this strike package waiting for ordnance to put on target. I imagine the pylons will be jetisonable like the Raptors to drop RCS to a minimum at a moments need.

The thing to remember here is how many a/c fly CAP in a group, 2-4? And they only need to be engaged in a last ditch effort, i.e. the F-35 strike force cannot stay more then 15 miles away from them, (arbitrary number for VLO vs. advanced sensors)

And dont forget that there is surely room for thrust growth for the F-35. Its a hell of a plane.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2007, 14:45
by Pilotasso
Scorpion82 wrote:@Pilotasso,
where do you get the info that already 32 F-15s has been retrofitted with the AN/APG63V3? AFAIK only 18 F-15C of the 3rd FW at Elmsdorf are equipped with the V2 which is virtually the same as the V1 except for the MSA being replaced by an AESA. The V2 neither provides new modes, nor new capabilities. I read that the pilots weren't even much impressend by the V2. The V3 will for sure be much more capable, but details are unknown and it will not be fitted to any operational F-15 before 2008.


Well then my bad, :wink: I saw a news flash from airforces monthly months ago with the AESA plate, thought it was APG-63V3. I was at work when I poted my last message and was resorting to long term memory on a small magazine column.
But then again this reinforces my point of view.

Unread postPosted: 17 Oct 2007, 15:54
by Scorpion82
Thumper3181 wrote:The F-35 carries her war load internally. So sure if you compare an F-16 (or any other non stealth fighter) to the F-35 you need to assume it is carrying a comparable payload and the F-35 is only carrying half of it's fuel. Do the math then. Do it for the Rafale or F-16. There is no comparison when you start carrying 5000 pounds of ordinance which is what the F-35 carries internally.


Thumber you should really start to read more carefully what I wrote and make sure you understand it before giving such answers. Just take a look again at my post.

5000 pounds is not exactly limited, especially when you take the amount of fuel it carries internally into account. The entire "limited" internal weapons argument is bogus. It carries enough fuel and ordinance internally when it need to.


An air force with fewer aircraft might require an aircraft to carry more. Depends on the available weapons as well. The F-35 can't carry all of its intended weapons internal.

Isn't that true with any aircraft?


It is, did I say something different?

Even when the Rafale has a full load of fuel and the F-35 only has around half of it's fuel on board? Are you really sure about that one? You do have to compare similar configurations don't you?


Again read what I wrote more carefully before you answer. I compared both aircraft clean and noted that it is in the end the combat performance which matters and that the F-35 should have an advantage here due internal weapons carriage

Unread postPosted: 18 Oct 2007, 02:30
by Satorian
Thumper3181 wrote:Well Satorian since you butted in why don't you ask Scorpion the same question? Maybe for once you should read the thread before you stick your two cents in?


Oh, so you are back to your bullying again? I'm in no specific league with Scorpion, so how about you keep this between you and me? If you have a problem with him, then feel free to keep asking him for proof and backup. Personally, I am asking you.

In the meantime, please provide sourced statements of pilots that were able to compare the F-15, Super Hornet, SU-30MKI, Rafale and Typhoon in depth and then shared their evaluation and opinion, specifically putting the Typhoon last (being "no match").

And before you start screaming that I should do the same in favour of the Typhoon to counter your claim, you should note that I didn't claim a single thing about their comparative performance levels, nor did I reference any supposed pilot statement.

I'm still waiting for your backup to your claims.

You went out on a limb, you bring the proof. Are you up to the challenge or will this result in more name-calling, insults, bullying and evasion from your side?

Please, just post the proof. Wouldn't it be nice to make me look silly by posting proof? Please, just do it: Post proof.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2007, 07:49
by Ozzy_Blizzard
Scorpion82 wrote:@donk14n,
yes it was a F-35 vs Rafale thread :P . No honestly you are right about that and I admit a partitial responsibility for this development. It would probably be better to create a separate F-15 vs Eurofighter thread in the "other military aircraft" section, if there is any interest in continuing this debate.


Thats not a bad idea, since this is an interesting topic.


About the F-35 vs Rafale, well what do you expect from an aircraft which is some 15 years younger, taking the date of the series prototypes first flights as reference.


Well thats the comparison isn't it? However just because a platform is slightly younger doesn't automatically mean its inferior. Is the F22 inferior to the F35 in A2A, interception or strategic strike? Is the F15E inferior to the F16 in BVR A2A or strike?

The F-35 provides stealth, a very sophisticated MMI, a highly advanced and comprehensive avionics suite and an impressive sensor package with an unmatched array of different systems. The F-35s flight performance is probably compareable to that of the F-16 maybe a little bit better here or there and maybe a little bit inferior in the one or other area.


Not to mention its offensive EW suite which is claimed to be the most sophisticated in the current US inventory.

I estimate that a clean Rafale would outperform the F-35 on most occasions, but it's the combat configuration that matters and here the F-35 has a good chance to close up. But the F-35s versatility and fire power is limited with internal weapons only, while external stores will compromise its stealth capabilities and aerodynamical performance. I'm not very optimistic about the F-35 being a low cost fighter as originally intended.
Where I completly disagree with some previous posters is that the F-35 will have a superior jamming capability. This might be the case, but it's not for sure and any claims in that direction are very bold as they are unproven and difficult to back up as well.


Even when clean I'm not sure it would in all parameters. In terms of kinematics, the F35 would be a better performer. It has a comperable (slightly better) TWR at a similar percentile of internal fuel. That 40klb thrust F135 engine is no joke. Plus it has more fuel to play with. More fuel doesn't just mean more range, it equates to more energy. More time on afterburner, more time at full dry thrust, more opportunities to gain an advantage. their top speeds may be similar but the F35 can stay at AB for longer with comparable or better (depending on the fuel loads) acceleration. All this is of cource against a clean rafale.

However with a wing loading as low as 326kgm/2 the Rafale should be able to out "dogfight" an F35 if they both ran out of missiles and went to guns. Thats without delveing into the various aerodynamic benefits a delta/canard design such as roll rates and high alfa performance, a clean rafale should be able to out turn an F35 any way you look at it.

As for your disagreement with the statement that the F35 will have better 'jamming" capabilities i guess you will have to disagree with me to. The F35's EW suite will be the most comprehensive and sophisticated yet produced in a fighter, apart from EA 18G (if you can call it a fighter). The level of integration of its ESM, ECM, Radar, IR/EO equipment and nav/comms with ts offencive EW capabilities is higher than the F22 or F18E/F. As far as the Rafale is concerned, the SPECTRA system seems to be a very sophisticated ECM/ESM suite. the notion of active cancellation is a very impressive self protection counter measure when the technology matures. I have no problem considering the Rafales defensive EW suite as equal to the F35's. However in terms of offensive "jamming" or EW, the F35 is a long way ahead of Rafale. As impressive as SPECTRA is, it can not reach out and offensively disrupt enemy systems. It is a defensive ECM system. on the other hand the F35's EW suite in conjunction with the APG 81 can actively degrade an enemy's radar's total performance, not just its own echo, it can overload an incoming ARH missiles sensors or possibly fry its internal circuits at close range. It can disrupt enemy datalinks at ranges that have been described as "extremely tactically significant", so i would guess well in excess of 100km's. the combination of VLO, passive launch and disruption of enemy communications will mean the F35 is one lethal beast in BVR combat. Its a "jamming" capability that at the Rafale will not be able to match in the foreseeable future.

http://www.aviationtoday.com/av/categor ... y/845.html

One should also take into account that the Rafale is in service right now, while the F-35 is still under development and some years away from entering service. At the time the F-35 will enter service, the Rafale will be further developed and not be the same aircraft as it is now.


F35 Block 4 should be operational in 6~7 years. So i guess we can consider any future developments to rafale that are funded and available within that time-frame.

On another note i doubt the F35 will only carry 4 AAM's internally. there is room in the A/C versions for at least 6, with a double rail launcher on the belly hardpoint, if not both weapons stations. The problem is clearance of the inboard weapons station, however i dont think this will be a problem that can not be solved. The missile just needs to be ejected or levered out of the bay. Given the fact that there is more than enough room, an internal war load of 6~8 AAM's is pretty likely. I do remember rading an article that LM had done ground testing of 6 AAM's in the payload bay, i'll try and dig it up.

Also the only munition the F35A has to carry externally is JASSM, which is stealthy anyway. Everything else will fit into the weapons bay.

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2007, 12:20
by Scorpion82
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:@donk14n,
yes it was a F-35 vs Rafale thread :P . No honestly you are right about that and I admit a partitial responsibility for this development. It would probably be better to create a separate F-15 vs Eurofighter thread in the "other military aircraft" section, if there is any interest in continuing this debate.


Thats not a bad idea, since this is an interesting topic.


Ok I will start such a topic later. with a comprehensive opening post to reflect my point of view. Check it out later.



Well thats the comparison isn't it? However just because a platform is slightly younger doesn't automatically mean its inferior. Is the F22 inferior to the F35 in A2A, interception or strategic strike? Is the F15E inferior to the F16 in BVR A2A or strike?


You are basically right, but ~15 years or lets say 10 years is already a difference and might have some impact due technology evolution.

Not to mention its offensive EW suite which is claimed to be the most sophisticated in the current US inventory.

As for your disagreement with the statement that the F35 will have better 'jamming" capabilities i guess you will have to disagree with me to. The F35's EW suite will be the most comprehensive and sophisticated yet produced in a fighter, apart from EA 18G (if you can call it a fighter). The level of integration of its ESM, ECM, Radar, IR/EO equipment and nav/comms with ts offencive EW capabilities is higher than the F22 or F18E/F. As far as the Rafale is concerned, the SPECTRA system seems to be a very sophisticated ECM/ESM suite. the notion of active cancellation is a very impressive self protection counter measure when the technology matures. I have no problem considering the Rafales defensive EW suite as equal to the F35's. However in terms of offensive "jamming" or EW, the F35 is a long way ahead of Rafale. As impressive as SPECTRA is, it can not reach out and offensively disrupt enemy systems. It is a defensive ECM system. on the other hand the F35's EW suite in conjunction with the APG 81 can actively degrade an enemy's radar's total performance, not just its own echo, it can overload an incoming ARH missiles sensors or possibly fry its internal circuits at close range. It can disrupt enemy datalinks at ranges that have been described as "extremely tactically significant", so i would guess well in excess of 100km's. the combination of VLO, passive launch and disruption of enemy communications will mean the F35 is one lethal beast in BVR combat. Its a "jamming" capability that at the Rafale will not be able to match in the foreseeable future.As for your disagreement with the statement that the F35 will have better 'jamming" capabilities i guess you will have to disagree with me to. The F35's EW suite will be the most comprehensive and sophisticated yet produced in a fighter, apart from EA 18G (if you can call it a fighter). The level of integration of its ESM, ECM, Radar, IR/EO equipment and nav/comms with ts offencive EW capabilities is higher than the F22 or F18E/F. As far as the Rafale is concerned, the SPECTRA system seems to be a very sophisticated ECM/ESM suite. the notion of active cancellation is a very impressive self protection counter measure when the technology matures. I have no problem considering the Rafales defensive EW suite as equal to the F35's. However in terms of offensive "jamming" or EW, the F35 is a long way ahead of Rafale. As impressive as SPECTRA is, it can not reach out and offensively disrupt enemy systems. It is a defensive ECM system. on the other hand the F35's EW suite in conjunction with the APG 81 can actively degrade an enemy's radar's total performance, not just its own echo, it can overload an incoming ARH missiles sensors or possibly fry its internal circuits at close range. It can disrupt enemy datalinks at ranges that have been described as "extremely tactically significant", so i would guess well in excess of 100km's. the combination of VLO, passive launch and disruption of enemy communications will mean the F35 is one lethal beast in BVR combat. Its a "jamming" capability that at the Rafale will not be able to match in the foreseeable future.


The F-35 isn't in service right now neither is its EWS. I have no doubt that its EWS will be a highly capable system. It might be superior as well and I see good chances for it to be supperior. The problem is that EW suites are a well guarded secrets and you never know about the exact capabilities. A really fair comparison isn't possible for such systems ,though you can weight the one or other parameter against each other and make some fair assumptions. BTW Rafale's ECM provides both, defensive and offensive modes according to the french guys. Until the F-35 will enter service and its capabilities are available the Rafale has enough time to compensate potential short comings, this is of course no guarantee for being "better". A strong advantage for the F-35 is that a number of nations can provide their expertise in these fields which is valueable.


Even when clean I'm not sure it would in all parameters. In terms of kinematics, the F35 would be a better performer. It has a comperable (slightly better) TWR at a similar percentile of internal fuel. That 40klb thrust F135 engine is no joke. Plus it has more fuel to play with. More fuel doesn't just mean more range, it equates to more energy. More time on afterburner, more time at full dry thrust, more opportunities to gain an advantage. their top speeds may be similar but the F35 can stay at AB for longer with comparable or better (depending on the fuel loads) acceleration. All this is of cource against a clean rafale.

However with a wing loading as low as 326kgm/2 the Rafale should be able to out "dogfight" an F35 if they both ran out of missiles and went to guns. Thats without delveing into the various aerodynamic benefits a delta/canard design such as roll rates and high alfa performance, a clean rafale should be able to out turn an F35 any way you look at it.


I basically agree with your conclusions. Remains to wait for how the Rafale will be further developed. Stronger engines would provide some improvments, but not in every area. The F-35s main strength is its huge range and aerodynamic cleaness in a combat configuration.

F35 Block 4 should be operational in 6~7 years. So i guess we can consider any future developments to rafale that are funded and available within that time-frame.


Just to be up to date. Is block 4 the intended definitive configuration? I mean to remember that due costs some of the planned capabilities won't be available before 2016.

On another note i doubt the F35 will only carry 4 AAM's internally. there is room in the A/C versions for at least 6, with a double rail launcher on the belly hardpoint, if not both weapons stations. The problem is clearance of the inboard weapons station, however i dont think this will be a problem that can not be solved. The missile just needs to be ejected or levered out of the bay. Given the fact that there is more than enough room, an internal war load of 6~8 AAM's is pretty likely. I do remember rading an article that LM had done ground testing of 6 AAM's in the payload bay, i'll try and dig it up.



I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12. This would be really impressive and I prefer to wait for official confirmation. 6-8 missiles should be possible taking into account the design of the F-35s weapon bays. They provide more room than the F-22s so I see no real problem to fit at least 6 or 8 missiles in total.


Also the only munition the F35A has to carry externally is JASSM, which is stealthy anyway. Everything else will fit into the weapons bay.


I try to find the link for the graphic I have on my HD. These show the weapons which can be carried internal and external.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2007, 16:06
by boff180
Scorpion82 wrote:I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12. This would be really impressive and I prefer to wait for official confirmation. 6-8 missiles should be possible taking into account the design of the F-35s weapon bays. They provide more room than the F-22s so I see no real problem to fit at least 6 or 8 missiles in total.


Me and dwight had a set to over this a few months ago; I had it confirmed by the JSF team that the eventual load-out of missiles in each bay will be 3. HOWEVER as I have discovered recently, if you are a Meteor user... she only fits the primary pylon in the weapons bay and only one of them. She doesn't fit the shoulder pylon, so when carrying A-G ordnance internally you cannot carry a BVR missile if a Meteor using nation. That also severely limits combat persistence in a stealthy air-air config.

Also the only munition the F35A has to carry externally is JASSM, which is stealthy anyway. Everything else will fit into the weapons bay.


I try to find the link for the graphic I have on my HD. These show the weapons which can be carried internal and external.


Lots of weapons only fit externally, most of them not stealthy.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2007, 16:51
by Scorpion82
Here is the link with graphics for the internal/external weapons carriage.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/planes/q0163.shtml

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2007, 21:54
by checksixx
Scorpion82 wrote:[I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12.


Can you say not a chance in hell? Any graphics you saw that showed 6 AAM's per bay was made up in a fairytale land.

Unread postPosted: 21 Oct 2007, 22:34
by Corsair1963
checksixx wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:[I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12.


Can you say not a chance in hell? Any graphics you saw that showed 6 AAM's per bay was made up in a fairytale land.



I believe they are referring to 3-per bay! (i.e. 6 total)

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2007, 05:30
by Ozzy_Blizzard
checksixx wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:[I have seen graphics with a load of 6 AAMs per weapons bay, making a total of 12.


Can you say not a chance in hell? Any graphics you saw that showed 6 AAM's per bay was made up in a fairytale land.


I saw that graphic to, it had double rails on both hardpoints and 2 more on the outboard doors, which is probably crap. It added up to 12


@ boff...

Lots of weapons only fit externally, most of them not stealthy.


Like what? And i do mean that have been cleared for use on the F35. Strom shadow is annother i can think of. Everything else is in the 2000lb class range AFAIK and CAN be carried internally.

On annother note i wonder if there is any chance of a double rail for WVRAAM's on the inboard weapons station, allowing 8????

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2007, 08:56
by Scorpion82
@Ozzy,
check the link I provided to check the weapons which are supposed to be internal only and external.

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2007, 12:28
by boff180
Like what? And i do mean that have been cleared for use on the F35. Strom shadow is annother i can think of. Everything else is in the 2000lb class range AFAIK and CAN be carried internally.

On annother note i wonder if there is any chance of a double rail for WVRAAM's on the inboard weapons station, allowing 8????


Point 1.
The following weapons are being cleared for external carriage only at the present time, many won't actually fit the bay; others no funding or need has arisen:
- GBU-10
- GBU-24A/B
- GBU-16
- Mk-83
- Mk-84
- CBU-100
- GBU-32
- Aim-9X
- JASSM
- Storm Shadow
- External fuel
- baggage pods
- Training LGB rounds.

Internal and external carriage:
- Aim-120C
- Meteor
- Asraam
- Brimstone/JCM
- SDB
- CBU-105
- GBU-12
- GBU-31
- GBU-32
- GBU-38
- JSOW

Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy

Unread postPosted: 22 Oct 2007, 22:12
by dwightlooi
boff180 wrote:Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy


Actually, the F-35 has NO INTERNAL RAILs. Period.

The door mounted AMRAAM/ASRAAM station is an ejector which launches the missiles downwards with motor ignition occuring after release. This is the reason the current AIM-9X cannot be used in that position -- the AIM-9X as it is currently designed is rail launch only.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2007, 07:04
by Ozzy_Blizzard
boff180 wrote:
Like what? And i do mean that have been cleared for use on the F35. Strom shadow is annother i can think of. Everything else is in the 2000lb class range AFAIK and CAN be carried internally.

On annother note i wonder if there is any chance of a double rail for WVRAAM's on the inboard weapons station, allowing 8????


Point 1.
The following weapons are being cleared for external carriage only at the present time, many won't actually fit the bay; others no funding or need has arisen:
- GBU-10
- GBU-24A/B
- GBU-16
- Mk-83
- Mk-84
- CBU-100
- GBU-32
- Aim-9X
- JASSM
- Storm Shadow
- External fuel
- baggage pods
- Training LGB rounds.

Internal and external carriage:
- Aim-120C
- Meteor
- Asraam
- Brimstone/JCM
- SDB
- CBU-105
- GBU-12
- GBU-31
- GBU-32
- GBU-38
- JSOW

Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy


A few suprises there. Thanks.

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2007, 07:07
by Ozzy_Blizzard
dwightlooi wrote:
boff180 wrote:Point 2. The way the missile rail works, there is no way of practically fitting a double rail to it. The trapeze system is being developed to take 2x Aim-120C but thats all.

Andy


Actually, the F-35 has NO INTERNAL RAILs. Period.

The door mounted AMRAAM/ASRAAM station is an ejector which launches the missiles downwards with motor ignition occuring after release. This is the reason the current AIM-9X cannot be used in that position -- the AIM-9X as it is currently designed is rail launch only.


That is a huge problem and a ridiculous one! What exactly is the USAF doing about it? At the moment they face the fact of going into battle with an unballanced warload in stealth configuration. A new version of the Aim 9 perhaps???

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2007, 07:08
by Ozzy_Blizzard
duplicate post

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2007, 23:09
by dwightlooi
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
That is a huge problem and a ridiculous one! What exactly is the USAF doing about it? At the moment they face the fact of going into battle with an unballanced warload in stealth configuration. A new version of the Aim 9 perhaps???


Well, 2012 is 5 years away, thats plenty of time to develop a new AIM-9X "block" if needed. Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder. And in a typical penetration mission two or eight internal bombs with 2 AMRAAMs will be the typical load out. The same bomb load with two AIM-9Xes won't be carried much.

That is the baseline. Also, at IOC there won't be a 6 AAM internal loadout option. Studies have been done to allow the F-35A to carry 6 AAMs internally, but there is no schedule to develop a twin ejector for the internal 2,500 lb stations by IOC (2012). Hence, at IOC, the F-35A/B/C will carrying 4 AMRAAMs internally on air superiority missions.

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2007, 05:45
by Thumper3181
Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.


Why would you even want/need to go WVR in a F-35 or F-22 anyway. You negate some (not all) of your advantages that way.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Oct 2007, 07:02
by Parkeran
Fair fight? Hardly. F-35 wins before they even takeoff.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2007, 01:23
by dwightlooi
Thumper3181 wrote:
Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.


Why would you even want/need to go WVR in a F-35 or F-22 anyway. You negate some (not all) of your advantages that way.


I think that the answer you will get from the Rafale crowd is that the AMRAAM sucks and it always misses because the Rafale's internal jammer always works and the French bird will usually dodge AMRAAMs anyway. LOL!

That's rubbish of course, but it is possible that a BVR shot will miss for whatever reason and due to certain tactical conditions a fight can merge into a WVR brawl. One thing to consider in this case is that basically the F-35 will have the first shot BVR, and even if it does miss, the target is probably just coming out of a series of frantic evasive maneuvers. The prey will hence tend to enter a WVR fight in an energy, vector and situational awareness mess. The F-35 will on the other hand have tend to enter the fight in its chosen set of conditions. Regardless of the maneuverability, equipment and other factors of both aircrafts, that counts for A LOT!

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2007, 05:06
by Thumper3181
I think that the answer you will get from the Rafale crowd is that the AMRAAM sucks and it always misses because the Rafale's internal jammer always works and the French bird will usually dodge AMRAAMs anyway. LOL!


Now now DL. This isn't that other talk site with Herald's poseur.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2007, 08:56
by Pilotasso
dwightlooi wrote:
Well, 2012 is 5 years away, thats plenty of time to develop a new AIM-9X "block" if needed. Right now, the WVR AAM is a low priority. Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.


Thats not exactly the reason why. The reason is because a weapon as heavy and big as the AMRAAM is simply easier to manuever into the rails outwards of the aircrafts contours with no obstacles. like the wings and other external stores. Note that the sidwinder is frequently mixed with the AMRAAM and this last missile is still mounted on the tips regardless of the missile combo. Thats because the groud crew can load the sidwinder easely anywhere but not as such with the AIM-120. Technicaly theres no reason for this because the AIM-120 makes the tips bounce with the load and the tips are better for IR seeker lock before launch, but just barely. Its simply due to the easiness and time saving of loading it up.

Similarly you can see AMRAAMs loaded in the F-15's outer underwing side pylons as opposed to the sidwinder mounted inwards.

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2007, 20:50
by ACMIguy
Pilotasso

Where did you get the idea Sta 1/9 is better for loading the 120? We load them where ever OPS calls for it. And to be honest it's just as easy to load on any station, maybe easier on 2/8.
The key is training with the Jammer and OSLO.
Load out is based on priority, if your 120 is your primary weapon you want that on 1/9 with 9's on 2/8.
Yes the bounce is greater with the 120, after all it's hanging out there about 4 extra feet than the 9. And yes the jet pays a price for the extra G load and twisting. Just talk to any fuels or CC guy/gal about leaks.
And there is no time savings for any loading operation, no matter what station you put what on.
Give me a good crew and I'll turn the jet anytime anyplace just as fast with any load out you want. Been doing it for years.

Okay so now for the loading on the F-35 and what it can or can not carry. Remember folks LM is still working out where all the nuts and bolts go first.
This thing is going to be changing for a long time, first they got to get it off the ground then work on the side view mirrors and chrome spinners for the wheels.
:wink:
So just sit back chill and watch :D

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2007, 22:16
by checksixx
dwightlooi wrote:Even on the F-16 and F-18 it has become popular to carry the AMRAAM on the wing tips in lieu of the sidewinder.


F/A-18? Please link a pic with F/A-18's carrying slammers on the wingtips, Thanks. Never, EVER, seen that before so I'm curious!

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2007, 00:48
by Scorpion82
I think the AMRAAMs on F/A-18 was just a mixing up of things. I recently heared from a F/A-18 guy that its not possible to load the AMRAAM to the Hornets wing tips, because of some structural wing problems.

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2007, 02:05
by Beagle79
F-35 piloted by a reasonable good pilot will win handsomely when competing on ATA/ATG/EW (or even for foreign sale!) role, thus distinguishing a 5G fighter from a <5G one :roll:

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2007, 02:46
by Corsair1963
toan wrote:As for lacking of thrust...........

Empty weight:
F-35A: 12,000 ~ 12,500 kg
EF-2000: 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg
Rafale C: 9,400 ~ 9,850 kg

Internal Fuel:
F-35A: 8,391 kg
EF-2000: 4,996 kg
Rafale C: 4,700 kg

Thrust (AB/Max. Mil) at Sea-Level:
F-35A: 40,000~43,000 Ib / 28,900 Ib*1
EF-2000: 20,250~22,275 Ib / 13,490~15,525 Ib*2
Rafale C: 16,860~17,000 Ib / 11,245 Ib*2

Weight of Standard A-A configuration:
F-35A: 12,000~12,500 kg + 5,000 kg (internal fuel) + 1,500 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 18,500~19,000 kg
EF-2K: 10,995~11,150 kg + 5,000 kg (internal fuel) + 1,500 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 17,500~17,650 kg
Rafale: 9,400~9,850 kg + 4,700 kg (internal fuel) + 1,300 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 15,400~15,850 kg


T/W ratio at Sea-Level (A/B / Mil):
F-35A: 0.96~1.05 / 0.69~0.71
EF-2K: 1.04~1.15 / 0.69~0.80
Rafale: 0.97~1.00 / 0.64~0.66

Personally, I think the difference of T/W ratio among the three fighters with standard A-A configuration is not very significant.........



The T/W ratio may not be significant between the three. Yet, the F-35 will have much less drag and RCS. Clearly, advantage F-35! :wink:

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2007, 07:54
by Thumper3181
I think Toan's numbers may be a bit off for the JSF.

Projected empty weight is 12020 Kg
One half internal fuel is 4082 kg (which is comparable to the full internal fuel of the other two jets). You cannot stress enough the advantage of carrying all of your fuel internally.

1500kg for armament and pilot.

At 43,000lbs thrust you get a T/W ratio of 1.11 for the F-35

My numbers where taken from here:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/7764.zip

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2007, 13:21
by Scorpion82
@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2007, 16:16
by Corsair1963
Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)



The thrust of the forthcoming GE F-136 is said to be much higher than the current P & W F-135. Which, is often over looked along with the drag and stealth advantages of the F-35 over contemporary designs. Regardless, the Lightning is going to be very capable in WVR..... 8)

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2007, 22:12
by dwightlooi
Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)


If the brief is listing 13198 kg for the F-35A and 14,618 kg for the F-35B, they are probably cited pre-weight-reduction numbers. 13.2 tons is right for the current AA-1 prototype. About 1.23 tons (2,700 lbs) was trimmed from the F-35B and about 0.59 tons was reduced from the A and C variants during the weight attack redesign.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2007, 00:17
by Scorpion82
dwightlooi wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)


If the brief is listing 13198 kg for the F-35A and 14,618 kg for the F-35B, they are probably cited pre-weight-reduction numbers. 13.2 tons is right for the current AA-1 prototype. About 1.23 tons (2,700 lbs) was trimmed from the F-35B and about 0.59 tons was reduced from the A and C variants during the weight attack redesign.


When were the reduction measures announced? As mentioned the weights are given in the document I posted above. It's from september 2006.

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2007, 03:23
by Thumper3181
The numbers I got where downloaded from the jsf.mil website. I am not sure of the date but they are official documents for public release. The presentation you cited yours from where originally from there as well (however that presentation indicated they where estimates) so I am not sure. I would defer to DL on this one.

12661 + 4082 + 1500 = 18,243kg

19,512kg(thrust)/18,243 = 1.06

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2007, 18:02
by dwightlooi
Scorpion82 wrote:
When were the reduction measures announced? As mentioned the weights are given in the document I posted above. It's from september 2006.


Right. I have read that document in detail too. However, the numbers agree with the overweight F-35 before the redesign. The F-35 was 1 ton over target weight and the B version was projected to miss range and hover load targets -- target weight of the F-35A is 12 tons and that of the F-35B was 13.5 tons.

The 14.6 ton weight of the F-35B and the 13.2 ton weight of the F-35A were more or less the weight numbers they were having a problem with prior to the redesign which delayed the program by 2 years. The AA-1 is 13.1 tons for instance and it was built to pre-redesign specs.

So either the redesign never netted any weight reductions or the numbers were for the old design. According to reports in 2006, the redesign netted a 2700 pounds reduction in the F-35B and roughly half of that amount in the other variants.

RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2008, 05:41
by a10freedom
I just joined so I’m a little out of this post. If your trying to decide which plane could bet the others you have to take payload into account. The more weapons you can hold the better the chance of hitting the target. Also, how much fuel each plane can hold. Even if the F-35 does have stealth its useless if it can’t hold as much fuel as the other two fighters.

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2008, 10:40
by dwightlooi
a10freedom wrote:I just joined so I’m a little out of this post. If your trying to decide which plane could bet the others you have to take payload into account. The more weapons you can hold the better the chance of hitting the target. Also, how much fuel each plane can hold. Even if the F-35 does have stealth its useless if it can’t hold as much fuel as the other two fighters.


The F-35 holds more internal fuel than either the Typhoon or the Rafale. Almost 180% as much -- 8.4 tons vs 4.7~4.9 tons. The Typhoon and the Rafale can of course carry external tanks, but so can the F-35.

The F-35 will carry 4~6 AAMs internally for air superioty missions, or 2~8 bombs + 2 AAMs internally for deep strikes. This represents the typically desired loads for this missions regardless of how much you can actually lug if you max out the weapon stations because this is the amount of ordnance an aircraft is expected to need on the missions with a little extra margin. When performance or stealth or both is not on longer important -- such as when trucking bombs to dump over Taliban ragheads, the F-35 will carry no less external stores as the other two fighters. Of course, if you use it as a bomb truck or missile barge bristling with all manners of stuff on pylons it will no longer be a truly stealthy platform. However, it won't be any worse than the Rafale or the Typhoon.

Re: RE: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2008, 15:15
by Corsair1963
dwightlooi wrote:
a10freedom wrote:I just joined so I’m a little out of this post. If your trying to decide which plane could bet the others you have to take payload into account. The more weapons you can hold the better the chance of hitting the target. Also, how much fuel each plane can hold. Even if the F-35 does have stealth its useless if it can’t hold as much fuel as the other two fighters.


The F-35 holds more internal fuel than either the Typhoon or the Rafale. Almost 180% as much -- 8.4 tons vs 4.7~4.9 tons. The Typhoon and the Rafale can of course carry external tanks, but so can the F-35.

The F-35 will carry 4~6 AAMs internally for air superioty missions, or 2~8 bombs + 2 AAMs internally for deep strikes. This represents the typically desired loads for this missions regardless of how much you can actually lug if you max out the weapon stations because this is the amount of ordnance an aircraft is expected to need on the missions with a little extra margin. When performance or stealth or both is not on longer important -- such as when trucking bombs to dump over Taliban ragheads, the F-35 will carry no less external stores as the other two fighters. Of course, if you use it as a bomb truck or missile barge bristling with all manners of stuff on pylons it will no longer be a truly stealthy platform. However, it won't be any worse than the Rafale or the Typhoon.



Just think of the performance advantage the F-35 will hold vs the Typhoon and Rafale. That have to carry there stores externally! :twisted:

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2008, 17:21
by elp
Look at the comparison in industry participation too. If JSF weaves it's way through SDD and delivers a workable Block I jet let alone a Block III one, it is all over for the manned fighter jet market. I like the Rafale. However there is a huge problem being able to sell it without the sales force getting shot in the foot by the French government. Where with the U.S., industry and greased politicians sing from the same sheet of music on weapon system sales. :lol:

Then of course there are other weird things like if the EU goes wack and starts carbon footprinting weapons systems, one only has to look at the Norway JSF briefing to see that the JSF will go a long way on a tank of gas. At some point and time the Rafale production is going to be completely unsustainable through lack of interest of proping up an organization that doesn't generate any sales. We may have seen the last Eurofighter customer. Then of course if JSF gets over the magic 1500-1600 airframes where cost flattens out... it is all down hill from there.

This might be a concern for some. Because if JSF is sucessful in the year 2020 or so, it will be the Microsoft Windows of fighter jets. Your options for a manned fighter are going to be extremely limited unless your government can buy Chicom knockoffs or RuTech stuff and/or those are suitable options because they don't have U.S. state department restrictions on them. If JSF is your only choice, price/value will be whatever the vendor says it is.

When you start looking at all the industry issues, then you can see that 10-15 years from now, choice is going to be even more limited on manned fighter buying options. Is this a bad thing? Well for go to war JSF coalitions probably not. It still leaves some wanting for a cheapish 2 seater for attack that has L.O. enough qualities.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2008, 17:47
by LowObservable
Whoa.
Missing element here is that the payload-range performance (along with the fuel burn, ELP) is determined by MTOW (thrust/aerodynamics), L/D (wing design, and yes, external stores if carried, and until jetissoned), SFC (engine cycle mostly) and fuel fraction (internal and external and related to clean MTOW).
JSF with internal only weapons (and DL, you should really specify "eight very small bombs") doesn't have the drag of external tanks or weapons; but to do this it carries an extra two tons of metal, all the time; and it is fatter, all the time; and A and B have the little wing demanded by the B.
It's also a mistake to assume that JSF-A can carry all that internal fuel, internal weapons AND a Typhoon/Rafale-like external load. It doesn't have the hardpoints or the lift to do that.

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2008, 21:52
by elp
LowObservable wrote:Whoa.
Missing element here is that the payload-range performance (along with the fuel burn, ELP) is determined by MTOW (thrust/aerodynamics), L/D (wing design, and yes, external stores if carried, and until jetissoned), SFC (engine cycle mostly) and fuel fraction (internal and external and related to clean MTOW).
JSF with internal only weapons (and DL, you should really specify "eight very small bombs") doesn't have the drag of external tanks or weapons; but to do this it carries an extra two tons of metal, all the time; and it is fatter, all the time; and A and B have the little wing demanded by the B.
It's also a mistake to assume that JSF-A can carry all that internal fuel, internal weapons AND a Typhoon/Rafale-like external load. It doesn't have the hardpoints or the lift to do that.


Weight I agree. There are a lot of things to consider when talking about range. What do you think about this from the JSF sales crew? http://elpwarpigs.blogspot.com/2007/12/740-vs-590.html

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 01:34
by dwightlooi
LowObservable wrote:Whoa.
Missing element here is that the payload-range performance (along with the fuel burn, ELP) is determined by MTOW (thrust/aerodynamics), L/D (wing design, and yes, external stores if carried, and until jetissoned), SFC (engine cycle mostly) and fuel fraction (internal and external and related to clean MTOW).
JSF with internal only weapons (and DL, you should really specify "eight very small bombs") doesn't have the drag of external tanks or weapons; but to do this it carries an extra two tons of metal, all the time; and it is fatter, all the time; and A and B have the little wing demanded by the B.
It's also a mistake to assume that JSF-A can carry all that internal fuel, internal weapons AND a Typhoon/Rafale-like external load. It doesn't have the hardpoints or the lift to do that.


(1) The F-35A/B does not have a tiny wing. It has a wing size that is quite optimal. It has in fact a slightly larger wing per unit weight than say an F-16. In addition, the body of the F-35 also generates a lot of lift – probably more than enough to keep the aircraft aloft even if you remove the wings entirely when it is moving higher subsonic speeds. Do not underestimate bodylift. Even an F-15 can not only fly but LAND with one wing totally removed.

(2) The extra enveloped volume it takes to enclose the additional internal fuel and weapons will never result in drag that is anywhere near that generated by those stores carried externally. The reason is two fold. Firstly, the shaping is much more cohesive from an aerodynamics standpoint than external pylons and a collection of cylindrical ogives. Secondly, the wetted surface area is much lower. The having about 6 to 8 empty pylons in the air stream may in fact incur just as much drag as the F-35 does with its bulked up fuselage that holds those additional fuel and weapons bays.

(3) Finally, the F-35A does actually match the approximate total ordnance carrying capacity of the EF and the Rafale – both in weight and in space. The F-35A will carry a total of 7.2 tons of ordnance in addition to 8.4 tons of fuel. The EF will lug 7.4 tons of ordnance and 4.5 tons of fuel (2-seaters carry less gas). The Rafale M carries 9.6 tons of ordnance with 4.9 tons of fuel.

(4) Let’s put it this way. If you are carrying 6 x 2,000 pounders plus 4 AAMs, that’s “only” about 5.9 tons. Each of those huge 600 gallon ferry tanks are about 2 tons. Carry two of those huge 2300 liter tanks, 6 x 1000 lb bombs and 2 AAMs and that’s about 7.2 tons. In short all these aircraft can lift just about ANYTHING you can sling on those pylons. Space, not load is usually the limiting factor.

(5) The F-35A has enough “space” for a load such as 2 x AIM-120C/Ds + 2 x 2,000 lbs JDAMs internally. Plus, enough external “room” for 8 x 1000 pound bombs or 4 x 2,000 lbs bombs + two more AAMs. While carrying all of these and no external tanks, it is already carrying the equivalent of a Typhoon or a Rafale’s total fuel load with two ferry tanks, or if you want you can sling two massive tanks on the inner two underwing hardpoints rated for 5000 lbs.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 04:29
by elp
Hi DW. Hope you had a good holiday!

Consider right now that external tanks for the JSF are off the SDD schedule.

Be interesting to see what they come up with in this area post SDD. Same tank? Different design?

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 06:38
by dwightlooi
elp wrote:Hi DW. Hope you had a good holiday!

Consider right now that external tanks for the JSF are off the SDD schedule.

Be interesting to see what they come up with in this area post SDD. Same tank? Different design?


Not in the SDD doesn't mean it's not part of the F-35 ordnance set. It just mean that its not a priority to be integrated by IOC (circa 2011) Remember that this aircraft essentially has the ferry range of fighters like the Typhoon with just its internal fuel.

Image

The F-35 tanks as disclosed in the 2005-2006 briefs are "only" 1620 liters or about 1.3 tons of fuel each. They should weigh in at about 3000~3200 lbs of which about 2850 lbs is the fuel. The inner hard points under the wings are good for 5000 lbs so they are not maximizing the carrying capacity of the airframe. The tanks however are heavily area ruled and do not appear to be ferry tanks but rather supersonic tanks. Like the Raptor tanks, it appears that the "pylon" is integrated into the tank's structure and not a separate component. It is prudent to assume that the F-35 will drop the pylon along with the tank to revert back to its stealthy configuration.

Image
F-22 dropping its tanks and pylons.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 15:30
by Corsair1963
At what point is the AIM-9X suppose to be intergraded to fit the internal bays of the F-35. As I can't see US Versions flying around with the ASRAAM............... :doh:

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 16:47
by dwightlooi
Corsair1963 wrote:At what point is the AIM-9X suppose to be intergraded to fit the internal bays of the F-35. As I can't see US Versions flying around with the ASRAAM............... :doh:


That is not a priority right now. That is to say the F-35 will fly with only internal AMRAAMs at IOC (2011). The problem is NOT the F-35. The problem is the AIM-9X, which at this time needs to be launched off a rail. ALL the internal positions on the F-35, including the ones on the inner bay doors are not rails, they are ejectors. So what needs to happen is the creation of an AIM-9X variant that accommodates ejector launch.

On a rail, the missile lights its motor leaves horizontally. On an ejector, the missile is jettisoned vertically an lights its motor after it has been released. The data receptable on the AIM-9X -- like those on earlier AIM-9s -- are designed solely for horizontal severance and the programming on the missiles are for ignitiion on launch not after.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 17:00
by Pilotasso
I think the stealth profile in the F-35 is meant to be used for AG missions with minimal AA self defense only. Remenber its not an F-22 and it still remains well above average AA platform with Sidwinders externaly. You cant have the best of both worlds without paying a premium for it. ;)

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 17:13
by elp
dwightlooi wrote:Not in the SDD doesn't mean it's not part of the F-35 ordnance set.


Well, that chart is about all anyone has. The upper right hand corner states the purpose of the chart. When funds in the form of a contract appear for the drop tanks... then we will know.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 21:24
by Smithsguy
dwightlooi wrote:That is not a priority right now. That is to say the F-35 will fly with only internal AMRAAMs at IOC (2011). The problem is NOT the F-35. The problem is the AIM-9X, which at this time needs to be launched off a rail. ALL the internal positions on the F-35, including the ones on the inner bay doors are not rails, they are ejectors. So what needs to happen is the creation of an AIM-9X variant that accommodates ejector launch.


Dwight,

Two questions:
1, isn't there going to be an "internal" version of the ARL for the bay AA positions?
2, and is the proposed trapeze for the AG positions connected to a rail or an ejector?

Either would allow AIM-9Xs in the bays, correct?

Ciao,
Smithsguy

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 21:53
by LowObservable
Coupla points...

Negatory on the body lift. If you want to get into an F-35 modded with explosive bolts that chop off the wings in level high-subsonic flight, let me know and I'll video it for YouTube and the Darwins.

The wing loading comparison between the F-35 and other aircraft gets interesting because of the F-35's wide body. Unless there is seriously useful and efficient body lift (and a Tooth Fairy) the classic geometrical comparison tells only half the story. In fact, there's a very clear benchmark: the Super Bug. It's about the same size as the F-35C, meets about the same approach speed criteria - but the F-35C needs (in classic geometric terms) more than one-third more wing area. So where's your body lift?

My guess is that the F-35A will max out with standard internal load, 425 USG tanks (when and if they are restored to the program), 4 x 1000 lb bombs on the mid pylons and SRAAMs outboard. Anything more and take-off velocities are going to get exciting.

There are times when internal fuel and weapons do generate more drag than external; to wit, when the weapons are expended and tanks dropped, or when they're not required. Also, I'd ask you seriously whether semi-conformal AMRAAMs, for instance, are less efficient in weight and drag terms than AMRAAMs in an internal bay. I would bet not.

On the JSF tanks: I don't think they're area-ruled. I think they're diameter-constrained at the mid-wing point to stop them being toasted by the roll post nozzles.

Unread postPosted: 04 Jan 2008, 22:47
by dwightlooi
Smithsguy wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:That is not a priority right now. That is to say the F-35 will fly with only internal AMRAAMs at IOC (2011). The problem is NOT the F-35. The problem is the AIM-9X, which at this time needs to be launched off a rail. ALL the internal positions on the F-35, including the ones on the inner bay doors are not rails, they are ejectors. So what needs to happen is the creation of an AIM-9X variant that accommodates ejector launch.


Dwight,

Two questions:
1, isn't there going to be an "internal" version of the ARL for the bay AA positions?
2, and is the proposed trapeze for the AG positions connected to a rail or an ejector?

Either would allow AIM-9Xs in the bays, correct?

Ciao,
Smithsguy


No, the internal positions are all ejectors. The two door mounted AMRAAMs or ASRAAMs will be ejected not rail launched. Whether you put single bombs, 4 x SDBs, an AMRAAM or two on the "A2G" station these are all ejected not rail launched. The same can be said of the F-22's underside bays. The F-22 however uses rails on the sidebays specifically for the Sidewinders.

In short the only way to put AIM-9Xs inside an F-35 is to create an ejector compliant AIM-9X. This is also the simplest solution.

Unread postPosted: 05 Jan 2008, 00:55
by dwightlooi
LowObservable wrote:Coupla points...
The wing loading comparison between the F-35 and other aircraft gets interesting because of the F-35's wide body. Unless there is seriously useful and efficient body lift (and a Tooth Fairy) the classic geometrical comparison tells only half the story. In fact, there's a very clear benchmark: the Super Bug. It's about the same size as the F-35C, meets about the same approach speed criteria - but the F-35C needs (in classic geometric terms) more than one-third more wing area. So where's your body lift?


There the larger wing is probably needed to meet approach speed requirements. And approach speeds are VERY slow. You need to be going notably faster than near stall speed to have effective body lift. When the Israeli F-15 landed with one wing, it touched down at nearly 260 knots! Thats unsafe for landings but it is actually half as fast as the speed at which an F-15 cruises.

So we know that at about 260 knots the F-15 makes enough body lift to do more than the job of one entire wing and keep the aircraft level and aloft. We also know for instance that even Another thing is that body lift becomes a much larger lift component at high AoA during hard maneuvering. In fact, due to flow separation on the wings it can account for 40~60% of the lift at high AoA.

In otherwords, body lift is much more useful at high speed cruise and flight as well as during hard maneuvering than for lowering landing speeds.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2008, 15:25
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Well put, but another point to concider in the Super Bugs favor is that the massive LERXs are NOT counted in wing area yet I guarentee they provide a LOT of lift at all speeds (as they themselves have camber and are in effect low AR wings). The LERXs also allow for more efficient lift through vortex generation. While this is most prevalent at high AOA (20-40) it plays a small role at landing AoA (~8?) as well. The Super Hornet also has lower wing sweep wich allows for higher lift values. You could pnly match the approach speed of a Super Hornet with a 1000ft^2 wing if it had too much sweep.

In short, the Lightning II is a drastically advanced weapons delivery system where the whole is far greater then the sum of the parts. Sadly, however, we still have 6 years or so to see them opperational.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2008, 20:05
by Scorpion82
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:In short, the Lightning II is a drastically advanced weapons delivery system where the whole is far greater then the sum of the parts.


That is true for most modern fighters such as Rafale, Eurofighter, F-22A, probably F/A-18E/F Block II or even newest Russian designs. Avionics networking and sensor fusion are the key to that.

Unread postPosted: 06 Jan 2008, 21:20
by dwightlooi
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Well put, but another point to concider in the Super Bugs favor is that the massive LERXs are NOT counted in wing area yet I guarentee they provide a LOT of lift at all speeds (as they themselves have camber and are in effect low AR wings). The LERXs also allow for more efficient lift through vortex generation. While this is most prevalent at high AOA (20-40) it plays a small role at landing AoA (~8?) as well. The Super Hornet also has lower wing sweep wich allows for higher lift values. You could pnly match the approach speed of a Super Hornet with a 1000ft^2 wing if it had too much sweep.

In short, the Lightning II is a drastically advanced weapons delivery system where the whole is far greater then the sum of the parts. Sadly, however, we still have 6 years or so to see them opperational.


I think that what most people fail to grasp is that wing loading means very little if anything in modern fighter aircrafts. First, there is the problem of what wing area is. It is the leading and trailing edges of the main wing extended to the center line. It neither accurately reflects the actual size of the "wing" or the actual amount of lift the aircraft can produce in flight. Second, the actual wing itself is no better than the fuselage past a reasonably low AoA. Take a "wing" and place it 45 degrees or even 20 degrees through to the oncoming air stream and basically the unsides deflect air and the upper sides is a turbulent mess of separated flow. All "wings" are not created equal. A long slender wing remains more effective as a "wing" up to a higher AoA than a wide chord wing like Deltas. By "wing" I mean a device which produces lift via the airfoil effect. In other words, at attitudes where hard maneuvering is done, the total surface planar area of the aircraft is more reflective of how well it can turn than how big a wing it carries. Of course things like vortice(s) from LEXes, canards, intake lips, noses, etc all affect the total lift available.

At a fast enough speed wings are in fact a liability. The ASRAAM and some other AAMs are essentially "wingless" save for the small fins in the rear for steering purposes. At ~Mach 2 for instance, essentially near zero AoA already produces sufficient body lift to keep the missile aloft. When maneuvering the wingless ASRAAM rapidly pulls 50Gs, limited by the airframe structure and not the availability of lift. Wings in fact contribute mostly to drag and reduces the kinematic range of the missile.

Unread postPosted: 07 Jan 2008, 16:23
by elp
I'm waiting to see wing fences show up on the JSF someday. :lol:

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2008, 13:23
by Tintin
Picking up on an earlier topic from dwightlooi. ASRAAM is currently rail launched only, so I'm guessing that the UK (and Australia?) will not be spending a shed load of money on an eject launched version as I also understand this is actually quite complex to achieve? So will someone be coming up with a design to allow rail launch from the air-to-air station? I thought it was an agreed UK requirement to integrate ASRAAM AIM-132 on the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2008, 14:29
by LowObservable
A different view of wing design:

http://members.aol.com/wainfan/wingdes.pdf

Unread postPosted: 10 Jan 2008, 17:08
by dwightlooi
Tintin wrote:Picking up on an earlier topic from dwightlooi. ASRAAM is currently rail launched only, so I'm guessing that the UK (and Australia?) will not be spending a shed load of money on an eject launched version as I also understand this is actually quite complex to achieve? So will someone be coming up with a design to allow rail launch from the air-to-air station? I thought it was an agreed UK requirement to integrate ASRAAM AIM-132 on the aircraft.


No, all F-35 internal bay stations are ejector launch only. Even the door positions do not have the clearance for a missile to leave the aircraft horizontally -- essentially the fins will be scrapping the fuselage.

The ASRAAM uses a different umbilical adapter to accommodate ejector launch. It is not used on the F-18 and Typhoon because the underbelly recesses stations on these aircrafts do not accomodate the fin positions of the ASRAAM and there is no good reason to put the ASRAAM on the ejector stations on these platforms.

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2008, 19:34
by Tintin
According to an RAAF mate of mine the AIM-132 has no ability for eject launch (he says he had heard this from the maker’s rep). Something to do with stability control in the airflow - if not rail launched. There is talk of the UK using some sort of hydraulic arm system to get the missile and launcher into the air flow and then rail launch it as per normal. This will allow the missile to be deployed and the lock before launch seeker function to be used. The arm system would be mounted on the air-to-air station instead of AIM-120. I understand that on Typhoon (and I guess on F-35) the missile uses the standard AIM-120 connector (although I’m unclear how it will receive cold air unless the forward (AIM-9) umbilical is used). My mate said that this requirement is part of the partnership agreement that the UK has on the program. He also mentioned Brimstone (new Brit anti tank weapon) had to be fitted in the bay too and according to the web that’s a rail launched weapon as well. Any one got any view how they might do this. The three pack launcher on Tornado looks very big to me!

Not sure what all this has to do with Rafale!!

Unread postPosted: 14 Jan 2008, 19:54
by checksixx
I thought as of right now the F-35 was only getting clearance to carry 9x/ASRAAM externally. I don't think that has changed.

Unread postPosted: 15 Jan 2008, 05:17
by dwightlooi
checksixx wrote:I thought as of right now the F-35 was only getting clearance to carry 9x/ASRAAM externally. I don't think that has changed.


The ASRAAM has always been internal or external.

The AIM-9X is currently external only.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2008, 07:28
by end
Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)


This is impossible, if these data are true, which means both T/W rate and WingLoad of Lightning2 will be inferior than F-16, Eurofighter and Rafale.
The JSF won't be fighter any more, but an attacker with a little bit air-combat capability just like Jaguar.

I wondered how does that bleif maker predicated such data that even before the first production being. The F-35 just came off the product line last month!

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2008, 07:44
by Ozzy_Blizzard
end wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)


This is impossible, if these data are true, which means both T/W rate and WingLoad of Lightning2 will be inferior than F-16, Eurofighter and Rafale.
The JSF won't be fighter any more, but an attacker with a little bit air-combat capability just like Jaguar.

I wondered how does that bleif maker predicated such data that even before the first production being. The F-35 just came off the product line last month!


Mate in the 21st century, air combat capability is not dictated by your wing loading. It is however dictated by your radar/missile combination, RCS, EW/EWSP suite and kinematical capability. Turn rates are a long long way behind the rest. Even with a wing loading twice as high as an F16 the F35 will be twice the air superiority fighter, at least.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2008, 09:24
by end
Don't be so confident my friend!
Yes, I acknowledge clearly that dogfight is not as important as it was in Vietnam War, but your hypothesis will be a big risk in future air counter. All your theory based on electronical advantage only belong to your side, that is abolutely impossible, even you can concieve of such advantage, but please don't take it too large. Look back the F-35, its capability of stealth certainly isn't and won't be as well as F-22. ASEA also is no longer an unilateral tech only US has or we say had. The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2008, 12:18
by Pilotasso
Dogfight is still important as it ever was. Proof that its obsolete has yet to come. BVR missiles do miss and thrust vectored IR missiles will have their range reduced if shot at high angles off. Theres always place to let a bandit slip past WVR and get you merged. Part of the tactics taught to pilots is to stay undetected, and low observability on fighter will further educe the range at wich combat occurs. SA will easly dictate at wich range combat is taken, not maximum weapon and radar range.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2008, 12:28
by fretmarks
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.


Really? Are you sure about that? Is that why all fully-stealth aircraft (F-117, B-2, F-22) are developed and operated ONLY by the US? The F-117 was developed 3 decades ago. Up to now no nation can't replicate its stealth features. Don't even mention the B-2 and the F-22. If they can't replicate the faceted shape of the F-117 and produce a stealth aircraft, what more if they will IMITATE, as you say, very easily, the sloping lines and curves of the B-2 and F-22? Contrary to what you are saying, STEALTH relies heavily on the SHAPE and not the MATERIALS. if it is the materials that make stealth work, then believe me all US fighters would all be stealthy by now.

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2008, 14:57
by end
fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.

Is that why all fully-stealth aircraft (F-117, B-2, F-22) are developed and operated ONLY by the US

Take care my friend, this socalled fully stealth has never been proved by any enemy who are strong enough, only thing B-2 dare to do is launch cruise missile to attack some weak enough countries like Iraq, the F-117 was shot down in Yogo of which no need I remind you even NATO hold compelet air domination en that field.

fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.

Up to now no nation can't replicate its stealth features

If no need why shall I do?

fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.

Up to now no nation can't replicate its stealth features

very funny! How do you know there is no nations has already done same tech as well as the F-22? According to other websites information, China has chosen what he called XueXiao as their next generation fighter. Forplan surprisingly is used. The PAKFA surely will fly in next year. Do you want to fly into Ruusia or Chine to test your socalled stealth? Not even Iran you want to?

fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.
If they can't replicate the faceted shape of the F-117 and produce a stealth aircraft, what more if they will IMITATE.......Contrary to what you are saying, STEALTH relies heavily on the SHAPE and not the MATERIALS

Remeber, faceted surface is not the only way to achieve RCS reducing, if this is not ture, why the shape of B-2 is so different from F-117?

Unread postPosted: 16 Jan 2008, 20:25
by SpudmanWP
You cannot seriously be bringing up the Yugo F-117 shot-down???

That has been rehashed over and over again as a failure in Opsec, using the same inbound and egress routs, and flying below the cloud cover.

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2008, 10:15
by sprstdlyscottsmn
if stealth is so easy than why are so many other countires PLANNING on a stealth AC and not flying them? The US has produced and flown 3 true stealth AC (F-117, B-2, and F-22) and has several other semi-stealth designs (B-1B, F/A-18E) and has another pure stealth AC in production testing (F-35). The difference is that the true stealth AC are only able to be detected by radars at EXTREAMLY close range and offer very small engagement envelopes (insert Yugo F-117 here) while semi stealth may just cut detenction range in half or 2/3 (any little bit helps), and the F-22 has two more advantages that the other stealth AC dont, speed and altitude. Yes I am well aware of Su-XX can fly at mach 2.3+ and carry 10-12 AAMs and has a ceiling of 50,000ft+. Opperationally it will fly at 25-40K ft at mach .8-.9. The F-22 will fly with 8 AAMs internaly (very little drag increase and no stealth sacrifices) at 60k ft and 1.6+ Mach, twice the height and twice the speed. Kinematically the F-22 is superior to everything, even without any stealth it could dictate an entire engagment, and on top of that it has the BEST stealth around and a total avionics package second only to its advanced little brother the F-35. F-35 has the second best stealth, within an order of magnitude of the F-22 and 5-6 orders of magnitude better than a Su, teh BEST total avionics package, and 6 internal AAMs. F-35 has nothing to fear from anyplane, possibly not even F-22. It is possible that the superior avionics give it first look at F-22 but would lack the ability to fire uppon but would allow it to try and place itself in such a manner that F-22 doesnt get a good shot either. Raptor can then chose to close in to a dogfight or go the other way. Possible total stalemate! Honestly, I would love to see another counrty develope a fighter of that magnitude!

Unread postPosted: 17 Jan 2008, 13:16
by end
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: if stealth is so easy than why are so many other countires PLANNING on a stealth AC and not flying them?

Easy, planning on because stealth IS an important technology, not flying, because your socalled stealth is not so stealth as your braged :lol:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:has several other semi-stealth designs (B-1B, F/A-18E) and has another pure stealth AC in production testing (F-35).

more and more funny this thread became, semi-stealth? tomorrow you will call your F-15 is two-part-stealth because it is made in USA......
May I take Rafale is quarter stealth?
:twisted:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Kinematically the F-22 is superior to everything

Let me see it do vectoring roll, then you say it "is superior to everything" won't be late......

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:F-35 has the second best stealth

Yes, because of this????? :wink:
Image
If I point out another position, will you down it to third stealth? my lovly baybay

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: F-35 has nothing to fear from anyplane, possibly not even F-22

So, this is why USA only allow allies buy F-35 not F-22?? Privately, I suggest you sell the F-22 not F-35 to other countries for your good. 8)

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:superior avionics give it first look at F-22 but would lack the ability to fire uppon but would allow it to try and place itself in such a manner that F-22 doesnt get a good shot either

Very good, because of the stealth which just being on paper? :roll:

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Raptor can then chose to close in to a dogfight or go the other way. Possible total stalemate! Honestly, I would love to see another counrty develope a fighter of that magnitude!

Wow! what a extremely huge advantage it is! Why you don't re act the P-3 to patrol along the China sea with F-22 convoy?:?: [/img]

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2008, 01:42
by LMAggie
fretmarks wrote:Contrary to what you are saying, STEALTH relies heavily on the SHAPE and not the MATERIALS. if it is the materials that make stealth work, then believe me all US fighters would all be stealthy by now.


Flat out wrong. Shape dictated stealth back in the F-117 days, but materials play a HUGE part in today's designs. Many of your brightest engineers would argue it is far more important. And you can't slap on LO materials onto F-16s and F-15s. It has to be integrated with the design of the jet. Materials is where the rest of the world is playing catch up with the US.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2008, 13:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
end wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: if stealth is so easy than why are so many other countires PLANNING on a stealth AC and not flying them?

Easy, planning on because stealth IS an important technology, not flying, because your socalled stealth is not so stealth as your braged :lol:

I never bragged about how stealthy our planes are, their record does that itself. Count up the number of missions flown by stealth planes and count their total losses, now do the same for non stealth palnes. In 1991 Iraq had the best air defences anyone had ever seen and F-117s flew threw it to reach ciritcal targets in Baghdad night after night. When B-2 becamse used they flew OVER their targets and dropped their bombs in strikes that were so accurate the enemy claimed we used cruise missiles because they never saw the B-2 at all.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:has several other semi-stealth designs (B-1B, F/A-18E) and has another pure stealth AC in production testing (F-35).

more and more funny this thread became, semi-stealth? tomorrow you will call your F-15 is two-part-stealth because it is made in USA......
May I take Rafale is quarter stealth?
:twisted:

By semi-stealth I am implying that they had significant RCS reducing measures built into their design but are not true stealth AC. And no I would not say Rafale is Quarter Stealth, but I certainly count it as a semi-stealth platform.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Kinematically the F-22 is superior to everything

Let me see it do vectoring roll, then you say it "is superior to everything" won't be late......

vectoring roll? Why use close coupled engine to roll an aircraft? On a wide spaced aircraft like Su-30 I see a point but not on something with engines so close. Again, show me an aircraft that maintains 1.5+ Mach at 55,000ft+ other than F-22

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:F-35 has the second best stealth

Yes, because of this????? :wink:
Image
If I point out another position, will you down it to third stealth? my lovly baybay

Sorry, Internet here is not so good. I could not see this picture, which I am sure is sarcastic in nature.

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote: F-35 has nothing to fear from anyplane, possibly not even F-22

So, this is why USA only allow allies buy F-35 not F-22?? Privately, I suggest you sell the F-22 not F-35 to other countries for your good. 8)

Time will tell

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:superior avionics give it first look at F-22 but would lack the ability to fire uppon but would allow it to try and place itself in such a manner that F-22 doesnt get a good shot either

Very good, because of the stealth which just being on paper? :roll:

.....?

sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Raptor can then chose to close in to a dogfight or go the other way. Possible total stalemate! Honestly, I would love to see another counrty develope a fighter of that magnitude!

Wow! what a extremely huge advantage it is! Why you don't re act the P-3 to patrol along the China sea with F-22 convoy?:?: [/img]


I am not even sure what you are trying to say here. Your grammer is a little lacking so I assume English is not your first language, all the more respect for you for trying to learn another language in the first place.

As to the general nature of your posts you will not do much to convince people of your points of view if all you do is spout negative statements ("U.S. sucks and everything they make is overhyped and doesnt work"). There are many people on this thread who say such things and dont back it up. Other countires make great aircraft, I will never try to deny that, but it will be some time before anyone makes something like the F-22, just like we had to wait a few years for Su-27 to catch up to the F-15. so Chill out bro. :D no need to be nasty, we are all here to have discussions, not arguments.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2008, 15:37
by fretmarks
end, i have a hard time understanding your english but i will try my best to reply on your comments. and hey, chill out, we're all just discussing here. no need for nastiness. my answers are in red.


end wrote:
fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.

Is that why all fully-stealth aircraft (F-117, B-2, F-22) are developed and operated ONLY by the US

Take care my friend, this socalled fully stealth has never been proved by any enemy who are strong enough, only thing B-2 dare to do is launch cruise missile to attack some weak enough countries like Iraq, the F-117 was shot down in Yogo of which no need I remind you even NATO hold compelet air domination en that field.

the B-2's made their combat debut in Operation Allied Force of 1999 against the Serbs. They used JDAM's for the first time in combat history so your wrong in saying that what they only dare to do is launch cruise missiles. do a search on B-2's accomplishments especially in Operation Allied Force. The F-117 shotdown has been proven time and again to be more of a tactical error than a compromise of its stealth.

fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.

Up to now no nation can't replicate its stealth features

If no need why shall I do?

i don't understand what your trying to say here buddy.

fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.

Up to now no nation can't replicate its stealth features

very funny! How do you know there is no nations has already done same tech as well as the F-22? According to other websites information, China has chosen what he called XueXiao as their next generation fighter. Forplan surprisingly is used. The PAKFA surely will fly in next year. Do you want to fly into Ruusia or Chine to test your socalled stealth? Not even Iran you want to?

all of the chinese claims are plain bull****. if they already have stealth, they will flaunt it. just like they're flaunting each and every so called "high tech war machines" they have now. the PAKFA, until Russia can find fundings for it, is a pipe dream. getting the funds for it is one thing, building the plane as advertised is another. there are no reasons whatsoever to fly into china and/or russia just to test stealth. it works, no need for further testing. as for iran, i guess we'll just have to wait and see.

fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.
If they can't replicate the faceted shape of the F-117 and produce a stealth aircraft, what more if they will IMITATE.......Contrary to what you are saying, STEALTH relies heavily on the SHAPE and not the MATERIALS

Remeber, faceted surface is not the only way to achieve RCS reducing, if this is not ture, why the shape of B-2 is so different from F-117?

i never said faceted surfaces is the ONLY way to achieve stealth. read my post again. what i meant was, if they can't replicate the faceted shape of the F-117 just to produce stealth, what more if they try and replicate the sleek slopes and shapes of the B-2 and F-22.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2008, 16:27
by fretmarks
LMAggie wrote:
fretmarks wrote:Contrary to what you are saying, STEALTH relies heavily on the SHAPE and not the MATERIALS. if it is the materials that make stealth work, then believe me all US fighters would all be stealthy by now.


Flat out wrong. Shape dictated stealth back in the F-117 days, but materials play a HUGE part in today's designs. Many of your brightest engineers would argue it is far more important. And you can't slap on LO materials onto F-16s and F-15s. It has to be integrated with the design of the jet. Materials is where the rest of the world is playing catch up with the US.


so if we were to build a new, say, F-16, and used all the RAM that are used on the F-22, plus, instead of using aircraft grade aluminum and alloys we use in majority, composite materials.....are you saying we can get a stealthy F-16?

and if it was the other way around, we build an F-22, minus the RAM and used just aircraft aluminum and alloys instead of mainly composite materials....are you saying we will be getting a non-stealthy F-22?

as far as i know, over-all shape is the key in stealth, RAM and RAS are just complimentary elements in achieving stealth.

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2008, 17:05
by checksixx
Both of you are right and wrong regarding stealth. It has been...and for the future right now...will be both a combination of aircraft design AND additional features such as skin/coatings among others that dictate how stealthy an aircraft is. So now you can both get over it and move on...

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2008, 23:54
by LMAggie
checksixx wrote:It has been...and for the future right now...will be both a combination of aircraft design AND additional features such as skin/coatings among others that dictate how stealthy an aircraft is.


Well that's just absurd.

:wink:

fretmarks wrote:as far as i know, over-all shape is the key in stealth, RAM and RAS are just complimentary elements in achieving stealth.


Exactly, it is complimentary, not a supplement to shape.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 04:24
by Ozzy_Blizzard
end wrote:Don't be so confident my friend!
Yes, I acknowledge clearly that dogfight is not as important as it was in Vietnam War, but your hypothesis will be a big risk in future air counter. All your theory based on electronical advantage only belong to your side, that is abolutely impossible, even you can concieve of such advantage, but please don't take it too large. Look back the F-35, its capability of stealth certainly isn't and won't be as well as F-22. ASEA also is no longer an unilateral tech only US has or we say had. The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.



Since Vietnam 95%+ of all combat has been BVR, and considering the improvements in radar and BVR missile capability that is unlikely to change. So whats more important in BVR, which means 95% of all combat? Turning rates or the ability to detect, track and engage an enemy before he can do the same to you, the ability to interfere with his communications and radar performance, and the ability to move quickly through the battlespace? The answer should be plainly obvious.

A couple of points of fact:

1. F35 will be a couple of orders of magnitude more stealthy than any platform made by any other nation apart from the US. F-22A's VLO capability is irrelevant.

2. US are at 3rd gen AESA (2nd gen depending on your definition). No one else has an operational model working. They are 2 generations ahead of the rest of the world.

pilotasso wrote:Dogfight is still important as it ever was. Proof that its obsolete has yet to come. BVR missiles do miss and thrust vectored IR missiles will have their range reduced if shot at high angles off. Theres always place to let a bandit slip past WVR and get you merged. Part of the tactics taught to pilots is to stay undetected, and low observability on fighter will further educe the range at wich combat occurs. SA will easly dictate at wich range combat is taken, not maximum weapon and radar range


Considering the capabilities of contemporary radar/missile combinations, IFF systems and the combat that has actually taken place in post Vietnam era how exactly can you say dogfighting is as "important as it ever was"?

HOBS (high off broad sight) heaters are designed to be used at CLOSE range, thats the whole point of having HOBS capability. At longer range you can easily turn into the threat and take a head on shot. That being said who cares if they have less range at HOBS engagements?


Is there a place for maneuver in contemporary air combat? Sure, but the implications of aerodynamic capability are being minimized by the improvement of missile technology. Information gathering and distribution systems will dominate were, when and at what range combat takes place rather than organic radar capabilities in most occasions, but that's why offensive EW capability is so important. It will allow you to disrupt information connections (datalinks) and disable such systems. If your air combat system is intact while you enemies is not you will win the fight, regardless of what platform you have. The ECM vs ECCM battle will be much more relevant than instantaneous or sustained turn rates of the competing platforms.

The claim that due to the F35's low wing loading and T/W ratio it will be a poor air to air combatant, which is what i was originally replying too, stands in stark contrast to the reality of 21st century combat. Contemporary missile/sensor combinations will have a much larger effect on BVR and WVR engagements than wing loading. The combination of DAS and ASRAAM for instance on the F35 will marry the 360 detection envelope of the DAS and the 360 degree engagement envelope of the AIM 132. Such a combination will mean that an F35 can engage a target at any bearing (within range) without maneuvering. Does that mean it doesn't need to maneuver at all and can just be a flying bus? Of course not, but its instantaneous and sustained turn, pitch, roll and yaw rates will have a minimal impact of the outcome of the engagement, be it BVR or WVR.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 07:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Well, put Ozzy. Does the ASRAAM have a 360 field of engagement? How does it detect things behind the nose? I am curious.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 08:35
by Ozzy_Blizzard
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:Well, put Ozzy. Does the ASRAAM have a 360 field of engagement? How does it detect things behind the nose? I am curious.


It uses LOAL (lock on after launch) technology, so it remembers were the target is relative to the launch platform and itself and can therfore turn through 180 degrees and engage a target directly behind the launch platform. Although in order to use the full engagement envilope you need a sensor pointing backwards, which the F35 has. AIM 9X is close, with 280 degree engagement envilope (i think) which again covers most bairings (and all the likely ones).

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 11:23
by fretmarks
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
end wrote:Don't be so confident my friend!
Yes, I acknowledge clearly that dogfight is not as important as it was in Vietnam War, but your hypothesis will be a big risk in future air counter. All your theory based on electronical advantage only belong to your side, that is abolutely impossible, even you can concieve of such advantage, but please don't take it too large. Look back the F-35, its capability of stealth certainly isn't and won't be as well as F-22. ASEA also is no longer an unilateral tech only US has or we say had. The RCS reducing if depends on shape more than material technique it will also be imitated very easy.



Since Vietnam 95%+ of all combat has been BVR, and considering the improvements in radar and BVR missile capability that is unlikely to change. So whats more important in BVR, which means 95% of all combat? Turning rates or the ability to detect, track and engage an enemy before he can do the same to you, the ability to interfere with his communications and radar performance, and the ability to move quickly through the battlespace? The answer should be plainly obvious.

A couple of points of fact:

1. F35 will be a couple of orders of magnitude more stealthy than any platform made by any other nation apart from the US. F-22A's VLO capability is irrelevant.

2. US are at 3rd gen AESA (2nd gen depending on your definition). No one else has an operational model working. They are 2 generations ahead of the rest of the world.


i agree with this ozzy. however i don't understand what you meant by "f-22a's VLO capability is irrelevant." irrelevant because of what? because of the advances in radar capability and BVR missiles? because of its unparalleled flight characteristics? advanced situational awareness perhaps? please elaborate.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 12:44
by Ozzy_Blizzard
fretmarks wrote:i agree with this ozzy. however i don't understand what you meant by "f-22a's VLO capability is irrelevant." irrelevant because of what? because of the advances in radar capability and BVR missiles? because of its unparalleled flight characteristics? advanced situational awareness perhaps? please elaborate.


Sorry mate, a slight missunderstanding. What i meant to do was adress a point made by end, that the fact the F-35 was less stealthy than the F-22A somehow made it a dramatically less capable air superiority platform. But this is irelevent because even though the F35 is less stealthy than the F22 it is much much stealthier than anything else on the market at the moment, hence the irelevence of the F22's VLO to this conversation. Its still very very very usefull.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 17:24
by Scorpion82
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:Since Vietnam 95%+ of all combat has been BVR, and considering the improvements in radar and BVR missile capability that is unlikely to change. So whats more important in BVR, which means 95% of all combat?


I basically agree with the rest of your post above, but 95+% BVR since Vietnam is plain wrong. Look at the Battles during the 80s, most kills were still WVR, even in Desert Storm many kills were still WVR. Taking the campaigns over the Balkans as an example is also not that good at all, because the west fought an enemy with far inferior quality and quantity. A lot depends on how the aircraft is deployed as a part of the fighting machine. The same aircraft might not be able to repeat the success in a different environment.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 17:44
by dwightlooi
Scorpion82 wrote:
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:Since Vietnam 95%+ of all combat has been BVR, and considering the improvements in radar and BVR missile capability that is unlikely to change. So whats more important in BVR, which means 95% of all combat?


I basically agree with the rest of your post above, but 95+% BVR since Vietnam is plain wrong. Look at the Battles during the 80s, most kills were still WVR, even in Desert Storm many kills were still WVR. Taking the campaigns over the Balkans as an example is also not that good at all, because the west fought an enemy with far inferior quality and quantity. A lot depends on how the aircraft is deployed as a part of the fighting machine. The same aircraft might not be able to repeat the success in a different environment.


I think we need to make a distinction between WVR kills by capabilities and by choice. Most recent kills are not WVR because the target cannot be killed easily BVR. It is that there is usually a standing order to visually ID the target before shooting instead of relying on IFF or simply guessing. This is also the norm because the target is, in general, deemed to be of no threat or minimal threat to the shooter. When you go after a helo violating a no-fly zone there is no reason not to go eye ball it and perhaps even go talk to the enemy pilot on radio before splashing him.

Unread postPosted: 19 Jan 2008, 20:21
by fretmarks
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:
fretmarks wrote:i agree with this ozzy. however i don't understand what you meant by "f-22a's VLO capability is irrelevant." irrelevant because of what? because of the advances in radar capability and BVR missiles? because of its unparalleled flight characteristics? advanced situational awareness perhaps? please elaborate.


Sorry mate, a slight missunderstanding. What i meant to do was adress a point made by end, that the fact the F-35 was less stealthy than the F-22A somehow made it a dramatically less capable air superiority platform. But this is irelevent because even though the F35 is less stealthy than the F22 it is much much stealthier than anything else on the market at the moment, hence the irelevence of the F22's VLO to this conversation. Its still very very very usefull.


i see what you mean now now mate. gotcha. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2008, 05:50
by end
Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:2. US are at 3rd gen AESA (2nd gen depending on your definition). No one else has an operational model working. They are 2 generations ahead of the rest of the world. .


Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:Considering the capabilities of contemporary radar/missile combinations, IFF systems and the combat that has actually taken place in post Vietnam era how exactly can you say dogfighting is as "important as it ever was"?.

What? IFF system used cause no dogfight will take place in future? What a funny theory!

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:HOBS (high off broad sight) heaters are designed to be used at CLOSE range, thats the whole point of having HOBS capability. At longer range you can easily turn into the threat and take a head on shot. That being said who cares if they have less range at HOBS engagements?

If the amount of enemy are far beyond then you..... I think you will just shoot without worry of missiles will lost targets?

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:The claim that due to the F35's low wing loading and T/W ratio it will be a poor air to air combatant, which is what i was originally replying too, stands in stark contrast to the reality of 21st century combat.

Sounds like you are god, you deside what should be, what won't happen for ever.

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2008, 05:52
by end
fretmarks wrote:all of the chinese claims are plain bull****. if they already have stealth, they will flaunt it. just like they're flaunting each and every so called "high tech war machines" they have now.

Wrong, i never saw any practical aircraft displaied in airshow.

fretmarks wrote:so if we were to build a new, say, F-16, and used all the RAM that are used on the F-22, plus, instead of using aircraft grade aluminum and alloys we use in majority, composite materials.....are you saying we can get a stealthy F-16?
and if it was the other way around, we build an F-22, minus the RAM and used just aircraft aluminum and alloys instead of mainly composite materials....are you saying we will be getting a non-stealthy F-22?
as far as i know, over-all shape is the key in stealth, RAM and RAS are just complimentary elements in achieving stealth.


Wrong again. Most of F-15 are grevoling down at ground. It is time to get new to replace them, JSF instead of F-16 not only because what socalled stealth but also becuase of more payload, more quatity of jets needed.

If you insist your stealth theory, please explain the feature of inlet on F-35. :roll:

Unread postPosted: 20 Jan 2008, 16:36
by sprstdlyscottsmn
What do you want explained? I dont understand exactly. Besides, there are also many things that no one is told about the details of stealth design. If all of america knew the details of the stealth designs then they would end up posting them on places like this. Foriegn countries could then simply check posts and learn how its done and do it themselves. Operational Security is always needed by ANY country to maintain an edge in ANY kind of advancement.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2008, 02:29
by Ozzy_Blizzard
end wrote:Considering the capabilities of contemporary radar/missile combinations, IFF systems and the combat that has actually taken place in post Vietnam era how exactly can you say dogfighting is as "important as it ever was"?.


What? IFF system used cause no dogfight will take place in future? What a funny theory!

Yeah thats what i said! Just IFF!

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:HOBS (high off broad sight) heaters are designed to be used at CLOSE range, thats the whole point of having HOBS capability. At longer range you can easily turn into the threat and take a head on shot. That being said who cares if they have less range at HOBS engagements?


If the amount of enemy are far beyond then you..... I think you will just shoot without worry of missiles will lost targets?

What? i think we are haveing a communication disconnect. I dont understand what you mean & i dont think you understood what i was trying to say. If you are vastly outnumbered in an F35 then you kill as many as you can or you disengage and use your VLO as cover.

Ozzy_Blizzard wrote:The claim that due to the F35's low wing loading and T/W ratio it will be a poor air to air combatant, which is what i was originally replying too, stands in stark contrast to the reality of 21st century combat.


Sounds like you are god, you deside what should be, what won't happen for ever.

Its not my opinion, its fact, and if you take a look at the systems and capabilities involved you will see that.

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2008, 08:38
by end
Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?

Unread postPosted: 21 Jan 2008, 17:36
by fretmarks
again, my answers are in red

end wrote:
fretmarks wrote:all of the chinese claims are plain bull****. if they already have stealth, they will flaunt it. just like they're flaunting each and every so called "high tech war machines" they have now.

Wrong, i never saw any practical aircraft displaied in airshow.

airshows aren't the only place to flaunt your fighter assets. videos can be produced too. heard of a little website called youtube? lots of stuff there man. try it. here are some samples. in these videos you can see chinese j-10's, j-17's, su-27's, su-30's, AWACS and i believe there are also some tu-160 blackjacks.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-skYcl5eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuC7Ru75uEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiaUobZ5rU


fretmarks wrote:so if we were to build a new, say, F-16, and used all the RAM that are used on the F-22, plus, instead of using aircraft grade aluminum and alloys we use in majority, composite materials.....are you saying we can get a stealthy F-16?
and if it was the other way around, we build an F-22, minus the RAM and used just aircraft aluminum and alloys instead of mainly composite materials....are you saying we will be getting a non-stealthy F-22?
as far as i know, over-all shape is the key in stealth, RAM and RAS are just complimentary elements in achieving stealth.


Wrong again. Most of F-15 are grevoling down at ground. It is time to get new to replace them, JSF instead of F-16 not only because what socalled stealth but also becuase of more payload, more quatity of jets needed.

wrong? i think you misunderstood what i said as your reply doesn't make any sense or connection at all to my statement. it wasn't even intended for you. it was a response to LMAggie. we were having some discussion about stealth in general. on another note, i do think that your statement doesn't make any sense at all.

If you insist your stealth theory, please explain the feature of inlet on F-35. :roll:

i don't have any stealth theory. and i don't have to insist anything. all my statements are based on unclassified facts published both in print and on the internet.


end wrote:Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?

i am not an aeronautics engineer. are you? even if you are, which i highly doubt, how can you blatantly say that there's something wrong with the f-35 inlets? are you saying that the collective engineers of lockheed martin are wrong with the design of the f-35's inlets and you yourself figured that out? boy oh boy, you must be a pretty smart guy. you should try and get yourself a job with lockheed martin, point out the "wrong" part of the f-35's inlets and develop a new and better one before they start mass producing the aircraft.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2008, 12:17
by end
fretmarks wrote:again, my answers are in red
airshows aren't the only place to flaunt your fighter assets. videos can be produced too. heard of a little website called youtube? lots of stuff there man. try it. here are some samples. in these videos you can see chinese j-10's, j-17's, su-27's, su-30's, AWACS and i believe there are also some tu-160 blackjacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-skYcl5eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuC7Ru75uEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiaUobZ5rU

so if we were to build a new, say, F-16, and used all the RAM that are used on the F-22, plus, instead of using aircraft grade aluminum and alloys we use in majority, composite materials.....are you saying we can get a stealthy F-16?
and if it was the other way around, we build an F-22, minus the RAM and used just aircraft aluminum and alloys instead of mainly composite materials....are you saying we will be getting a non-stealthy F-22?
as far as i know, over-all shape is the key in stealth, RAM and RAS are just complimentary elements in achieving stealth.

Wrong again. Most of F-15 are grevoling down at ground. It is time to get new to replace them, JSF instead of F-16 not only because what socalled stealth but also becuase of more payload, more quatity of jets needed.

wrong? i think you misunderstood what i said as your reply doesn't make any sense or connection at all to my statement. it wasn't even intended for you. it was a response to LMAggie. we were having some discussion about stealth in general. on another note, i do think that your statement doesn't make any sense at all.

If you insist your stealth theory, please explain the feature of inlet on F-35. :roll:

i don't have any stealth theory. and i don't have to insist anything. all my statements are based on unclassified facts published both in print and on the internet.

Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?
i am not an aeronautics engineer. are you? even if you are, which i highly doubt, how can you blatantly say that there's something wrong with the f-35 inlets? are you saying that the collective engineers of lockheed martin are wrong with the design of the f-35's inlets and you yourself figured that out? boy oh boy, you must be a pretty smart guy. you should try and get yourself a job with lockheed martin, point out the "wrong" part of the f-35's inlets and develop a new and better one before they start mass producing the aircraft.


So the socalled stealth from F-35 based on youtube and unclassified stuff that has already published 8) :lol: :twisted: This thread is becoming funny chat now......

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2008, 13:48
by fretmarks
end wrote:
fretmarks wrote:again, my answers are in red
airshows aren't the only place to flaunt your fighter assets. videos can be produced too. heard of a little website called youtube? lots of stuff there man. try it. here are some samples. in these videos you can see chinese j-10's, j-17's, su-27's, su-30's, AWACS and i believe there are also some tu-160 blackjacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-skYcl5eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuC7Ru75uEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiaUobZ5rU

so if we were to build a new, say, F-16, and used all the RAM that are used on the F-22, plus, instead of using aircraft grade aluminum and alloys we use in majority, composite materials.....are you saying we can get a stealthy F-16?
and if it was the other way around, we build an F-22, minus the RAM and used just aircraft aluminum and alloys instead of mainly composite materials....are you saying we will be getting a non-stealthy F-22?
as far as i know, over-all shape is the key in stealth, RAM and RAS are just complimentary elements in achieving stealth.

Wrong again. Most of F-15 are grevoling down at ground. It is time to get new to replace them, JSF instead of F-16 not only because what socalled stealth but also becuase of more payload, more quatity of jets needed.

wrong? i think you misunderstood what i said as your reply doesn't make any sense or connection at all to my statement. it wasn't even intended for you. it was a response to LMAggie. we were having some discussion about stealth in general. on another note, i do think that your statement doesn't make any sense at all.

If you insist your stealth theory, please explain the feature of inlet on F-35. :roll:

i don't have any stealth theory. and i don't have to insist anything. all my statements are based on unclassified facts published both in print and on the internet.

Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?
i am not an aeronautics engineer. are you? even if you are, which i highly doubt, how can you blatantly say that there's something wrong with the f-35 inlets? are you saying that the collective engineers of lockheed martin are wrong with the design of the f-35's inlets and you yourself figured that out? boy oh boy, you must be a pretty smart guy. you should try and get yourself a job with lockheed martin, point out the "wrong" part of the f-35's inlets and develop a new and better one before they start mass producing the aircraft.


So the socalled stealth from F-35 based on youtube and unclassified stuff that has already published 8) :lol: :twisted: This thread is becoming funny chat now......


exactly and it's all because of you and your inability to understand people's statements. before you post any comments again, i suggest you learn how to write properly first, check your grammar and choose the right words. i don't want to waste my time explaining things to people who can not understand.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2008, 14:21
by StolichnayaStrafer
Dogfighting will always be- and that is a fact.

Between ROE that usually requires visual ID(IFF systems can and do malfunction), expendable countermeasures, missile malfunction(it can and does happen), or just going winchester, a cannon may be the only thing standing between returning to base or a nylon letdown.

You can jam a missile, but you sure can't jam a bullet. 8)

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2008, 16:49
by dwightlooi
end wrote:Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?


There is nothing wrong with the F-35's intakes. In fact, from an efficiency standpoint and from an RCS reduction standpoint, the elimination of diverters is an advancement over say the F-22's intake.

This is first tested on an F-16 actually and may even become an option for advanced sixteen customers if they desire it.

Image
Image
The DSI works by utilizing the shock fronts from the forward set intake lips to pressurize and push the troublesome boundary layer away preventing their ingestion.

The advantage is that it is lighter than a diverter equipped intake, it is more compact, it does not require messy diverter output accomodations, it is less draggy and the "bum" forms a natural obstacle blocking the line of sight between the inlet duct (and fan blades) from incoming radar.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2008, 19:24
by AeroG33k
dwightlooi wrote:
end wrote:Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?


There is nothing wrong with the F-35's intakes. In fact, from an efficiency standpoint and from an RCS reduction standpoint, the elimination of diverters is an advancement over say the F-22's intake.

This is first tested on an F-16 actually and may even become an option for advanced sixteen customers if they desire it.

Image
Image
The DSI works by utilizing the shock fronts from the forward set intake lips to pressurize and push the troublesome boundary layer away preventing their ingestion.

The advantage is that it is lighter than a diverter equipped intake, it is more compact, it does not require messy diverter output accomodations, it is less draggy and the "bum" forms a natural obstacle blocking the line of sight between the inlet duct (and fan blades) from incoming radar.


I think the DSI is an excellent device and a great indicator of how CFD is used today (I realize the DSI is technically not 'new' and that it takes more than CFD to prove a concept...). It must have been a real challenge to get it to work in both supersonic and slow speed flight regimes. Does anybody want to (is able to?) speculate on how the DSI performs at high AOA? That seems to be intuitively difficult for a DSI (without the boundary layer 'gap')... :?

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2008, 20:12
by ACMIguy
dwightlooi wrote:
end wrote:Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?


This is first tested on an F-16 actually and may even become an option for advanced sixteen customers if they desire it.

The DSI works by utilizing the shock fronts from the forward set intake lips to pressurize and push the troublesome boundary layer away preventing their ingestion.

The advantage is that it is lighter than a diverter equipped intake, it is more compact, it does not require messy diverter output accomodations, it is less draggy and the "bum" forms a natural obstacle blocking the line of sight between the inlet duct (and fan blades) from incoming radar.


Man I knew I had seen an intake like this one on this F-16 you posted here before.
Or something close to it anyway. I bet the aerodynamics are about the same.

Unread postPosted: 22 Jan 2008, 23:45
by end
The foreward swept angle of inlet's lip was considered a big rcs, that dual-bevel inlet on f-22 is proper stealth inlet.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 00:03
by end
fretmarks wrote:
end wrote:
fretmarks wrote:again, my answers are in red
airshows aren't the only place to flaunt your fighter assets. videos can be produced too. heard of a little website called youtube? lots of stuff there man. try it. here are some samples. in these videos you can see chinese j-10's, j-17's, su-27's, su-30's, AWACS and i believe there are also some tu-160 blackjacks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eb-skYcl5eY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RuC7Ru75uEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUiaUobZ5rU

so if we were to build a new, say, F-16, and used all the RAM that are used on the F-22, plus, instead of using aircraft grade aluminum and alloys we use in majority, composite materials.....are you saying we can get a stealthy F-16?
and if it was the other way around, we build an F-22, minus the RAM and used just aircraft aluminum and alloys instead of mainly composite materials....are you saying we will be getting a non-stealthy F-22?
as far as i know, over-all shape is the key in stealth, RAM and RAS are just complimentary elements in achieving stealth.

Wrong again. Most of F-15 are grevoling down at ground. It is time to get new to replace them, JSF instead of F-16 not only because what socalled stealth but also becuase of more payload, more quatity of jets needed.

wrong? i think you misunderstood what i said as your reply doesn't make any sense or connection at all to my statement. it wasn't even intended for you. it was a response to LMAggie. we were having some discussion about stealth in general. on another note, i do think that your statement doesn't make any sense at all.

If you insist your stealth theory, please explain the feature of inlet on F-35. :roll:

i don't have any stealth theory. and i don't have to insist anything. all my statements are based on unclassified facts published both in print and on the internet.

Still no body explain what's wrong with that inlet of F-35?
i am not an aeronautics engineer. are you? even if you are, which i highly doubt, how can you blatantly say that there's something wrong with the f-35 inlets? are you saying that the collective engineers of lockheed martin are wrong with the design of the f-35's inlets and you yourself figured that out? boy oh boy, you must be a pretty smart guy. you should try and get yourself a job with lockheed martin, point out the "wrong" part of the f-35's inlets and develop a new and better one before they start mass producing the aircraft.


So the socalled stealth from F-35 based on youtube and unclassified stuff that has already published 8) :lol: :twisted: This thread is becoming funny chat now......


exactly and it's all because of you and your inability to understand people's statements. before you post any comments again, i suggest you learn how to write properly first, check your grammar and choose the right words. i don't want to waste my time explaining things to people who can not understand.


Yes, I admit I am inable to understand your statement, in other words, you are inable to explain what the theory you read. :P

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 04:54
by LMAggie
end wrote:Yes, I admit I am inable to understand your statement, in other words, you are inable to explain what the theory you read. :P


Nope, I still think it's you.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 06:17
by dwightlooi
end wrote:The foreward swept angle of inlet's lip was considered a big rcs, that dual-bevel inlet on f-22 is proper stealth inlet.


Really? Says YOU?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 06:52
by Ozzy_Blizzard
StolichnayaStrafer wrote:Dogfighting will always be- and that is a fact.

Between ROE that usually requires visual ID(IFF systems can and do malfunction), expendable countermeasures, missile malfunction(it can and does happen), or just going winchester, a cannon may be the only thing standing between returning to base or a nylon letdown.

You can jam a missile, but you sure can't jam a bullet. 8)


Sure it will still "be", but will it "be" desisive... THAT is the point. Will there be some sertain scenario's were the combatants go to guns? Sure, but that is going to be less and less and less often as sensor/missile technology improves.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 07:37
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I know the whole "gunfight is over" thing makes people think Vietnam all over again, but all our new fighters are designed with the gunfight in mind and yet in the last 20 years the US has not scored a single gun kill with a fighter, only with A-10s. Only the future will tell as always however, one must always be prepared.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 08:05
by dwightlooi
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I know the whole "gunfight is over" thing makes people think Vietnam all over again, but all our new fighters are designed with the gunfight in mind and yet in the last 20 years the US has not scored a single gun kill with a fighter, only with A-10s. Only the future will tell as always however, one must always be prepared.


It is useful though, for firing a string of warning shots across the nose of some aircraft violating a protected airspace. It's kinda hard to do that using an AMRAAM or a Sidewinder.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 14:28
by StolichnayaStrafer
Unfortunately, ANYTHING can happen when politics affect the Rules Of Engagement- kind of like Murphy's Law for ACM. :?

I'm just glad that our flyers still have that cannon option remaining- they may not get used, but having it could mean life or death for someone. To me, if it saves even one of our flyers some day, it was DEFINITELY worth it. :wink:

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 15:43
by AeroG33k
If there ever was a conflict in a very small area such as the korean peninsula or israel, a long-range advantage isn't going to mean that much and pilots are going to wish for guns, so while guns are becoming less of a necessity, they're far from obsolete. I actually like the idea of the F-35B/C using a gun pod as an option....fewer guns to purchase and maintain, less dead weight when they're not needed but still an option should they become tactically viable...true, you can't always predict when they're needed, but you can often predict when they're definitely not needed. It doesn't hurt to always have at least one gun-equipped F-35 in every flight package though.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 16:40
by ACMIguy
Guns
Why can't they get it right, after learning the lessons from Vietnam and now we are back to this question should it have a gun or not. :bang:
"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it." :doh:

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 16:57
by LowObservable
DL,
I've been through the "why guns" argument several times. I have never met any professional who thought that the "warning shot" idea was real. If you are at an angle/distance where the target can see your gunsmoke, because you ain't going to see any 20mm things flying through the air at Mach 3, you are one sneeze away from filling it full of AP/HEI.

So, I took the shotgun of the wall and I fired two warning shots... into his head! (Chicago)

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 16:58
by LowObservable
ACMIGuy

and those who have never read Santayana are doomed to misquote him.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 17:08
by ACMIguy
Gun kills in Vietnam
F-105: 28
F-4C/D: 11
F-4E: 6
F-8: 5
B-52: 3
A-1: 2
A-7: 1
F-100: 1

SOURCE (http://www.acig.org/artman/publish/article_244.shtml)
F-4Es had 20 missile kills (77%) and 6 gun kills (23%).
F-4B/C/D/Js had 129 missile kills (92%) and 11 gun kills (8%).
F-8s had 14 missile kills (74%) and 5 gun kills (26%).
F-105s had 4 missile kills (13%) and 28 gun kills (87%).

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 17:12
by ACMIguy
LowObservable wrote:ACMIGuy

and those who have never read Santayana are doomed to misquote him.


"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it," from Reason in Common Sense, the first volume of his The Life of Reason.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Santayana
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/George_Santayana/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/santayana/

Happy now?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 18:03
by LowObservable
We are now further from Linebacker II than Linebacker II was from the first flight of the Spitfire.

Guns may be relevant or not, but statistics from Vietnam do not begin and end the discussion.

Air-to-air gun kills since the advent of the AIM-9L?

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 18:41
by ACMIguy
The summery page of this paper states " a short range weapon system must be retained" Page 30
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/docs/98-210.pdf

"But the irony also lies in the fact that while there is a number of counter and counter-counter measures to make the modern missiles with claims of inescapable parameters redundant by using 'chaff' and other active/passive measures, a 'gun kill' is invariably a most certain kill. The pilots invariably begin honing their tracking and combat skills under such close combat situations."http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/typhoon-vs-su-30mki-the-2007-indra-dhanush-exercise-03470/

"For western fighter on the overall, the 154 engagements resulted in at least 210 confirmed kills with two combat losses and four fratricides. Note that the 72 F-16 kills represents 47% of that number. The fourth fratricide just recently occurred between two Japanese F-15s when one downed his leader with an AIM-9L during a training mission. There were 23 x M-61 gun kills, 2 x 30mm gun kills, 45 x AIM-7 Sparrow kills from F-15, F-18, & F-14s, 3 x AIM-120 AMRAAM kills from the F-16 and 1 x unfortunate fratricide AIM-120 Kill by an F-15C on a Blackhawk Helicopter, and 127 x IR missile kills from all aircraft utilizing either AIM-9 Sidewinder, Magic 550, or Python missiles. There are 3 x AIM-54 Phoenix Kills recorded by the Iranian Air Fore F-14A's during the First Gulf War. There were also three kills from air-to-ground munitions (aircraft airborne) and one maneuvering suicide along with a bailout that was credited as a kill."
http://www.f-16.net/varia_article3.html

Seems the conventional thinking is yes the gun is still important.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 19:26
by fretmarks
end wrote:Yes, I admit I am inable to understand your statement, in other words, you are inable to explain what the theory you read. :P


your inability to comprehend my statements has nothing to do with me. you just can't comprehend anything, period.

your knowledge, or may i say, lack of knowledge about stealth in general clearly shows each and every time you post on this thread. you say that the f-35's inlets are wrong and that their forward swept angle is considered to be a big RCS. where the hell did you get that from? are you an aeronautics engineer or something? you don't have any basis, any knowledge or any sources to back-up your statement. the f-35's inlets are one of the very critical aspects of its stealth design. i believe that lockheed martin engineers won't get this one wrong.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 22:08
by StolichnayaStrafer
In the Falklands, Sea Harriers were scoring both gun kills and AIM-9L kills- that being against Daggers(Mirages), Skyhawks and (snicker)Pucaras. I shouldn't laugh though, since even Pucaras can do serious damage to ground troops if not dealt with.

Unread postPosted: 23 Jan 2008, 23:04
by checksixx
dwightlooi wrote:It is useful though, for firing a string of warning shots across the nose of some aircraft violating a protected airspace. It's kinda hard to do that using an AMRAAM or a Sidewinder.


In the US, unless otherwise directed, warning shots are not authorized. After 10 years in MANY combat zones, I have never seen warning shots authorized by US forces.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2008, 13:02
by sprstdlyscottsmn
ACMIguy, great stats. Funny to see that in Vietnam the planes with the highest ratio of kills being scored with guns were Bombers (B-52, 3/3), Attack (A-1, 1/1) and "light bombers" (F-105, 28/32, I know it is a fighter, but it was NEVER used as such to the best of my knowlege, certainly wasnt designed for the dogfight) Also funny to see that IR missiles, SRAMs account for over 50% of A-A kills!! So thats 71% of kills using WVR weapons while only 24% of kills are made using BVR weapons which could still be fired in a WVR arena. Looks to me like the statistics show that the WVR fight, while not neccesarily a dogfight, MUST be concidered in a design. There are however several unconfirmable kills by F-14s in the Iran-Iraq war most of which reportedly use the AIM-54. Would be nice to know the numbers from that.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2008, 13:51
by ACMIguy
checksixx wrote:
dwightlooi wrote:It is useful though, for firing a string of warning shots across the nose of some aircraft violating a protected airspace. It's kinda hard to do that using an AMRAAM or a Sidewinder.


In the US, unless otherwise directed, warning shots are not authorized. After 10 years in MANY combat zones, I have never seen warning shots authorized by US forces.


You are right, only the Coast Guard will fire across your bow (ship to ship).
You would never see any rounds going through the air anyway, and who wants to waist a good missile or take the chance of an accidental hit?
Hollywood maybe?

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2008, 15:12
by ACMIguy
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:ACMIguy, great stats. Funny to see that in Vietnam the planes with the highest ratio of kills being scored with guns were Bombers (B-52, 3/3), Attack (A-1, 1/1) and "light bombers" (F-105, 28/32, I know it is a fighter, but it was NEVER used as such to the best of my knowlege, certainly wasnt designed for the dogfight) Also funny to see that IR missiles, SRAMs account for over 50% of A-A kills!! So thats 71% of kills using WVR weapons while only 24% of kills are made using BVR weapons which could still be fired in a WVR arena. Looks to me like the statistics show that the WVR fight, while not neccesarily a dogfight, MUST be concidered in a design. There are however several unconfirmable kills by F-14s in the Iran-Iraq war most of which reportedly use the AIM-54. Would be nice to know the numbers from that.


We used a minimum range device on the AIM 7's back then. The AIM-9B was not very good either. I loaded AIM-4D's on F-4's back then but they were even worse. The guns were the only weapons you could be sure of.
I remember being asked to switch from a loader to a B-52 tail gunner.
Having to jump out of an airplane was never my cup of tea, so I passed.

Unread postPosted: 25 Jan 2008, 17:01
by sprstdlyscottsmn
yeah a WVR shot on an old AIM-7 would be if it were just outside the min range and trying to run away. You are certainly right about a cannon being the only reliable A-A weapon. A bullet doesnt manfunction and guns on whole had been around for a LONG time so reliability shouldnt have been an issue, as much at least. What was the min range? .5 mile? 2 mile?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 12:00
by zero-one
I know its been a while since anybody posted here. but if you guys have the time, come and look at this

[YouTube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxEN0oFq10[/YouTube]

In the comments section, you'll see me arguing with the owner of the video.(I'm "Mike Webber")

My stand is simply that in a maneuvering point of view the F-35 is comparable to the Rafale as stated by Billy Flynn when he said that the F-35 is comparable to the any 4th gen aircraft like the Typhoon which performs very similar to the Rafale.

But this person would like to insist that the F-35 will loose horribly if it tried to maneuver with the Rafale?

I'd like to know your thoughts, and i'll accept it if he's right.

P.S. you might enjoy the comments section. Please take the time

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 Dec 2013, 23:32
by neurotech
The Rafale is a capable 4.5th gen fighter but all reports indicate that a Rafale will likely cost more than a FRP F-35.

On the capability side the Rafale doesn't have sensor fused cockpit displays or Spherical EODAS. The claim about OLS/EOTS is misguided. For A/A it isn't nearly a factor for AESA radar with LPI modes. The main use in A/A is the EOTS might help is the target distance for a gun kill against a VLO target. For the AIM-9 EODAS/FLIR works fine for cueing the seeker "tone" on the target. F-35s will be LOAL capable using a datalink.

For A/G the F-35 EOTS works fine unless the jet is trying to acquire the target while inverted :D

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 05:22
by zero-one
neurotech wrote:The Rafale is a capable 4.5th gen fighter but all reports indicate that a Rafale will likely cost more than a FRP F-35.

On the capability side the Rafale doesn't have sensor fused cockpit displays or Spherical EODAS. The claim about OLS/EOTS is misguided. For A/A it isn't nearly a factor for AESA radar with LPI modes. The main use in A/A is the EOTS might help is the target distance for a gun kill against a VLO target. For the AIM-9 EODAS/FLIR works fine for cueing the seeker "tone" on the target. F-35s will be LOAL capable using a datalink.

For A/G the F-35 EOTS works fine unless the jet is trying to acquire the target while inverted :D



Thanks Neurotech, well the battle betwwen us is preatty much on the Kinematics side as he claims that the F-35 airframe is hoplessly compromised.

He showd some water tunnel test photos.
He claims that this is evidence that the Vortex lift created by the F-35's Chine intake design is relatively weak and does not add much lift to compensate for the low lift produced by the wings.

The vorticies appear to break up at the tail section unlike the Rafale which reinforce the vorticies from the wing root.

If you read some of our exchanges, you might be ammused

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 07:37
by neurotech
zero-one wrote:
neurotech wrote:The Rafale is a capable 4.5th gen fighter but all reports indicate that a Rafale will likely cost more than a FRP F-35.

On the capability side the Rafale doesn't have sensor fused cockpit displays or Spherical EODAS. The claim about OLS/EOTS is misguided. For A/A it isn't nearly a factor for AESA radar with LPI modes. The main use in A/A is the EOTS might help is the target distance for a gun kill against a VLO target. For the AIM-9 EODAS/FLIR works fine for cueing the seeker "tone" on the target. F-35s will be LOAL capable using a datalink.

For A/G the F-35 EOTS works fine unless the jet is trying to acquire the target while inverted :D



Thanks Neurotech, well the battle betwwen us is preatty much on the Kinematics side as he claims that the F-35 airframe is hoplessly compromised.

He showd some water tunnel test photos.
He claims that this is evidence that the Vortex lift created by the F-35's Chine intake design is relatively weak and does not add much lift to compensate for the low lift produced by the wings.

The vorticies appear to break up at the tail section unlike the Rafale which reinforce the vorticies from the wing root.

If you read some of our exchanges, you might be ammused

The F-15 has the advantage over the F-35 in sustained turning ability because of its proven capability of flying with only one wing :D Having both wings attached reduces the landing speed to under 140 Kts.

The real aerodynamics of the F-35 is less about wing area and more about how smooth the airflow is at high alpha. As the jet maneuvers at high alpha, drag increases so having significant thrust is required to maintain the turn rate.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 07:59
by zero-one
neurotech wrote:The F-15 has the advantage over the F-35 in sustained turning ability because of its proven capability of flying with only one wing :D Having both wings attached reduces the landing speed to under 140 Kts.

The real aerodynamics of the F-35 is less about wing area and more about how smooth the airflow is at high alpha. As the jet maneuvers at high alpha, drag increases so having significant thrust is required to maintain the turn rate.


But does the F-35 have the thrust required to maintain a significantly high turn rate.

When computing for T/W ratios, the F-35A has significant advantages when loaded to about 10,000lbs, which is a good load in my oppinion.

But above that weight and the T/W becomes less and less impresive.

the argument also went with the typical load out, in A-A configuration.

What do you think?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 08:31
by neurotech
zero-one wrote:But does the F-35 have the thrust required to maintain a significantly high turn rate.

When computing for T/W ratios, the F-35A has significant advantages when loaded to about 10,000lbs, which is a good load in my oppinion.

But above that weight and the T/W becomes less and less impresive.

the argument also went with the typical load out, in A-A configuration.

What do you think?

The F-35 has respectable "excess" thrust to maintain tight turns in operational A/A config. Not only does the F-35 have a high fuel fraction for its size but can go to war without external stores. I think the sustained turn rate is ~6Gs fully loaded.

The F-16 can turn tighter with A/A missiles only. The external tanks add considerably to the drag on a F-16.

Using "airshow" performance is often misguided as some jets fly without full internal fuel. The F-22 does fly demos with almost full tanks, but I'm not sure the Rafale does.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 12:34
by zero-one
What about against a Rafale?

My stand is that the F-35 will have better T/W ratio when both are loaded with around 9,000lbs+


However he claims that the Rafale has far more efficient efficient engines as attested by its nearly 2,000mi ferry range on internal fuel

The F-35 has 8,000lbs more fuel but can bearly reach 1300miles, is this due to poorer fuel efficiency?

We did agree however that the F-35 will have more afterburner time since the Snecma M-88 engines of the Rafale are no longer fuel efficient with AB on.

Basically we got stuck on what load will both aircraft most likely bring to the fight.
He claims 50% fuel and 6 missiles for the Rafale
and I claim 40% fuel and 6 missiles for the F-35

Aerodynamic design is also a factor, He says the F-35 is much more draggy and will loose lift quickly in a turn, as evidenced by its suposedly weak vortex lift properties. Dont know how he arrived with that though

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 13:24
by zero-one
Just finished crunching the numbers to give us an idea of the Kinematics:

Rafale C:

Weights
Empty: 21,000
Fuel: 5,180 lbs (50%)

Weapons: 2,265lbs
4 x Meteor A-A missiles 1628 lbs
2 x Magic A-A missiles 387lbs
125 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 250 lbs [2lbs per round])

combat Weight:28,445

Thrust:
Dry: 22,500
AB: 34,000

T/W ratio:
Dry: 0.79
AB: 1.20

Wing Loading: 57.81/sqft

___________________________________________________________

F-35A

Weights
Empty: 29,300
Fuel: 7,200 (40%)


Weapons: 1,932 lbs
4 x Aim 120C missiles: 1,340 lbs
2 x Aim 9X missiles: 376 lbs
180 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 216 lbs [1.2lbs per round])

Combat weight: 38,432

Thrust
Dry: 28,000
AB: 43,000

TW Ratio
Dry:0.72
AB: 1.12
Wing Loading:83.5 lbs/ sq ft.

____________________________________________________________

F-16C

Weights
Empty: 18,900
Fuel: 4,000 (70%) <---not too sure about this


Weapons: 2,329 lbs
4 x Aim 120C missiles: 1,340 lbs
2 x Aim 9X missiles: 376 lbs
511 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 613 lbs [1.2lbs per round])

combat weight: 25,229

Thrust
Dry: 17,155
AB: 28,600

TW Ratio
Dry:0.67
AB: 1.13
Wing Loading: 84lbs/ sq ft.

I was surprised at how similar the F35 was to the F-16, but it looks like the Rafale holds a comanding lead on this configuration.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 21:06
by gtx
And yet the Rafale has struggled to find a single customer (its not quite there in India yet) other than it's country of origin... :roll:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 21:49
by rotosequence
gtx wrote:And yet the Rafale has struggled to find a single customer (its not quite there in India yet) other than it's country of origin... :roll:


Objective capability usually plays second fiddle to geopolitics.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Dec 2013, 21:58
by gtx
rotosequence wrote:
Objective capability usually plays second fiddle to geopolitics.


Although I agree to an extent, I think you will find it is more than that in the case of the Rafale.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 02:16
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:Just finished crunching the numbers to give us an idea of the Kinematics:

Rafale C:

Weights
Empty: 21,000
Fuel: 5,180 lbs (50%)

Weapons: 2,265lbs
4 x Meteor A-A missiles 1628 lbs
2 x Magic A-A missiles 387lbs
125 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 250 lbs [2lbs per round])

combat Weight:28,445

Thrust:
Dry: 22,500
AB: 34,000

T/W ratio:
Dry: 0.79
AB: 1.20

Wing Loading: 57.81/sqft

___________________________________________________________

F-35A

Weights
Empty: 29,300
Fuel: 7,200 (40%)


Weapons: 1,932 lbs
4 x Aim 120C missiles: 1,340 lbs
2 x Aim 9X missiles: 376 lbs
180 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 216 lbs [1.2lbs per round])

Combat weight: 38,432

Thrust
Dry: 28,000
AB: 43,000

TW Ratio
Dry:0.72
AB: 1.12
Wing Loading:83.5 lbs/ sq ft.

____________________________________________________________

F-16C

Weights
Empty: 18,900
Fuel: 4,000 (70%) <---not too sure about this


Weapons: 2,329 lbs
4 x Aim 120C missiles: 1,340 lbs
2 x Aim 9X missiles: 376 lbs
511 rounds: (dont know the weight, estimate 613 lbs [1.2lbs per round])

combat weight: 25,229

Thrust
Dry: 17,155
AB: 28,600

TW Ratio
Dry:0.67
AB: 1.13
Wing Loading: 84lbs/ sq ft.

I was surprised at how similar the F35 was to the F-16, but it looks like the Rafale holds a comanding lead on this configuration.


Yet, those numbers don't reflex the impact of external stores and weapons on the Rafale and Viper. Which, are considerable. This point is often overlooked when comparing the F-35 to 4/4.5 Generation Fighters! :bang:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 10:04
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:Yet, those numbers don't reflex the impact of external stores and weapons on the Rafale and Viper. Which, are considerable. This point is often overlooked when comparing the F-35 to 4/4.5 Generation Fighters! :bang:


Hi Corsair1963 glad you can join us.

Just to keep you up to speed, Iam currently engaged in a debate with a particular youtube video found here
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsxEN0oFq10"

I and the video owner are the only two people who post comments there.

My stand is that the F-35 can compete with the Rafale in terms of maneuverability and his stand is that it would have no chance with the Rafale in that fight. (I'm "Mike Webber")

I have brought up the effects of external stores but he says that the drag penalties enduced by these weapons are not as large as "Stealth fan boys" (according to him) would like to think.

He said the additional drag induced by internal weapons bays however are permanent and the advantages are lost when both planes are lightly loaded. For point defense missions maybe.

Well as we saw on my computation above, the F-35 compares quite favorably with a lightly loaded F-16,

By the way can anyone tell me how much an airshow configured F-16 weighs? If its around 6,000lbs then that means the F-35 I stated above can perform the airshow maneuvers the F-16 is performing with a respectable combat load.
6,000lbs load

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 17:47
by count_to_10
Oddly, I can only see the "top comments" on that video, not all of them. Although the video is just ridiculous, especially the fantasy about stealth being irrelevant.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Dec 2013, 17:56
by count_to_10
zero-one wrote:What about against a Rafale?

My stand is that the F-35 will have better T/W ratio when both are loaded with around 9,000lbs+


However he claims that the Rafale has far more efficient efficient engines as attested by its nearly 2,000mi ferry range on internal fuel

The F-35 has 8,000lbs more fuel but can bearly reach 1300miles, is this due to poorer fuel efficiency?

We did agree however that the F-35 will have more afterburner time since the Snecma M-88 engines of the Rafale are no longer fuel efficient with AB on.

Basically we got stuck on what load will both aircraft most likely bring to the fight.
He claims 50% fuel and 6 missiles for the Rafale
and I claim 40% fuel and 6 missiles for the F-35

Aerodynamic design is also a factor, He says the F-35 is much more draggy and will loose lift quickly in a turn, as evidenced by its suposedly weak vortex lift properties. Dont know how he arrived with that though

The "ferry range" for the Rafale is calculated with maximum external fuel tanks, while the 1300 miles for the F-35 is just double it's combat range. No external fuel tanks, full bomb load, and with a non-optimal combat flight profile and loitering/maneuvering time built in.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 09:56
by Corsair1963
Having issue posting link. Yet, go to You Tube and type in "Beesley on F-35 Air to Air". He has a good video discussing comparing a loaded F-16 vs clean F-35. Plus, he talks about the big impact that Air to Air Missiles have on the performance of an aircraft when carried externally.

As a matter of fact one of his quotes states. Even the "AMRAAM" has a Big Impact on Performance!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Dec 2013, 10:17
by Corsair1963
I would add carrying external fuel is very inefficient. As a matter of fact the general rule is it requires half of the fuel in the external tank. Just to over come the added drag and weight of said tank!


In short only half of any external fuel carried by the Rafale is "useable". :doh:

If memory serves me the Rafale carries ~ 10,000 lbs in internal fuel vs 18,000 lbs for the F-35A.

Also, I have my doubts that the two M-88 Turbo Fans in the Rafale are more efficient that the single F135 in the F-35A.


Lastly, I am sure the Rafale supporter in this case. Will say the pilot will drop the tanks when he joins combat. Yet, first before he does so the Rafale has a RCS of a BARN, Second even after he drops the tanks. The impact of the external pylons and missiles. Well still greatly effect the performance of the French Fighter.

As Beesley says just comparing Apples and Oranges. Yet, you can bet Supporters of 4.5 Generation Fighters. Are always going to try to spin there argument to there advantage.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Dec 2013, 12:15
by hornetfinn
count_to_10 wrote:The "ferry range" for the Rafale is calculated with maximum external fuel tanks, while the 1300 miles for the F-35 is just double it's combat range. No external fuel tanks, full bomb load, and with a non-optimal combat flight profile and loitering/maneuvering time built in.


This is correct. On top of that the combat range for F-35 is currently calculated with end-of-life (actually quite a bit worse) engines which significantly affects the range figures. Real world range performance is likely significantly better. Ferry range for Super Hornet is stated to be about equal to Dassault Rafale, both about 1800-2000 nmi with full external tanks. On the other hand Super Hornet has inferior combat range with 3 external tanks to F-35A or C with internal fuel, even with current figures.

The Snecma M88 engines are very likely quite a bit thirstier than F135 engine used in F-35. F135 has all the features that should make it significantly more fuel efficient. It has higher by-pass ratio, higher overall pressure ratio, higher turbine inlet temperature and has much better T/W ratio. While M88 are very good engines with low fuel consumption and high performance, I don't see how it possibly could have lower or even comparable fuel consumption than F135 engine.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2013, 03:21
by steakanddoritos
vilters wrote:The only advantage the F-35 has, is that it will know where the Rafale is.

But once the F-35 driver pulls the stick, he knows he's flying a fuel/bomb truck.


Lolwut?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Dec 2013, 06:12
by newmanfrigan
steakanddoritos wrote:
vilters wrote:The only advantage the F-35 has, is that it will know where the Rafale is.

But once the F-35 driver pulls the stick, he knows he's flying a fuel/bomb truck.


Lolwut?



He's talking about those 9g capable, 50 AoA controlled flight capable fuel truck, sporting a high T/W ratio, JHMCS III, DAS, etc. Yeah, a loaded for bear 4th gen is going to be what than? A flying battleship?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Dec 2013, 16:51
by Scorpion82
I'd concur that the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Internal carriage of weapons and fuel is a pre-requisit for obtaining low observability. Tactical LO aircraft used to be large aircraft to accomodate weapon bays for a sizeable loadout and large enough fuel tanks. The F-35 is a deviation from the approach by being a medium sized design, dictated by affordability requirements. This was partially achieved by advanced materials and manufacturing techniques that provide more internal volume for a given size. The F-35 is in fact an incredibly volume efficient design. However, this accounts only partially for the volume. The aircraft has a rather large fuselage, not just from the front, but also when viewed from the side aspect.

The aircraft is paying a permanent weight amd drag penalty for this which translated into a performance penalty. Loading a 4th gen up with weapons and tanks will however tilt the advantage to the F-35 in many configurations, especially for AG missions.

Drop tanks can be dropped if the need should arise and some are being dropped together with their pylons. The actual drag of AAMs depends on the way they are carried. It's not the drag of the missile itself which is potentially problematic, but the interference drag that builds up between the mounting point on the airframe, the pylon and the missile. If pylon aerodynamics are optimised to minimise such an interference drag penality the overall impact on drag is limited. Conformal carriage of weapons on the fuselage or on wingtip launch rails further minimises that drag penalty. The claim that an AMRAAM has a big impact on performance must be put into perspective and is as such exaggerated.

As far as TWR of the engine and its consumption is concerned, has anyone any official figures to bolster the claims made or are they speculative only?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 10:40
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:As far as TWR of the engine and its consumption is concerned, has anyone any official figures to bolster the claims made or are they speculative only?


We do know M88 engine specs pretty well as they have been published. We also know F135 engine specs, although dry weight specs have not been published. There have been several reports though that the dry weight is about 3,750 lbs or about 1702 kg.
Weight of F135: http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123310707
The F135 engine's maximum thrust is rated at 43,000 pounds, which is approximately 50 percent higher than the F-16's engine. That level of thrust is "high for a fighter," Mr. Kusbel said. It's also 20 percent greater than the F101 engine, which powers the B-1 bomber and which is Tinker's next most-powerful jet engine, Mr. Hopkins said. The F135 engine weighs 3,750 pounds and is 18.3 feet long.


Other info about F135: http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/F135_Engine/pdf/B-2-4_F135_SpecsChart.pdf

Info about M88 engine:
http://www.snecma.com/IMG/pdf/M88-2_ang-2.pdf

So in comparison:
TWR ratio AB: M88: 8.6 (9.3 ECO demonstator) F135: 11.5
TWR ratio dry: M88: 5.7 (6.2 ECO) F135: 7.5
By-pass ratio: M88: 0.30 F135: 0.57
Pressure ratio: M88: 24.5 (27 ECO) F135: 28
Turbine inlet temperature (K): M88: 1850K (2871 F) F135: >2255K (3600 F) stated in many reports

Snecma M88 has a very low fuel consumption in afterburner with 1.70 kg/daN*h, but not great (about comparable) 0.80 kg/daN*h in military power compared to previous engines like F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129/132 or AL-31F. In AB the fuel consumption is about 15-20 percent less than in those other engines and that is really good.

We do not know the SFC figures for F135 as they have not been published, but every specification hints that it has very good SFC figures and should have significantly better figures than even M88 (or EJ200 which is very similar to M88) especially on dry power (although likely also AB). It's just that F135 is a next generation engine compared to M88.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 13:11
by hornetfinn
I think that F-35A and Dassault Rafale (and Eurofighter Typhoon) would be very close to each other in a gun-only or IR missile only one-on-one daylight dogfight. Each of them would probably have some advantages and disadvantages compared to others. F-35 probably has the best high AoA performance, longest range/flight time and by far the best sensors due to having DAS. Rafale and Typhoon might well have some advantage in acceleration, speed and maybe even maneuverability.

I think that otherwise the three would be very close, but F-35 having eyes everywhere all the time (DAS) would be the real advantage. The F-35 pilot would know all the time quite accurately where and how far away the adversary is and where it's heading and he would not lose the track of it. Rafale pilot would be constrained to how much his head turns and his sensors being limited to fairly small part of the sky. In one-on-one fight it might not be critical, but time will tell that. As scenario becomes more complex, having DAS capability becomes much more critical as it will keep a constant track of everything happening around the F-35.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 Dec 2013, 23:08
by Scorpion82
hornetfinn wrote:We do know M88 engine specs pretty well as they have been published. We also know F135 engine specs, although dry weight specs have not been published. There have been several reports though that the dry weight is about 3,750 lbs or about 1702 kg.
Weight of F135: http://www.tinker.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123310707
The F135 engine's maximum thrust is rated at 43,000 pounds, which is approximately 50 percent higher than the F-16's engine. That level of thrust is "high for a fighter," Mr. Kusbel said. It's also 20 percent greater than the F101 engine, which powers the B-1 bomber and which is Tinker's next most-powerful jet engine, Mr. Hopkins said. The F135 engine weighs 3,750 pounds and is 18.3 feet long.


Other info about F135: http://www.pw.utc.com/Content/F135_Engine/pdf/B-2-4_F135_SpecsChart.pdf

Info about M88 engine:
http://www.snecma.com/IMG/pdf/M88-2_ang-2.pdf

So in comparison:
TWR ratio AB: M88: 8.6 (9.3 ECO demonstator) F135: 11.5
TWR ratio dry: M88: 5.7 (6.2 ECO) F135: 7.5
By-pass ratio: M88: 0.30 F135: 0.57
Pressure ratio: M88: 24.5 (27 ECO) F135: 28
Turbine inlet temperature (K): M88: 1850K (2871 F) F135: >2255K (3600 F) stated in many reports

Snecma M88 has a very low fuel consumption in afterburner with 1.70 kg/daN*h, but not great (about comparable) 0.80 kg/daN*h in military power compared to previous engines like F100-PW-229 or F110-GE-129/132 or AL-31F. In AB the fuel consumption is about 15-20 percent less than in those other engines and that is really good.

We do not know the SFC figures for F135 as they have not been published, but every specification hints that it has very good SFC figures and should have significantly better figures than even M88 (or EJ200 which is very similar to M88) especially on dry power (although likely also AB). It's just that F135 is a next generation engine compared to M88.


Thanks for the dry weight figure of the F135. I have seen a 1800 kg figure, but the source was not entierly transparent. The F135 is surely a more advanced engine. Whether or not its SFC is lower than that of other modern turbofans remains to be seen. The M88 is also newer and more advanced than the F100-PW-100 or the AL-31F but the data don't suggest a lower SFC. Surely its lower bypass ratio is not beneficial for a low SFC. On the other hand the F100 also has a low BP ratio than the AL-31F but its SFC is slightly lower. The performance gains of modern engines come at a price and don't necessarily translate into a lower SFC, but limit its SFC raise.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2013, 16:12
by JetTest
Look at the numbers for a moment; The F135 is nearly 30 inches longer, 10 inches larger inlet diameter and 50 percent more thrust than the F100, but only 10 pounds heavier.......

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2013, 19:15
by count_to_10
JetTest wrote:Look at the numbers for a moment; The F135 is nearly 30 inches longer, 10 inches larger inlet diameter and 50 percent more thrust than the F100, but only 10 pounds heavier.......

The miracles of modern materials science.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 Dec 2013, 22:06
by JetTest
I would not count on 3750 being accurate.....

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2014, 04:48
by Corsair1963
JetTest wrote:Look at the numbers for a moment; The F135 is nearly 30 inches longer, 10 inches larger inlet diameter and 50 percent more thrust than the F100, but only 10 pounds heavier.......



I thought the F135 was considerably heavier???


Do you have a source...........

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jan 2014, 06:45
by JetTest
Sarcasm, I have never seen an official published number, but I would bet anything that 3750 is way off.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 03:53
by Corsair1963
JetTest wrote:Sarcasm, I have never seen an official published number, but I would bet anything that 3750 is way off.



Yet, 3750 is the most quoted weight available??? Why do you believe that number is way off???

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 04:17
by JetTest
If you had ever seen one in person you would know. The materials are certainly more advanced, but it is not magic. It still metal, and it is huge. Just think again about the difference in dimensions for a few minutes.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 13:09
by hornetfinn
JetTest wrote:Look at the numbers for a moment; The F135 is nearly 30 inches longer, 10 inches larger inlet diameter and 50 percent more thrust than the F100, but only 10 pounds heavier.......


The maximum diameter on the other hand is half an inch smaller in F135. In the F135 the inlet diameter is only three inches less than maximum diameter. In F100 the inlet is almost 12 inches less than the maximum diameter. So the average diameter of the engines is much closer than comparing simply inlet diameters.

Also looking at their layout (and outside view) pictures it's easy to notice that the tailpipe of the F135 engine is much longer than in F100. It seems to be about half the total length of the engine whereas in F100 variants it's only about one third or slightly more. That would make much of the length of the F135 to be empty and the actual engine components to be pretty much inside the same length in both engines. I think F135 is designed so for both engine design reasons and stealth reasons. Stealth reasons would be hiding the internals of the engine from behind much better and also could likely help reducing the IR signature.

I do not think that 3750 lbs figure is that unrealistic, although I do agree that there is no official public information available about that and the actual weight might be something off. Given that previous generation engines like M88, EJ200 and F414 get TWR of about 9 in wet and about 5.5-6 in dry power, I think it's entirely possible that F135 could reach about 25 percent increase in TWR. All those engines are supposed to be upgradeable with 20-30 percent more power with no increase in spesific fuel consumption after all, although the weight would also likely increase somewhat.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 19:03
by JetTest
Obviously you have never seen one other than in pictures. On both engines the max diameter is an envelope-dimension taking into consideration the largest diameter required to include the externals when installing in an engine bay. On the F100 the gearbox and externals drive the large diameter, but the actual engine is much smaller diameter, hence the big difference in inlet vs outer diameter dimensions. Also, the F100 has a narrow "waist", so to speak, around the compressor, so there is a significant difference in diameter at various stations. The F135 inlet diameter is much closer to the major as the externals are more streamlined, and the engine has much less difference in diameter from station to station. If you took both engines and stripped them of the externals you would quickly see that the main part of the F135 is significantly larger, like not even close. Materials are not that magical yet....

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jan 2014, 19:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
wouldn't a higher BPR negate some of that?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 03:24
by JetTest
The extra diameter is not all fan duct. The engine is huge, like along the lines of the J58-type huge.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 10:06
by hornetfinn
JetTest wrote:Obviously you have never seen one other than in pictures. On both engines the max diameter is an envelope-dimension taking into consideration the largest diameter required to include the externals when installing in an engine bay. On the F100 the gearbox and externals drive the large diameter, but the actual engine is much smaller diameter, hence the big difference in inlet vs outer diameter dimensions. Also, the F100 has a narrow "waist", so to speak, around the compressor, so there is a significant difference in diameter at various stations. The F135 inlet diameter is much closer to the major as the externals are more streamlined, and the engine has much less difference in diameter from station to station. If you took both engines and stripped them of the externals you would quickly see that the main part of the F135 is significantly larger, like not even close. Materials are not that magical yet....


No I haven't seen the F135 engine other than in pictures although I fail to see what I could learn from seeing it in real life. I definitely agree that F135 has larger external dimensions than F100 variants. It's still the internals that really matter in engine weight and F135 and F100 have markedly disparate internals. F135 has the same core as F119 and that engine is said to have 40 percent fewer parts than previous generation engines (probably meaning F100 and F110 series engines). It also has 6 stage HP compressor (similar to much smaller M88-engine used in Dassault Rafale, delivering less than 40 percent the power) as opposed to 10 in F100. This should lead to comparatively lower weight along with material and design advances. Also as I said, it seems pretty certain that the actual engine components have been installed on pretty much the same length as in F100 and F110. Length doesn't directly translate to weight if much of that length is empty tube.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 10:24
by hornetfinn
Scorpion82 wrote:Thanks for the dry weight figure of the F135. I have seen a 1800 kg figure, but the source was not entierly transparent. The F135 is surely a more advanced engine. Whether or not its SFC is lower than that of other modern turbofans remains to be seen. The M88 is also newer and more advanced than the F100-PW-100 or the AL-31F but the data don't suggest a lower SFC. Surely its lower bypass ratio is not beneficial for a low SFC. On the other hand the F100 also has a low BP ratio than the AL-31F but its SFC is slightly lower. The performance gains of modern engines come at a price and don't necessarily translate into a lower SFC, but limit its SFC raise.


I think M88 and EJ200 get their relatively good SFC figures from having significantly higher turbine inlet temperature compared to F100-PW or AL-31F engines, leading to better thermal efficiency. Of course their other figures do not support lower SFC as they have lower by-pass ratio and also lower or similar pressure ratio. They still get both much improved performance (at least TWR) and similar (dry) or much better (AB) SFC numbers.

On the other hand F135 has all the qualities to have better SFC (and most other performance) figures than M88. It certainly has higher by-pass ratio, higher turbine inlet temperature and higher pressure ratio. I think it should have both improved TWR and also SFC numbers.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jan 2014, 16:46
by JetTest
F135 core is based on the F119 but is certainly not the same. While I do agree with your logical approach in trying to compare engine weights and characteristics just from what you can see in photos, I am quite sure that 3750 is not accurate for a complete F135 engine, and not even for a power module. Believe what you want, but it does not make it so.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 12:40
by hornetfinn
JetTest wrote:F135 core is based on the F119 but is certainly not the same. While I do agree with your logical approach in trying to compare engine weights and characteristics just from what you can see in photos, I am quite sure that 3750 is not accurate for a complete F135 engine, and not even for a power module. Believe what you want, but it does not make it so.


I definitely don't know what the exact weight of the engine is and it might well be higher than that 3750 figure most often stated. What I do believe is that it's the most advanced fighter jet engine ever designed and built and has superior performance and fuel consumption figures to M88-engine used in Dassault Rafale or any other previous fighter jet. M88 engine predates F135 by about 15 years and technology has evolved quite a bit during that time. That along with the fact that F135 engine development has been done with much larger amount of money and other resources with one of the most experienced engine company around leads me to believe that F135 is much superior to M88 engine in pretty much any metric available.

Previous generation engines like M88, EJ200 and F414 have T/W ratio of about 9:1. It seems like their fuel consumption figures are not much better than engines developed a generation before them in dry power, but in AB they seem to have quite a bit better fuel consumption figures. Of course they also have much more thrust available in dry power than engines before them and are also more durable and reliable. It seems very likely F135 has similarly better TWR ratio to M88 and has better fuel consumption figures along with being more durable and reliable.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jan 2014, 13:59
by JetTest
3,750 is the most common weight that I have seen used by the public, but I have never seen the actual weight released. Your last post is well written and, I think, pretty accurate. :wink:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jan 2014, 22:26
by JetTest
PW has unofficially suggested approx 5,400lbs, with thrust easily exceeding the spec requirement of 43,000 lbs. try those numbers in your calculations.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2014, 16:33
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Dont get confused on the -600 engine, that weight includes the lift fan and roll posts

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jan 2014, 16:45
by JetTest
Absolutely incorrect. Inlet fan through augmented nozzle.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2014, 14:49
by sprstdlyscottsmn
JetTest wrote:Absolutely incorrect. Inlet fan through augmented nozzle.


then perhaps I need a bit of enlightenment. Every time I see the -600 diagrammed the lift fan and roll posts are included, and the listed weight is between 1500 and 2000 pounds more than the -100. Are you thus implying that all that additional weight lies in the additional internal gearing for the shaft and the two three-bearing swivels?

I didn't expect that stuff to be weightless, but I didn't think it would be that heavy either.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2014, 17:44
by JetTest
Obviously those parts are not weightless, but that does not change the facts. Just because you read it somewhere or saw it on a chart somewhere in the public domain does not make it accurate.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2014, 19:44
by sprstdlyscottsmn
so basically we all can sit around and conjecture all we want but unless we work the engine iteself we don't know?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2014, 20:35
by JetTest
That would be a true statement, and relevant to pretty much all of the new programs.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jan 2014, 23:10
by sprstdlyscottsmn
::insert sarcasm:: Well folks, you heard him! We can all pack up and go home. Nothing to see here.

In all seriousness, for people who want to know for whatever reason, they can only use what is posted out there. Take it all with a grain of salt, put some thought into it, and listen to the input of others. Those who know can't say and those who say are going on what they have read or are making it up. Personally, I put the weight at ~4,000. 3700 seems low but 5,600 seems too high. I don't know, and no one who does is allowed to correct me for OPSEC reasons. at the end of the day it is just the opinion of one enthusiast on a website.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Jan 2014, 03:20
by Corsair1963
:bang: Honestly, the Rafale is in no way comparable to the F-35. If it was the Rafale would have won a number of export orders.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Feb 2014, 15:46
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote::bang: Honestly, the Rafale is in no way comparable to the F-35. If it was the Rafale would have won a number of export orders.



I tried to make that argument but I was countered by saying it was all politics, a nation won't gain much by being cozy with France, but would gain a lot by Uncle Sam.

I said, if that was the case, then why hasn't the F-15SE won contracts yet, on the contrary it had all the hallmarks to win the Korean F-X program, but the program specs were changed in order for the F-35 to win.

Anyway the way I see it, on a performance perspective:

if you compare them with 50% fuel and A-A load outs, than the Rafale may have the better specs, at least on paper.

but load them with a definite amount, say a 9,000 pound load, then the F-35 takes the lead. again on paper.

I have yet to compare them for a definite mission profile like a 300 mile CAP mission or something.

DACT excercise between the 2 may prove interesting, both incorporate great IR stealth.

so Helmet\HOBS heater advantages may be reduced and we might see some good old fashioned maneuvering to.

The Lightning definitly holds advantages in AOA and probably slow speed maneuvers like a Hornet, but the Rafale may win against it in high speed, although the F-35 does handle like a Viper to, which could mean its a toss up.


just my 2 cents

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2014, 05:51
by Corsair1963
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote::bang: Honestly, the Rafale is in no way comparable to the F-35. If it was the Rafale would have won a number of export orders.



I tried to make that argument but I was countered by saying it was all politics, a nation won't gain much by being cozy with France, but would gain a lot by Uncle Sam.

I said, if that was the case, then why hasn't the F-15SE won contracts yet, on the contrary it had all the hallmarks to win the Korean F-X program, but the program specs were changed in order for the F-35 to win.

Anyway the way I see it, on a performance perspective:

if you compare them with 50% fuel and A-A load outs, than the Rafale may have the better specs, at least on paper.

but load them with a definite amount, say a 9,000 pound load, then the F-35 takes the lead. again on paper.

I have yet to compare them for a definite mission profile like a 300 mile CAP mission or something.

DACT excercise between the 2 may prove interesting, both incorporate great IR stealth.

so Helmet\HOBS heater advantages may be reduced and we might see some good old fashioned maneuvering to.

The Lightning definitly holds advantages in AOA and probably slow speed maneuvers like a Hornet, but the Rafale may win against it in high speed, although the F-35 does handle like a Viper to, which could mean its a toss up.


just my 2 cents


The F-35 is far superior than any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter at Combat Weights. Which, is why most critics like to compare the F-35 to "clean" fighters! :doh:

Regardless, such comparison are becoming less relevant as HOBS can make even a Piper Cub a serious threat at close range!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2014, 07:18
by neurotech
Corsair1963 wrote:
zero-one wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote::bang: Honestly, the Rafale is in no way comparable to the F-35. If it was the Rafale would have won a number of export orders.

The F-35 is far superior than any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter at Combat Weights. Which, is why most critics like to compare the F-35 to "clean" fighters! :doh:

Regardless, such comparison are becoming less relevant as HOBS can make even a Piper Cub a serious threat at close range!

Not to be a wiseguy.. but the Cessna 208 (AC-208 version) actually has hardpoints and carries Hellfire missiles, so that Cessna could be a serious threat if it stayed low and used terrain masking to avoid detection.

The Rafale is a good fighter, but I think the F-35 will have the edge once IOC. I still can't believe they use non-retractable refueling probe on the Rafale. That can't be good for Supersonic drag or frontal RCS.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Feb 2014, 14:48
by zero-one
Corsair1963 wrote:The F-35 is far superior than any 4/4.5 Generation Fighter at Combat Weights. Which, is why most critics like to compare the F-35 to "clean" fighters! :doh:

Regardless, such comparison are becoming less relevant as HOBS can make even a Piper Cub a serious threat at close range!


Very true.

Some people tell me that the combat weight F-35 fans like to taunt about is pathetic,

2 two thousand pound bombs and 2 AMRAAMs
while EF Typhoons and Rafales carry around
6 Meteors and 4 two thousand pound bombs.


So I calculated the T/W ratio for the the 3 aircraft at 7,000lbs fuel and 6 missiles (A-A load).
By the way they hate it when you use exact figures, they like to use percentages since they know that 4th gens have small internal tanks.

The Typhoon still had a commanding lead, but the F-35A and Rafale were identical at T/W ratios,

and the F-35 has the advantage of having 4 of the 6 missiles internally loaded giving it far less drag, the 2 9Xs near the wing tips with extra small fins would add just a tad bit of drag far far less than the 4 Meteors and 2 Micas/ASRAAMs they have exposed on the belly.

Id say its almost like flying with a small parachute. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 00:23
by halloweene
In the end, heavily loaded Rafale can sustain more than 5g. F-35 emty just cant.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 02:14
by Corsair1963
halloweene wrote:In the end, heavily loaded Rafale can sustain more than 5g. F-35 emty just cant.



Would you care to provide specifics and a source for your claim???

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 02:17
by smsgtmac
Corsair1963 wrote:
halloweene wrote:In the end, heavily loaded Rafale can sustain more than 5g. F-35 emty just cant.



Would you care to provide specifics and a source for your claim???


But first define your terms, beginning with the definition of 'sustain'.... relevant to 5g or Gs.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 03:53
by zero-one
halloweene wrote:In the end, heavily loaded Rafale can sustain more than 5g. F-35 emty just cant.


I'm just going to tell you that if you continue on this path,

you're about to get a lesson in Aerodynamics 101 by some very knowledgable people (pilots, aerodynamic engineers etc)
who call this site home.

so unless you can back up your claims with some solid evidence, you will be fighting an uphill battle.

P.S If your only source is the "reduced sustained G fiasco for all 3 varriants" back in 2012, then that is old news

bottom line: Unless you can give the load for the sustained G specification, you cannot draw a conclusion

The F-35 unlike the Rafale can carry around 30,000 pounds of fuel and weapons, and if that was the load for the reduced G spec, then that is still way above most fighters.

We now know that the F-35 in a light configuration can handle higher Gs than a lightly configured F-16.
in short it can sustain 9Gs in A-A combat with little trouble

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 15:23
by XanderCrews
smsgtmac wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
halloweene wrote:In the end, heavily loaded Rafale can sustain more than 5g. F-35 emty just cant.



Would you care to provide specifics and a source for your claim???


But first define your terms, beginning with the definition of 'sustain'.... relevant to 5g or Gs.


Seconded. would like definition of "heavily" as well. Weight, unlike emotion can be scientifically measured in many ways. I Want to know at exactly what "heavy loaded" is in Lbs/Kilos. and on that note what the margins are for loads at 4Gs or 6Gs. (since this is all measurable and verifiable of course) it shouldnt be hard to prove... unless someone is just making bold claims up, but that would be silly wouldn't it?

http://static.fjcdn.com/pictures/You+re ... 731293.jpg

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 17:32
by sprstdlyscottsmn
zero-one wrote:
We now know that the F-35 in a light configuration can handle higher Gs than a lightly configured F-16.
in short it can sustain 9Gs in A-A combat with little trouble


So I am working on an in depth analysis of combat performance parameters of the F-35 compared to its US counterparts, and I happen to have the stats for the F-16C and F-15E in A2A compared to my calculations for the F-35. In order for All aircraft to fly 500nm out and hold an equal time CAP there (which the F-16 must carry drop tanks and drop them when empty) the F-35 has 8.3G available at the beginning of the CAP, the F-16 has 8.0G, while the Mudhen has 5.3G. These are not sustained values as I have not reached that part of the analysis yet. What this does show is that to perform the same mission profile the F-35 will do so with more G, better SA, lower RCS, and better ECM. If the F-35 were to carry tanks and drop them once empty like the F-16 had to, it gains an extra hour of loiter and only drops to 7.3G avail at the beginning of the CAP.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 17:48
by KamenRiderBlade
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote:
We now know that the F-35 in a light configuration can handle higher Gs than a lightly configured F-16.
in short it can sustain 9Gs in A-A combat with little trouble


So I am working on an in depth analysis of combat performance parameters of the F-35 compared to its US counterparts, and I happen to have the stats for the F-16C and F-15E in A2A compared to my calculations for the F-35. In order for All aircraft to fly 500nm out and hold an equal time CAP there (which the F-16 must carry drop tanks and drop them when empty) the F-35 has 8.3G available at the beginning of the CAP, the F-16 has 8.0G, while the Mudhen has 5.3G. These are not sustained values as I have not reached that part of the analysis yet. What this does show is that to perform the same mission profile the F-35 will do so with more G, better SA, lower RCS, and better ECM. If the F-35 were to carry tanks and drop them once empty like the F-16 had to, it gains an extra hour of loiter and only drops to 7.3G avail at the beginning of the CAP.


"Mudhen"?

Is that the F-15E's nickname by the pilots and service folks?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 17:49
by spazsinbad
Sounds like an excellent idea 'sprstdlyscottsmn'. Would you be able to add the F-35B to your equations please? It would be interesting to get an idea about the capability for the 'Oz F-35Bs on Oz LHDs' for 'Fleet Defence'. Tah muchly. :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 18:52
by sprstdlyscottsmn
My current plan is for F-35A vs F-15E vs F-16Cblk52 vs F-16Dblk52+CFT, then F-35C vs F/A-18E, then F-35B vs AV-8B, but that last one will be the lowest fidelity as I have the roughest info about them. Likewise, I have less data available to me about the F-35C than I do the F-35A. I am actually having to redo my previously stated F-16C data as that was for a Blk25 bird I think and I had to make a lot of assumptions about stores weight and drag and the effects on cruise (as the weights involved went off the old charts) and I was since able to get HAF charts (hence the addition of the F-16D with CFTs).

I will make engineering estimations when I need to, but I want the most accurate test to be first.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 18:53
by sprstdlyscottsmn
KamenRiderBlade wrote:"Mudhen"?

Is that the F-15E's nickname by the pilots and service folks?

yep

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 18:59
by zerion
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:
zero-one wrote:
We now know that the F-35 in a light configuration can handle higher Gs than a lightly configured F-16.
in short it can sustain 9Gs in A-A combat with little trouble


So I am working on an in depth analysis of combat performance parameters of the F-35 compared to its US counterparts, and I happen to have the stats for the F-16C and F-15E in A2A compared to my calculations for the F-35. In order for All aircraft to fly 500nm out and hold an equal time CAP there (which the F-16 must carry drop tanks and drop them when empty) the F-35 has 8.3G available at the beginning of the CAP, the F-16 has 8.0G, while the Mudhen has 5.3G. These are not sustained values as I have not reached that part of the analysis yet. What this does show is that to perform the same mission profile the F-35 will do so with more G, better SA, lower RCS, and better ECM. If the F-35 were to carry tanks and drop them once empty like the F-16 had to, it gains an extra hour of loiter and only drops to 7.3G avail at the beginning of the CAP.


"Mudhen"?

Is that the F-15E's nickname by the pilots and service folks?


http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudhen

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 19:02
by bring_it_on
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:My current plan is for F-35A vs F-15E vs F-16Cblk52 vs F-16Dblk52+CFT, then F-35C vs F/A-18E, then F-35B vs AV-8B, but that last one will be the lowest fidelity as I have the roughest info about them. Likewise, I have less data available to me about the F-35C than I do the F-35A. I am actually having to redo my previously stated F-16C data as that was for a Blk25 bird I think and I had to make a lot of assumptions about stores weight and drag and the effects on cruise (as the weights involved went off the old charts) and I was since able to get HAF charts (hence the addition of the F-16D with CFTs).

I will make engineering estimations when I need to, but I want the most accurate test to be first.


Do you have a blog or are you going to put them up on the forum? Sounds very interesting..

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 22:21
by sprstdlyscottsmn
I do not have a blog, but I have received several requests for the results of this analysis on the various F-16.net forums. Once I get the first one finished I will figure out how best to put the info out there.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jun 2014, 23:39
by spazsinbad
'sprstdlyscottsmn' depending on the original format it should be easy enough to make PDFs from the material - text and graphics? That way your content will appear the same for everyone (rather than HTML which may differ for different viewers with their OSs/web browsers etc.). There are free PDF makers out there or ADOBE.COM will make them for you (subject to overall file size restrictions).

For 30 days you can trial the 'latest' Adobe Acrobat for free. I have been using Acrobat since the beginning so I do not know how easy it is for a 'beginner' to use however if you have all the files in one program - including graphics - say WORD for example or something better - then you can just print to PDF (after installing Acrobat).

Look in top right corner: http://success.adobe.com/en/au/sem/prod ... 25224245:s

'Make a Free PDF Adobe' is one way to Google Search for other PDF free makers/ideas.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2014, 02:14
by KamenRiderBlade
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:I do not have a blog, but I have received several requests for the results of this analysis on the various F-16.net forums. Once I get the first one finished I will figure out how best to put the info out there.


Just make your own thread and put it in the correct forum for all to see and comment on.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2014, 05:12
by Corsair1963
Sounds very interesting...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2014, 05:59
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Thank you all for the ideas. A PDF in its own thread seems the best idea. Biggest shocker from the new data is how little maneuvering is available at optimum cruise altitude. Almost makes me want to do a second full iteration to check a common altitude as constant, say 25,000?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Jun 2014, 06:16
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:So I am working on an in depth analysis of combat performance parameters of the F-35 compared to its US counterparts, and I happen to have the stats for the F-16C and F-15E in A2A compared to my calculations for the F-35. In order for All aircraft to fly 500nm out and hold an equal time CAP there (which the F-16 must carry drop tanks and drop them when empty) the F-35 has 8.3G available at the beginning of the CAP, the F-16 has 8.0G, while the Mudhen has 5.3G. These are not sustained values as I have not reached that part of the analysis yet. What this does show is that to perform the same mission profile the F-35 will do so with more G, better SA, lower RCS, and better ECM. If the F-35 were to carry tanks and drop them once empty like the F-16 had to, it gains an extra hour of loiter and only drops to 7.3G avail at the beginning of the CAP.


Looking forward to it Sprst

Can you also include the load requirement for those fighters to be capable of pulling 9Gs?

i.e.
F-35A: <8,000 lbs
F-16C: <6,000 lbs
F-15E: <7,000 lbs
F-22A: >12,000 lbs :devil:

something like that.

and since the thread is about the F-35 vs Rafale, can we include the Rafale on that list? or the Tiffy, Grippen, Raptor? :mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Jun 2014, 05:57
by bring_it_on
smsgtmac wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:
halloweene wrote:In the end, heavily loaded Rafale can sustain more than 5g. F-35 emty just cant.



Would you care to provide specifics and a source for your claim???


But first define your terms, beginning with the definition of 'sustain'.... relevant to 5g or Gs.


Don't expect any definitions or any supporting info :)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2014, 12:49
by arcturus
A downsizing of India's Rafale order may be in the cards...


http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-mo ... ct-1999002

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2014, 05:19
by XanderCrews
arcturus wrote:A downsizing of India's Rafale order may be in the cards...


http://www.dnaindia.com/india/report-mo ... ct-1999002



That thing is still in contract hell, I'm sure this will only help :doh:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2014, 01:28
by zero-one
I know the article is a bit old, but I can't help but notice,

When the 2012 "Infamous reduced G spec" on the F-35 came out,

the defense was that we did not know the weight, alt and speed of that Spec.
for all we know it could be a heavily loaded F-35.

The Rafale seemed to release a glimpse of its figures here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... le-334383/

flight global wrote:The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity.


Does this mean that a heavy A-G loaded rafale has a +5.5G limit?

Hopefully the F-35 comes out with figures someday

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2014, 23:16
by zerion
zero-one wrote:I know the article is a bit old, but I can't help but notice,

When the 2012 "Infamous reduced G spec" on the F-35 came out,

the defense was that we did not know the weight, alt and speed of that Spec.
for all we know it could be a heavily loaded F-35.

The Rafale seemed to release a glimpse of its figures here: http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articl ... le-334383/

flight global wrote:The DFCS is a "g" demand system with +9.0g/29° angle of attack (AoA) limit in air-to-air mode and +5.5g/20° AoA limit in both of the two air-to-ground/heavy stores modes (ST1 and ST2) to cater for forward or aft centre of gravity.


Hopefully the F-35 comes out with figures someday


Well in this article 
http://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/b ... tml?page=2
This comes up. 

Stutts walked me through taking off and maneuvering. While going through a loop the display showed we were pulling 8 Gs. That’s eight times the force of gravity.
“That’s with full ordinance. We’ve got a full combat load. Two bombs and two missiles. You cannot do that in fourth-generation aircraft. It would rip them off the wings,” Stutts said.

I'm guessing 2 amraams and 2 2000 lb. bombs. So what is the F-35s a to g compared to the Rafales heavy a to g? That might give us a ballpark. 

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Aug 2014, 23:56
by sprstdlyscottsmn
so as long as it is internal, the munitions will hold max G it sounds like. The next question is "what is the design weight"? Even if it is empty plus two AMRAAM plus 60% fuel, that still leaves quite some margin for 7.5-9G with two tons of bombs. With all that wing/body/tail, it can make a lot of lift.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2014, 02:13
by zero-one
sprstdlyscottsmn wrote:so as long as it is internal, the munitions will hold max G it sounds like. The next question is "what is the design weight"? Even if it is empty plus two AMRAAM plus 60% fuel, that still leaves quite some margin for 7.5-9G with two tons of bombs. With all that wing/body/tail, it can make a lot of lift.


Thanks Sprts, always great to hear from you.

By your estimates, what was that
5.3-4.6 reduced sustained G spec all about anyway.

I mean if it was just the sustained G spec for such a limited flight profile (heavily loaded + high altitude + low speed + high AOA) why was it worth mentioning in the first place?
and why hasn't there been any significant news about it as of late?

bottom line is, the simulator can perform an 8G loop with a full internal load. I'm pretty sure the real one would do pretty darn close if not exactly the same

Judging by the writer who admited he "slept watching Top-gun" I think its safe to sy he's not a combat aircraft geek.

So probably what he ment by "loop" was a typical vertical loop,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but going up on the loop is the slower lower G part of the loop while going down, God's G helps the speed go up and increases G.

So does this mean the F-35 can pull 8Gs throughout the entire loop? or lower Gs going up then 8Gs going down?
This are all just my theories so, correct me if Im flat out wrong

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2014, 05:20
by KamenRiderBlade
Does the air pressure from banking hard apply more G's to the ordinance hanging on an external pylon compared to an internal pylon?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Aug 2014, 17:28
by johnwill
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Does the air pressure from banking hard apply more G's to the ordinance (sic) hanging on an external pylon compared to an internal pylon?



Internal vs. external, the g (load factor) is the same for both in a balanced symmetric maneuver. Air pressure on the external store usually provides some relatively small up load to relieve the down inertia load. So the net vertical load felt by the external pylon may be a little less than the load felt by the internal attachment. The biggest effect of air pressure load is pitch and yaw moment on the store from the rear mounted fins. Air pressure also makes for differences in drag, side load, and pitch, roll, and yaw moments.

You might look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.

,

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2014, 01:50
by KamenRiderBlade
johnwill wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Does the air pressure from banking hard apply more G's to the ordinance (sic) hanging on an external pylon compared to an internal pylon?



Internal vs. external, the g (load factor) is the same for both in a balanced symmetric maneuver. Air pressure on the external store usually provides some relatively small up load to relieve the down inertia load. So the net vertical load felt by the external pylon may be a little less than the load felt by the internal attachment. The biggest effect of air pressure load is pitch and yaw moment on the store from the rear mounted fins. Air pressure also makes for differences in drag, side load, and pitch, roll, and yaw moments.

You might look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.

,


My bad, thought they were spelled the same.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2014, 01:57
by zero-one
johnwill wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:Does the air pressure from banking hard apply more G's to the ordinance (sic) hanging on an external pylon compared to an internal pylon?



Internal vs. external, the g (load factor) is the same for both in a balanced symmetric maneuver. Air pressure on the external store usually provides some relatively small up load to relieve the down inertia load. So the net vertical load felt by the external pylon may be a little less than the load felt by the internal attachment. The biggest effect of air pressure load is pitch and yaw moment on the store from the rear mounted fins. Air pressure also makes for differences in drag, side load, and pitch, roll, and yaw moments.

You might look up the difference between ordinance and ordnance.



Thanks John

I'm guessing that the external store provides an up load when aircraft's AOA causes the ordnance to face the wind right. Internal ordnance won't have that because they are sheilded from the wind. is this correct?

By your unbiased judgement, how does the F-35 compare to the Rafale in A-A configuration anyway?
Speed, acceleration, G limits, Turn rates, any ideas?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Aug 2014, 08:44
by johnwill



I'm guessing that the external store provides an up load when aircraft's AOA causes the ordnance to face the wind right. Internal ordnance won't have that because they are sheilded from the wind. is this correct?

By your unbiased judgement, how does the F-35 compare to the Rafale in A-A configuration anyway?
Speed, acceleration, G limits, Turn rates, any ideas?


You are right. However local flow angles at the store location may or may not be similar to free stram air. For example, F-16 stores are pitched nose down 3 degrees from the wing chord plane. Since cruise angle of attack is somewhere near 3 degrees, that nose down positioning tends to reduce store drag. The wing and fuselage distort air flow around the stores, so wind tunnel, computational fluid dynamics (CFD), verified by flight test, is needed to really know what the flow angles and effects are, especially during maneuvering. While maneuvering, everything changes - AoA; sideslip; roll, pitch, and yaw rates; LEF and TEF positions, all of which help to distort the flow angles and velocities near the stores. In addition to that, other adjacent stores affect flows around a particular store.

All of that distortion affects structural load on a store and separation characteristics. So in some ways, internal carriage simplifies the airframe/store integration task.

Concerning F-35 compared to Rafale, I don't have any insight into that. You are most likely better than I am at looking up information like that anyway. I can say that both airplanes do essentially what they are designed to do, since both were designed and developed by truly gifted engineering teams.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2015, 17:39
by f4u7_corsair
neurotech wrote:The Rafale is a good fighter, but I think the F-35 will have the edge once IOC. I still can't believe they use non-retractable refueling probe on the Rafale. That can't be good for Supersonic drag or frontal RCS.

Rafale, as any other Dassault fighter, have fixed probe for the simple reason that they are much less prone to failure than retractable one. They also allow slightly higher fuel flows.

Impact on RCS is near to zero. Same for supersonic drag. Single seater Mirage 2000 had fixed probe and could hit Mach 2,2+ in alpha loadout without any problem, and were showing superior supersonic acceleration than Vipers. They were actually designed with these idea in mind, you know..

gtx wrote:
rotosequence wrote:
Objective capability usually plays second fiddle to geopolitics.


Although I agree to an extent, I think you will find it is more than that in the case of the Rafale.

Rafale made it on top of technological evaluations in many cases. In Switzerland or Korea per example. It eventually came second after F-35 in Netherlands, when the latter wasn't even flying yet and when the Rafale was at a much less capable standard.

So yes. Politics play an enormous role.

neurotech wrote:The Rafale is a capable 4.5th gen fighter but all reports indicate that a Rafale will likely cost more than a FRP F-35.

On the capability side the Rafale doesn't have sensor fused cockpit displays or Spherical EODAS. The claim about OLS/EOTS is misguided. For A/A it isn't nearly a factor for AESA radar with LPI modes. The main use in A/A is the EOTS might help is the target distance for a gun kill against a VLO target. For the AIM-9 EODAS/FLIR works fine for cueing the seeker "tone" on the target. F-35s will be LOAL capable using a datalink.

For A/G the F-35 EOTS works fine unless the jet is trying to acquire the target while inverted :D

Rafale has sensor fusion capabilities very close to what the F-35 offer. The main lack being the absence of spherical DAS or cockpit transparent HMS indeed.

Rafale's FSO-TV is most likely an EOTS counterpart. It can provide accurate detection, ranging and objective designation in air-to-air.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2015, 19:14
by spazsinbad
'f4u7_corsair' said: "...So yes. Politics play an enormous role...." Darn tootin'. We may agree with this FRENCH decision however long ago the threat by France to NOT support Oz RAAF Mirage IIIO if used in Vietnam War was of a similar ilk. Who needs that?
Report: France to Keep Russian Mistrals In Planned $1.20 Billion Deal
27 Apr 2015 Sam LaGrone

"France is set to pay Russia $1.20 billion to settle the lingering dispute over two amphibious warships in a deal that went sour over the ongoing conflict in the Ukraine, according to French and Russian media reports.

The deal — yet to be official — would have France keep the two 21,000 ton amphibs and retain the right to sell the ships to a country of their choosing, reported Le Journal du Dimanche...."

Source: http://news.usni.org/2015/04/27/report- ... llion-deal

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2015, 05:30
by mrbsct
I am looking at F35 vs Rafale in a an air battle

General considerations
The F35 has better radar(the French just gotten AESA)
Both have capable of RWC(ASQ vs SPECTRA)
Both have IRST(DAS vs OSF)
classified IR signatures(F35 has IR coating, but more drag, lacks super-cruise)
The F35 has better stealth
The Rafale is faster, has acceleration and maneuverability

Lets say the F35 and Rafale was heading towards each other. The F35 has RCS around 0.001 m2 while the Rafale is 0.1 m2 when clean, probably around 1m2(since its weapons is loaded externally). The F35 withe APG-81 radar will find the Rafale at around 150 km.(Air Power Australia charts on US radar capability) Rafale with its less powerful RBE2 AA AESA will find the F35 around 23 km. The Rafale has probably lower LPI technology is more prone to be detected and jammed, but F35 is reported to have much better LPI(due to it being stealth aircraft, can cue RWR to get it more LPI and US had AESA for years constantly improving it) jamming resistance so against so a detecting jam by the SPECTRA is unlikely.

Rafale still has IRST to defeat F35, however if its not expecting F35, the F35 obviously detecting the Rafale to get out of IRST azimuth. The F35 can close to around 30 km and fire its missiles from a flank or rear. Boom Rafale is dead.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2015, 07:38
by geforcerfx
mrbsct wrote:I am looking at F35 vs Rafale in a an air battle

General considerations
The F35 has better radar(the French just gotten AESA)
Both have capable of RWC(ASQ vs SPECTRA)
Both have IRST(DAS vs OSF)
classified IR signatures(F35 has IR coating, but more drag, lacks super-cruise)
The F35 has better stealth
The Rafale is faster, has acceleration and maneuverability

Lets say the F35 and Rafale was heading towards each other. The F35 has RCS around 0.001 m2 while the Rafale is 0.1 m2 when clean, probably around 1m2(since its weapons is loaded externally). The F35 withe APG-81 radar will find the Rafale at around 150 km.(Air Power Australia charts on US radar capability) Rafale with its less powerful RBE2 AA AESA will find the F35 around 23 km. The Rafale has probably lower LPI technology is more prone to be detected and jammed, but F35 is reported to have much better LPI(due to it being stealth aircraft, can cue RWR to get it more LPI and US had AESA for years constantly improving it) jamming resistance so against so a detecting jam by the SPECTRA is unlikely.

Rafale still has IRST to defeat F35, however if its not expecting F35, the F35 obviously detecting the Rafale to get out of IRST azimuth. The F35 can close to around 30 km and fire its missiles from a flank or rear. Boom Rafale is dead.


The F-35 does have super cruise, reported at 1.2-1.3, with pilots saying it can do more. The F-35 if loaded with the proper fuel fraction for the mission (aka not all 18,500lbs unless hes flying a long way to the fight) will have a cleaner airframe with a lot less drag then the rafale. As far as airframe drag the aspect of the rafale and F-35 are similar, the difference in drag would be minor and once you add weapons to any 4th gen platform the F-35 gains the drag advantage (only exception might be a clean Viper with wingtip AMRAMMS but then u only have 2 shots). End result is the same the BVR match would happen further our then 30KM if the F-35 wanted to, a Aim-120D launched at mach 1.2 would have a good PK out to 50-60KM even further as well but that keeps the F-35 completely out of the detection range of the Rafale. If you have a merge both aircraft would be deadly but the maneuvering should be similar and the F-35's SA would give it a upper hand, as well as any merge would be decided by the F-35's since they would have the first BVR shots, they decide if they need to merge or not.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2015, 15:07
by cantaz
geforcerfx wrote:The F-35 does have super cruise, reported at 1.2-1.3, with pilots saying it can do more.


It's not supercruise, more like a superjog. It can only sustain it for ~20 minutes.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2015, 15:21
by Dragon029
The F-22 doesn't supercruise for that long either; apparently a 100nmi supercruise dash reduces it's combat radius by 150nmi (~3x the fuel consumption vs whatever throttle setting it uses for subsonic cruise). At Mach 1.7, 100nmi is covered in 6 minutes.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2015, 16:32
by sferrin
Dragon029 wrote:The F-22 doesn't supercruise for that long either; apparently a 100nmi supercruise dash reduces it's combat radius by 150nmi (~3x the fuel consumption vs whatever throttle setting it uses for subsonic cruise). At Mach 1.7, 100nmi is covered in 6 minutes.


viewtopic.php?f=33&t=6459

:mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2015, 17:24
by Dragon029
sferrin wrote:
Dragon029 wrote:The F-22 doesn't supercruise for that long either; apparently a 100nmi supercruise dash reduces it's combat radius by 150nmi (~3x the fuel consumption vs whatever throttle setting it uses for subsonic cruise). At Mach 1.7, 100nmi is covered in 6 minutes.


viewtopic.php?f=33&t=6459

:mrgreen:



I'm not at all surprised if they could cruise for 30 minutes (it's an incredible aircraft); I'm just curious as to what their fuel state would have been after flying that far; their actual range / combat radius is a very cloudy subject.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2015, 09:02
by wil59
mrbsct wrote:I am looking at F35 vs Rafale in a an air battle

General considerations
The F35 has better radar(the French just gotten AESA)
Both have capable of RWC(ASQ vs SPECTRA)
Both have IRST(DAS vs OSF)
classified IR signatures(F35 has IR coating, but more drag, lacks super-cruise)
The F35 has better stealth
The Rafale is faster, has acceleration and maneuverability

Lets say the F35 and Rafale was heading towards each other. The F35 has RCS around 0.001 m2 while the Rafale is 0.1 m2 when clean, probably around 1m2(since its weapons is loaded externally). The F35 withe APG-81 radar will find the Rafale at around 150 km.(Air Power Australia charts on US radar capability) Rafale with its less powerful RBE2 AA AESA will find the F35 around 23 km. The Rafale has probably lower LPI technology is more prone to be detected and jammed, but F35 is reported to have much better LPI(due to it being stealth aircraft, can cue RWR to get it more LPI and US had AESA for years constantly improving it) jamming resistance so against so a detecting jam by the SPECTRA is unlikely.

Rafale still has IRST to defeat F35, however if its not expecting F35, the F35 obviously detecting the Rafale to get out of IRST azimuth. The F35 can close to around 30 km and fire its missiles from a flank or rear. Boom Rafale is dead.

ok:http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.fr/2014/09/fighter-jet-fight-club-f-35-vs-rafale.html

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2015, 09:22
by mrbsct
^Best Fighter for Canada is all personal opinions. Threads like on personal opinions like this. http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.com/ ... -best.html

Canada has a poorer military budget, and buying a cheaper fighter is totally respectable. But to judge how it is better by a couple of points who have don't align in a military context is flawed.

The blog admits the F35 will get the first shot first kill due to superior avionics and stealth. It doesn't matter how good your BVR weapons and WVR weapons once the F35 gets a sneak attack. It stresses how the F35's big hot engine will get detected by IRST, but F35 has IR countermeasures and IRST has low azimuths to detect at max range, if the F35 simply flanks outside the azimuth, the IRST is useless.

The Rafale is not better in ground attack. The F35 has stealth and can carry the most advanced cruise missiles capable of taking on Russian SAMs, while the Rafale is just going to get blasted out the sky by S400 the moment it spots it.

The Rafale does have superior manuverablity and some advantages in dogfighting and close range WVR, but that's all up to pilot's skill. Also, the F35 has helmet mounted display while Rafale totally lacks that feature.

The F35 is not perfect and has SO many issues, but to call it bad plane to the levels Picard578(<imbecile blogger) from Defense Issues or Air power Austrialia(I love AirpowerAus, but has so many inaccuracies)is highly flawed. The F35 has some of the most advanced avionics in the world.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2015, 09:38
by hornetfinn
mrbsct wrote:I am looking at F35 vs Rafale in a an air battle

General considerations
The F35 has better radar(the French just gotten AESA)
Both have capable of RWC(ASQ vs SPECTRA)
Both have IRST(DAS vs OSF)
classified IR signatures(F35 has IR coating, but more drag, lacks super-cruise)
The F35 has better stealth
The Rafale is faster, has acceleration and maneuverability

Lets say the F35 and Rafale was heading towards each other. The F35 has RCS around 0.001 m2 while the Rafale is 0.1 m2 when clean, probably around 1m2(since its weapons is loaded externally). The F35 withe APG-81 radar will find the Rafale at around 150 km.(Air Power Australia charts on US radar capability) Rafale with its less powerful RBE2 AA AESA will find the F35 around 23 km. The Rafale has probably lower LPI technology is more prone to be detected and jammed, but F35 is reported to have much better LPI(due to it being stealth aircraft, can cue RWR to get it more LPI and US had AESA for years constantly improving it) jamming resistance so against so a detecting jam by the SPECTRA is unlikely.

Rafale still has IRST to defeat F35, however if its not expecting F35, the F35 obviously detecting the Rafale to get out of IRST azimuth. The F35 can close to around 30 km and fire its missiles from a flank or rear. Boom Rafale is dead.


F-35 has 7 IRSTs as it has fully spherical wide FOV system in DAS and narrow FOV (very long range) system in EOTS. Rafale does have forward sector looking FSO which definitely does not have anywhere similarly long range performance as EOTS. It has less capable IR detector and much wider FOV as all such IRST systems have due to smaller physical dimensions which leave less space for optics. FSO is definitely a good system and gives Rafale good capabilities but EOTS is newer, larger and more capable system. Rafale has two DDM-NG IR sensors which are used only for MAWS functionality which cover the sphere around the aircraft. F-35 DAS has 6 higher resolution sensors which should give 2 to 5 times longer detection range due to having 2 times smaller FOV, higher resolution and rectilinear lens which does not produce such distortion as fisheye lens used in DDM-NG. More importantly DAS has far more functionalities than simply being MAWS system. It can detect, track and ID both enemy and friendly aircraft, be used in navigation, detect and classify ground fire (including AAA) etc. Also the pilot can see what DAS sensors see directly in his helmet. Rafale pilot can not do this with DDM-NG. So even in dogfight F-35 pilots would have huge SA advantage.

I doubt Rafale has lower IR signatures as it does have regular and very visible nozzles and does not seem to have exhaust cooling system like F-35. Drag would not affect signature much at fighter speeds and besides in combat configuration (with weapons and maybe fuel tanks) F-35 drag might well be lower.

Yes, F-35 does have much better RF stealth and that gives it huge advantage. How does the Rafale force know where to look for F-35? It's much more difficult to detect by any radar, including surveillance and early warning radars. This means Rafale pilots would be trying to find F-35 on their own and F-35 pilots would know where the Rafales are long before contact. Of course RF stealth also makes it more difficult for Rafale to find it (like you said) and it also makes tracking more difficult. It also makes the jamming Rafale radar much easier than jamming F-35 radar.

AN/APG-81 has healthy range advantage due to being much larger and having more T/R modules. AN/APG-81 should have at least 50 percent longer range against common targets if both have similar individual T/R module performance. Given that F-35 has much lower RCS, the difference in real life would be huge.

Another big advantage for F-35 would be sensor fusion. Dassault Rafale has only track correlation which means each sensor would need to detect and track the target on their own before the track will be part of sensor fusion. In F-35 the fusion handles all the data provided by the sensors and can work with much lesser signals and also cue the sensors automatically to find out what caused such signals. This can lead to huge improvements in sensor performance and especially overall SA.

The top speed and acceleration differences are likely not very big even in lightest loads due to both having very similar T/W ratios. In many air-to-air loadouts F-35 might even have better speed and acceleration due to internal carriage of fuel and weapons.

All in all I think Rafale is very good 4++ gen fighter, but going against F-35 would be very difficult task. F-35 would have very serious advantages in both RF and IR spectrum (sensors and signatures) that would make it very tough to beat.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2015, 16:30
by blindpilot
These comparisons are getting old. There are some "advantages" that are paradigm changing and not just "longer measuring sticks."

A. The F-35 is not slow, unmanueverable, etc. etc. If there was no new 5th generation paradigm, it would still be a very good 4th++ generation fighter. The Chinese would give their first ... and second ,,, born children for half the engine technology in the F135. The Russians would give their left ,,, and right ... arms for half the electronic/material hardware advancements in the aircraft ... etc.

B. BUT !!! the F-35 system and 5th gen integration is paradigm changing. The arguments are silly to those who understand.

It is like someone was to compare two boxers.

Boxer A is Blind and wearing a blindfold, so that's -1 for him.

Boxer B can see everything in the room and has complete freedom of movement in all directions including in the ceiling rafters if needed. So that's 1 Plus for him.

1 For Plus 1 Boxer B

Now let's look at everything else. Boxer A is tall and good looking Plus 1 for him,. He has a super model wife Plus two. He has three adoreable children plus 3,4 and 5. He drives a top of the line BMW when not boxing Plus 6. He has a mansion oin a gated community Plus 7 etc. etc. Now let's get serious.
In track he can run slightly faster in a straight line. (If he has his spiked track shoes on) He is carrying a club that is 4 ounces heavier and 1 cm longer than the one Fighter B has. That's plus 8 plus 9 !!!

Fighter A wins - Plus 9 to Plus 1. Right???

When the rules have changed it doesn't matter how adoreable your children are. You are gonna get clubbed !!! End of stupid comparison.

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 09:04
by hornetfinn
blindpilot wrote:These comparisons are getting old. There are some "advantages" that are paradigm changing and not just "longer measuring sticks."


I agree. F-35 (and F-22) has key advantages that make these comparisons just stupid. PAK FA and J-20 might have some of those advantages, although I have some serious doubts about overall capabilities of those planes.

Stealth, sensor fusion, sensors and very highly integrated avionics are the main advantages of F-35. Without these it would be very good 4++ gen fighter with very long range. It would be basically close to Dassault Rafale or Super Hornet with longer range and internal weapons carriage. It seems that all the comparisons always have the following premises:

- Enemy somehow manages to nullify stealth technology with some magical systems (low frequency radars or IRST). Somehow this technology is not available to users of F-35 and it never affects other aircraft types.

- Stealth somehow does not affect enemy fighter sensors or missile kill probability and stealth effects can be bypassed using some magical sensor (like IRST). Somehow IRST only works for the enemy and F-35 having by far the best IRST setup does not see the enemy.

- Enemy pilots are robots who make everything perfectly and follow some magical tactics that miraculously allows enemy even the situation or gain advantage. F-35 pilots are brainless idiots flying in straight line directly towards enemy and not use anything resembling tactics.

- Sensor fusion does not exist and enemy fighters have equal or superior sensors to F-35. When pointed out that F-35 has the best sensor suite and sensor fusion system, it gets ignored or countered with some magical new systems that do not exist even in drawing boards.

- Enemy aircraft capable of 0.5 degree/second better sustained turn rate is going to kill F-35 in close in fight. You do not get any credible answers how the fight got there in the first place or what the specs (weight, speed, weapons) for the turn rates are. Somehow F-35 always fights at max weight and enemy has very low weight. Of course you get no answer to question how long the enemy fighter is going to turn without fuel...

- Electronic warfare only works for the enemy and F-35 either can not use EW or will be countered with HOJ missiles or IRST or whatever. Of course this totally ignores how modern EW works and the how low RCS benefits EW operations. It also ignores the fact that F-35 has extremely powerful jamming system with AN/APG-81 radar with capability to do standoff jamming previously achieved only by dedicated jamming aircraft.

- If F-35 is not at least ten times better at something than potential enemy aircraft, it's not good. When enemy aircraft has some minuscule advantage in some very specific situation, it's much better...

F-35 has all these advantages against all 4th gen fighters (like Rafale here) and likely has healthy advantages against any other 5th gen fighters, including even F-22. I think F-35 is too good for its own good in the minds of some people and they desperately try to find real adversary to it.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 14:46
by wil59
hornetfinn wrote:
blindpilot wrote:These comparisons are getting old. There are some "advantages" that are paradigm changing and not just "longer measuring sticks."


I agree. F-35 (and F-22) has key advantages that make these comparisons just stupid. PAK FA and J-20 might have some of those advantages, although I have some serious doubts about overall capabilities of those planes.

Stealth, sensor fusion, sensors and very highly integrated avionics are the main advantages of F-35. Without these it would be very good 4++ gen fighter with very long range. It would be basically close to Dassault Rafale or Super Hornet with longer range and internal weapons carriage. It seems that all the comparisons always have the following premises:

- Enemy somehow manages to nullify stealth technology with some magical systems (low frequency radars or IRST). Somehow this technology is not available to users of F-35 and it never affects other aircraft types.

- Stealth somehow does not affect enemy fighter sensors or missile kill probability and stealth effects can be bypassed using some magical sensor (like IRST). Somehow IRST only works for the enemy and F-35 having by far the best IRST setup does not see the enemy.

- Enemy pilots are robots who make everything perfectly and follow some magical tactics that miraculously allows enemy even the situation or gain advantage. F-35 pilots are brainless idiots flying in straight line directly towards enemy and not use anything resembling tactics.

- Sensor fusion does not exist and enemy fighters have equal or superior sensors to F-35. When pointed out that F-35 has the best sensor suite and sensor fusion system, it gets ignored or countered with some magical new systems that do not exist even in drawing boards.

- Enemy aircraft capable of 0.5 degree/second better sustained turn rate is going to kill F-35 in close in fight. You do not get any credible answers how the fight got there in the first place or what the specs (weight, speed, weapons) for the turn rates are. Somehow F-35 always fights at max weight and enemy has very low weight. Of course you get no answer to question how long the enemy fighter is going to turn without fuel...

- Electronic warfare only works for the enemy and F-35 either can not use EW or will be countered with HOJ missiles or IRST or whatever. Of course this totally ignores how modern EW works and the how low RCS benefits EW operations. It also ignores the fact that F-35 has extremely powerful jamming system with AN/APG-81 radar with capability to do standoff jamming previously achieved only by dedicated jamming aircraft.

- If F-35 is not at least ten times better at something than potential enemy aircraft, it's not good. When enemy aircraft has some minuscule advantage in some very specific situation, it's much better...

F-35 has all these advantages against all 4th gen fighters (like Rafale here) and likely has healthy advantages against any other 5th gen fighters, including even F-22. I think F-35 is too good for its own good in the minds of some people and they desperately try to find real adversary to it.
so the f-35 is invincible before the same be entirely operational! Discovery Channel has done a good job ....

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 15:22
by blindpilot
wil59 wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
blindpilot wrote:These comparisons are getting old. There are some "advantages" that are paradigm changing and not just "longer measuring sticks."


I agree. F-35 (and F-22) has key advantages that make these comparisons just stupid. PAK FA and J-20 might have some of those advantages, although I have some serious doubts about overall capabilities of those planes.

...


so the f-35 is invincible before the same be entirely operational! Discovery Channel has done a good job ....


No one is invincible. Stuff happens. But that does not change the basics of this discussion. In training exercises with the F-22 they had to adjust the rules of engagement because there was no training value being gained without it. The F-16/15 could stay out there and orbit waiting for a F-22 bay door to get stuck open, I suppose but that was a waste of fuel.

When the rules change you have to adapt. The same can be said of newer Integrated air defense systems (IADS) like S300/400 etc. Are they invincible? No, but I better not fly my F-16/FA18E/Rafale etc. over a modern IADS trusting my Mach .00002 speed advantge. Speed isn't going help me. The rules have changed. I'm also wasting my breath if I boast that I can fly at 65,000 feet. Altitude isn't going to help me. The rules have changed.

The new rules aren't even understood yet by those who have been using them for years. (F-22/B-1 etc. guys) The US Marines are up to their elbows in trying to figure it out as fast as they can.

Stuff that matters now. How do I launch an Aegis cruiser missile from the ship, using an E-2D and hand off the targeting to the Aussie F-35 somewhere "out there?" How do I collate the IR flare I just saw with the EW/Radar data I received ealier from the EA18G Growler? Which course do I want to use to take out the ground defenses that haven't been turned on yet?

The rules have changed!!! IThe F-104 is faster and can reach altitudes higher, than most modern fighters. Let's buy 500 of those. Good luck with that! The rules have changed.

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 15:37
by blindpilot
wil59 wrote:so the f-35 is invincible before the same be entirely operational! Discovery Channel has done a good job ....


I don't know who you are Wil59. I am a former - Air Force pilot, government contracting officer, Pentagon SME (subject matter expert), government contractor site manager, original (old beard) micro computer system developer and industry founder , chip level hardware designer, software programmer using dozens of languages from machine languages to ADA, with degreed education in aeronautical engineering and physics.

I don't watch the Discovery channel. I'm not sure what you watch .... ( in your mom's basement?).

There are now over 100 F-35s flying and production is ramping up. There are 5 oops I mean 4 PAK FAs, a couple each J-20/31s. As we speak the number of F-35s especially counting the ones on line nearly complete will surpass the 135 or so Rafales. More F-35s will be produced this year than Dassault prays, fingers crossed, "pretty please" hope to get orders for from the Indians or someone. In a month the first squadron of F-35Bs will go operational. Before operational is a relative concept in today's world.

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 16:30
by wil59
blindpilot wrote:
wil59 wrote:so the f-35 is invincible before the same be entirely operational! Discovery Channel has done a good job ....


I don't know who you are Wil59. I am a former - Air Force pilot, government contracting officer, Pentagon SME (subject matter expert), government contractor site manager, original (old beard) micro computer system developer and industry founder , chip level hardware designer, software programmer using dozens of languages from machine languages to ADA, with degreed education in aeronautical engineering and physics.

I don't watch the Discovery channel. I'm not sure what you watch .... ( in your mom's basement?).

There are now over 100 F-35s flying and production is ramping up. There are 5 oops I mean 4 PAK FAs, a couple each J-20/31s. As we speak the number of F-35s especially counting the ones on line nearly complete will surpass the 135 or so Rafales. More F-35s will be produced this year than Dassault prays, fingers crossed, "pretty please" hope to get orders for from the Indians or someone. In a month the first squadron of F-35Bs will go operational. Before operational is a relative concept in today's world.

BP
I am simply a person who tries to understand why an aircraft like the burst which is evidence every day, who participated in afghanistan operations currently in Iraq and also bombed in Mali! which is considered one of the best fighter here: http: //files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf not yet recognized at its fair value in the Anglo Saxon! Why? because it is french ...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 17:12
by spazsinbad
Well we do not speak French and this is the correct URL: http://files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf (3.5Mb) And I believe this document has been posted at least once on this forum.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 17:18
by basher54321
wil59 wrote:I am simply a person who tries to understand why an aircraft like the burst which is evidence every day, who participated in afghanistan operations currently in Iraq and also bombed in Mali! which is considered one of the best fighter here: http: //files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf not yet recognized at its fair value in the Anglo Saxon! Why? because it is french ...


Nothing to do with it "being French" whatsoever - and Rafale is considered one of the best 4++ Gen fighters.

Rafale / EF-2000 / Gripen / FA-18EF / Su-35 / F-16EF and others are labelled as 4++ Gen for a reason - they do not have all the essential capabilities that 5th Gen brings.

So instead of getting upset maybe you can hang around and understand "why".

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 17:45
by blindpilot
I do speak French but that really isn't the point. The points being made here are made on Eurofighters, and Super Hornets. It's a new generation thing, not a French thing at all. In fact the Rafale is probably one of the best 4++ gen fighters. The avionics are first rate.

The issue is a whole new framework of environment engagement. For example, it is a waste of aluminum to send F-16/15/18C/E/Rafale etc. over a modern IADS defense system. They will mostly not get feet dry. The aircraft will be doing Mach 2 supercruise at the bottom of the sea. Aircraft carriers are needing to move a few more miles back from the beaches etc. etc.

To even play the game you have to have some serious Low Observable technology, but the new world is not about stealth. You just have to have it. To even play the game you have to have robust sensor systems networked, but it is not about sensors. It's not about networks. To even play the game you have to have powerful computers crunching mega data, but it's not about computers.

At best some of the Gen 4++ aircraft have some of this and some of that. A touch of stealth, and an IR sensor over there, maybe even networked fusion of a certain level. But if you don't have the entire system, you still lose.

What those who know, such as the US Marines getting up to speed, are telling us is that they are hustling to begin to figure out what it all means and they have all the classified stuff, and equipment in hand, and they don't know ... YET!. CONOPS is mostly a blank sheet of paper, but there are a lot of sticky notes all over the walls. :)

This is not like the old days where we compared Mirage 2000's to F-16s. It is how do we play the new game. It's as simple as that.

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 19:19
by XanderCrews
wil59 wrote:
mrbsct wrote:I am looking at F35 vs Rafale in a an air battle

General considerations
The F35 has better radar(the French just gotten AESA)
Both have capable of RWC(ASQ vs SPECTRA)
Both have IRST(DAS vs OSF)
classified IR signatures(F35 has IR coating, but more drag, lacks super-cruise)
The F35 has better stealth
The Rafale is faster, has acceleration and maneuverability

Lets say the F35 and Rafale was heading towards each other. The F35 has RCS around 0.001 m2 while the Rafale is 0.1 m2 when clean, probably around 1m2(since its weapons is loaded externally). The F35 withe APG-81 radar will find the Rafale at around 150 km.(Air Power Australia charts on US radar capability) Rafale with its less powerful RBE2 AA AESA will find the F35 around 23 km. The Rafale has probably lower LPI technology is more prone to be detected and jammed, but F35 is reported to have much better LPI(due to it being stealth aircraft, can cue RWR to get it more LPI and US had AESA for years constantly improving it) jamming resistance so against so a detecting jam by the SPECTRA is unlikely.

Rafale still has IRST to defeat F35, however if its not expecting F35, the F35 obviously detecting the Rafale to get out of IRST azimuth. The F35 can close to around 30 km and fire its missiles from a flank or rear. Boom Rafale is dead.

ok:http://bestfighter4canada.blogspot.fr/2014/09/fighter-jet-fight-club-f-35-vs-rafale.html


Why on earth would you consider that blog an authority on anything?

The F-35 has been selected by 12 countries, and won multiple competition all over the globe against the very fighters its being compared to there, and yet on that blog F-35 has never won against anything?

Does that not seem odd to you?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 20:00
by eloise

Rafale is a good fighter but
That blog make a lot of mistakes when compare the 2 aircraft
For example :
Deep strike : they conclude Rafale is bettet because it can carry more fuel and carry CFT :doh: seriously? so the only important thing in deep strike is range? how fast and agile rafale can fly when it is ladern with EFT and CFT and boom? and when fully loaded with these things it will have RCS of a barn and will attrach alot of enemy fighter

Payload : they conclude Rafale is better because it have 14 hard point and can carry 20.000 lbs of bombs while f-35 only have maximum 10 hard point, while ignore the fact 6 out of 14 hard point on Rafale are only limited for AAM, in air to ground missiles Rafale have to use another one for targeting pod, normally at least 2 of them are for fuel tank, totally ignored the fact that F-35 can carry quad rack that allow it to carry 4 long range SDB, SPEAR per weapons station, or that f-35 can carry dual rack for AAM

Close air support : they conclude that Rafale is better because it is less fragile than f-35 ( because some how cannon fire wont bring rafale down) , and that F-35 dont have low collateral damage like Brimstone ( totally ignore the fact F-35 will have SDB i/ II, Spear, even Brimstone) , and that F-35 burn too much fuel to stay on station :doh:

Beyond Visual Range : they conclude that rafale will win, because F-35 wont be able to sneak on Rafale. Due to the fact that Rafale Spectra can detect F-35 radar, and make a passive shot ( which mean they completely dont understand how hard it is to use RWR in air combat) , they also said it hard for F-35 to hide because it have a big hot engine, yet completely ignore the fact that Rafale fly faster can cause higher friction which mean easier to detected in IR, or that F-35 also use many IR signature reduction measure such as Topcoat, LOAN nozzle.. etc
viewtopic.php?t=27364 ( i explained clearer in this topic here)

Within Visual Range : they mentioned Rafale advantage of having more missiles and better kinematics but completely ignore f-35 DIRCM which can help it netraulise even the most modern IIR missiles

Dogfight : conclude Rafale is better ( which i agree) , but the reason they stated is so dumb, according to the blog it is because F-35 lack cocpit visibly :doh: what do they think DAS is for?

Conclusion : that blog made very bad and vague comparison

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2015, 21:37
by archeman
wil59 wrote:[I am simply a person who tries to understand why an aircraft like the burst which is evidence every day, who participated in afghanistan operations currently in Iraq and also bombed in Mali! which is considered one of the best fighter here: http: //files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf not yet recognized at its fair value in the Anglo Saxon! Why? because it is french ...


I don't think that any reasonable person would suggest that the Rafale is not a great multi-role 4+ fighter.
But, this thread is "F-35 vs Dassault Rafale". So that itself will start to throw light on tactical advantages of each.
For every example of the Rafale's sterling combat history that you have included (and I say sterling with great sincerity), the same mission could have been executed by the French with the MQ-9 Reaper.

For many services around the world, they foresee missions/target defenses that will be prohibitive for any 4+ gen aircraft. The Swiss Air Forces (Forces aériennes suisses) apparently are not one of those services. Understandable, considering their primary mission.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2015, 07:36
by hornetfinn
basher54321 wrote:
wil59 wrote:I am simply a person who tries to understand why an aircraft like the burst which is evidence every day, who participated in afghanistan operations currently in Iraq and also bombed in Mali! which is considered one of the best fighter here: http: //files.newsnetz.ch/upload//1/2/12332.pdf not yet recognized at its fair value in the Anglo Saxon! Why? because it is french ...


Nothing to do with it "being French" whatsoever - and Rafale is considered one of the best 4++ Gen fighters.

Rafale / EF-2000 / Gripen / FA-18EF / Su-35 / F-16EF and others are labelled as 4++ Gen for a reason - they do not have all the essential capabilities that 5th Gen brings.

So instead of getting upset maybe you can hang around and understand "why".


Exactly. We have to remember that Rafale is basically 15-20 years older airframe and it was mainly politics and financial problems that resulted it being introduced to service much later than it should have. Same thing with EF Typhoon and Gripen NG.

Another thing is that Rafale was and is developed using only a fraction of the money and resources used to develop F-35. F-35 development costs are about 60 billion dollars. That's about the same money used for the whole Rafale program for 40 years, including research and development, procurement, upgrades and other such items. So the development costs are not comparable at all and it would be miracle to be able to create anywhere equal system with that in mind.

Of all current operational fighters, Rafale is one of the top multi-role fighters. In air-to-air it's definitely not a F-22, but would be very dangerous opponent to any other aircraft. EF Typhoon has some better qualities (power and speed) but Rafale seems to currently have better avionics and is very good all-around performer. In air-to-ground missions, it's definitely one of the current best.

I think F-35 will be much better at almost every possible mission rather quickly after it enters service.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2015, 12:57
by wil59
blindpilot wrote:I do speak French but that really isn't the point. The points being made here are made on Eurofighters, and Super Hornets. It's a new generation thing, not a French thing at all. In fact the Rafale is probably one of the best 4++ gen fighters. The avionics are first rate.

The issue is a whole new framework of environment engagement. For example, it is a waste of aluminum to send F-16/15/18C/E/Rafale etc. over a modern IADS defense system. They will mostly not get feet dry. The aircraft will be doing Mach 2 supercruise at the bottom of the sea. Aircraft carriers are needing to move a few more miles back from the beaches etc. etc.

To even play the game you have to have some serious Low Observable technology, but the new world is not about stealth. You just have to have it. To even play the game you have to have robust sensor systems networked, but it is not about sensors. It's not about networks. To even play the game you have to have powerful computers crunching mega data, but it's not about computers.

At best some of the Gen 4++ aircraft have some of this and some of that. A touch of stealth, and an IR sensor over there, maybe even networked fusion of a certain level. But if you don't have the entire system, you still lose.

What those who know, such as the US Marines getting up to speed, are telling us is that they are hustling to begin to figure out what it all means and they have all the classified stuff, and equipment in hand, and they don't know ... YET!. CONOPS is mostly a blank sheet of paper, but there are a lot of sticky notes all over the walls. :)

This is not like the old days where we compared Mirage 2000's to F-16s. It is how do we play the new game. It's as simple as that.

BP
The Rafale will be ultimately the only fighter aircraft used by the Air Force and the French Navy. Everything will be done to enable it to maintain its leading role in the French armed forces.

Since 2013, rafale come with the new EASA-RBE2 radar active antenna. These aircraft are also equipped with the new missile launch detector (DDM-NG), and a Frontal Sector Optronics update (OSF-IT), with enhanced detection and identification capabilities.

New developments are already underway to equip the Rafale on the horizon for the next decade of new air-air and air-ground capabilities tailored network operations tomorrow.

These developments should enable to ensure the detection, tracking and identification of air-emerging threats, and improve survivability rafale through new discrete modes and an electronic warfare system to the cutting edge .

The air-to-surface modes in turn will be equipped with algorithms to aid the recognition of goals and improved resolution sensors to enable it to process ever more elusive threats.

Certain engine components will have their lifetime increased with the use of new materials.
Finally, the Rafale will still extended its network capabilities to enable it to remain at the forefront in the war info-centric future.Here again the capacity of what was provided Rafale in 2011, which was upgraded from.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2015, 20:39
by blindpilot
Rafale is an excellent 4++ fighter, perhaps even the best of them all. But at $100m plus per unit and price not getting any lower, one has to ask if what you can get for that price. That is one reason the F-35 heading towards circa $85m per is a big deal.

Clean the Rafale has decent LO head on. Nothing to sneeze at. But you have to hang weapons on it (external) to make that of any combat value. We often discuss things such as when the F-117 or F-22 "opens doors" and what happens in stealth for that moment. If the F-117/22/35 getting trapped with its doors open is such a disaster, well that's the base condition of an armed Rafale.

So, I have often pondered what might be done if you sent in a few clean Rafales as ISR nodes supporting armed fighters .... or maybe perhaps .... hmmm... Bingo .. its not about the feature list ... but what can it do in the battlespace?

AND THAT"S THE POINT with new 5th gen paradigms (see F-22/35). You begin to think of different approaches to problems. All the wonderful features mentioned for Rafale were still framed against old frameworks. (I will say this. European tech and production is ahead of the Russian examples, we hear of so much here too often.)

The observation here is that listing features ... misses the point completely.

Still if for $850M I can have ten F-35s, and only 8 Rafales ... one has to think about it.. so any X vs Y make sure it's 10 stealthy armed internal weapons vs 8 some semi stealthy, some armed (best case?)...

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Jul 2015, 23:17
by mixelflick
I have to hand it to the French, Rafale is a capable bird...

On balance though, I think the F-35 will be the better all around performer. I was surprised to learn how spendy Rafale is though ($100 million?). It brings a lot of capability, but if the F-35 really can be had for $85mil... it'd be no contest.

The big question is, are the French working on any LO or VLO platforms to succeed it?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 15:04
by wil59
blindpilot wrote:Rafale is an excellent 4++ fighter, perhaps even the best of them all. But at $100m plus per unit and price not getting any lower, one has to ask if what you can get for that price. That is one reason the F-35 heading towards circa $85m per is a big deal.

Clean the Rafale has decent LO head on. Nothing to sneeze at. But you have to hang weapons on it (external) to make that of any combat value. We often discuss things such as when the F-117 or F-22 "opens doors" and what happens in stealth for that moment. If the F-117/22/35 getting trapped with its doors open is such a disaster, well that's the base condition of an armed Rafale.

So, I have often pondered what might be done if you sent in a few clean Rafales as ISR nodes supporting armed fighters .... or maybe perhaps .... hmmm... Bingo .. its not about the feature list ... but what can it do in the battlespace?

AND THAT"S THE POINT with new 5th gen paradigms (see F-22/35). You begin to think of different approaches to problems. All the wonderful features mentioned for Rafale were still framed against old frameworks. (I will say this. European tech and production is ahead of the Russian examples, we hear of so much here too often.)

The observation here is that listing features ... misses the point completely.

Still if for $850M I can have ten F-35s, and only 8 Rafales ... one has to think about it.. so any X vs Y make sure it's 10 stealthy armed internal weapons vs 8 some semi stealthy, some armed (best case?)... I do not think stealth assault on working at this time, only for stealth drone as neuron and another with britanique; the reason dassaut preferred to have a stealth aircraft Discretionary rather than the cost is related to that; the France does not have the budget to do a stealth aircraft, the us budget is almost no limit and therefore easier for experienced and consevoir of new weapons is expensive in development; sela Its for the gust was investigated an aircraft capable of make any kind of mission, but not stealth, deep penetration in a country will be made hostil discréte manner in a very low altitude flying, we talk about 30 meters in terrain following radar for escaped using spectra for survivability the airplane; it has functioned in libya sensor will detected and circumvented the threat is another stealth approach has high altitude for example.

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 15:27
by wil59
wil59 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:Rafale is an excellent 4++ fighter, perhaps even the best of them all. But at $100m plus per unit and price not getting any lower, one has to ask if what you can get for that price. That is one reason the F-35 heading towards circa $85m per is a big deal.

Clean the Rafale has decent LO head on. Nothing to sneeze at. But you have to hang weapons on it (external) to make that of any combat value. We often discuss things such as when the F-117 or F-22 "opens doors" and what happens in stealth for that moment. If the F-117/22/35 getting trapped with its doors open is such a disaster, well that's the base condition of an armed Rafale.

So, I have often pondered what might be done if you sent in a few clean Rafales as ISR nodes supporting armed fighters .... or maybe perhaps .... hmmm... Bingo .. its not about the feature list ... but what can it do in the battlespace?

AND THAT"S THE POINT with new 5th gen paradigms (see F-22/35). You begin to think of different approaches to problems. All the wonderful features mentioned for Rafale were still framed against old frameworks. (I will say this. European tech and production is ahead of the Russian examples, we hear of so much here too often.)

The observation here is that listing features ... misses the point completely.

Still if for $850M I can have ten F-35s, and only 8 Rafales ... one has to think about it.. so any X vs Y make sure it's 10 stealthy armed internal weapons vs 8 some semi stealthy, some armed (best case?)... I do not think stealth assault on working at this time, only for stealth drone as neuron and another with britanique; the reason dassaut preferred to have a stealth aircraft Discretionary rather than the cost is related to that; the France does not have the budget to do a stealth aircraft, the us budget is almost no limit and therefore easier for experienced and consevoir of new weapons is expensive in development; sela Its for the gust was investigated an aircraft capable of make any kind of mission, but not stealth, deep penetration in a country will be made hostil discréte manner in a very low altitude flying, we talk about 30 meters in terrain following radar for escaped using spectra for survivability the airplane; it has functioned in libya sensor will detected and circumvented the threat is another stealth approach has high altitude for example.

BP
the price of dévellopement is the cause of France can not put billions consevoir a stealth aircraft; US military has a budget of $ 612 billion; the France has a budget of $ 43 billion; the budget given us, has the France, the french will be a 5th generation aircraft, the engineer has to have that, but no money is as simple as his!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 15:35
by wil59
wil59 wrote:
wil59 wrote:
blindpilot wrote:Rafale is an excellent 4++ fighter, perhaps even the best of them all. But at $100m plus per unit and price not getting any lower, one has to ask if what you can get for that price. That is one reason the F-35 heading towards circa $85m per is a big deal.

Clean the Rafale has decent LO head on. Nothing to sneeze at. But you have to hang weapons on it (external) to make that of any combat value. We often discuss things such as when the F-117 or F-22 "opens doors" and what happens in stealth for that moment. If the F-117/22/35 getting trapped with its doors open is such a disaster, well that's the base condition of an armed Rafale.

So, I have often pondered what might be done if you sent in a few clean Rafales as ISR nodes supporting armed fighters .... or maybe perhaps .... hmmm... Bingo .. its not about the feature list ... but what can it do in the battlespace?

AND THAT"S THE POINT with new 5th gen paradigms (see F-22/35). You begin to think of different approaches to problems. All the wonderful features mentioned for Rafale were still framed against old frameworks. (I will say this. European tech and production is ahead of the Russian examples, we hear of so much here too often.)

The observation here is that listing features ... misses the point completely.

Still if for $850M I can have ten F-35s, and only 8 Rafales ... one has to think about it.. so any X vs Y make sure it's 10 stealthy armed internal weapons vs 8 some semi stealthy, some armed (best case?)... I do not think stealth assault on working at this time, only for stealth drone as neuron and another with britanique; the reason dassaut preferred to have a stealth aircraft Discretionary rather than the cost is related to that; the France does not have the budget to do a stealth aircraft, the us budget is almost no limit and therefore easier for experienced and consevoir of new weapons is expensive in development; sela Its for the gust was investigated an aircraft capable of make any kind of mission, but not stealth, deep penetration in a country will be made hostil discréte manner in a very low altitude flying, we talk about 30 meters in terrain following radar for escaped using spectra for survivability the airplane; it has functioned in libya sensor will detected and circumvented the threat is another stealth approach has high altitude for example.

BP
the price of dévellopement is the cause of France can not put billions consevoir a stealth aircraft; US military has a budget of $ 612 billion; the France has a budget of $ 43 billion; the budget given us, has the France, the french will be a 5th generation aircraft, the engineer has to have that, but no money is as simple as his!
if Europe creates a single army of defense; it would be easier for the budget, and then make a stealth aircraft.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 20:01
by blindpilot
wil59 wrote: I do not think stealth assault on working at this time, only for stealth drone as neuron and another with britanique; the reason dassaut preferred to have a stealth aircraft Discretionary rather than the cost is related to that; the France does not have the budget to do a stealth aircraft, the us budget is almost no limit and therefore easier for experienced and consevoir of new weapons is expensive in development; sela Its for the gust was investigated an aircraft capable of make any kind of mission, but not stealth, deep penetration in a country will be made hostil discréte manner in a very low altitude flying, we talk about 30 meters in terrain following radar for escaped using spectra for survivability the airplane; it has functioned in libya sensor will detected and circumvented the threat is another stealth approach has high altitude for example.



You need to adust your "[" quote "]" in the post above. - I've pulled it out here for comment.

As to cost, the reality is Rafale now and in the future appears to be more expensive than the F-35 VLO aircraft. So development costs avoided or whatever in this case is academic to the Air Force/Navy buying one. It saved France money perhaps, but why would I buy a compromise. As to the rest like low altitude flying .... it may work against Libya, but I wouldn't recommend you try to fly into Moscow that way ... You need stealth.

As to a common European budget, I agree and its been tried (Eurofoghter and even F-35) France keeps bailing out (even if it's for good reasons. I'm not arguing that)

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 20:48
by KamenRiderBlade
blindpilot wrote:You need to adust your "[" quote "]" in the post above. - I've pulled it out here for comment.

As to cost, the reality is Rafale now and in the future appears to be more expensive than the F-35 VLO aircraft. So development costs avoided or whatever in this case is academic to the Air Force/Navy buying one. It saved France money perhaps, but why would I buy a compromise. As to the rest like low altitude flying .... it may work against Libya, but I wouldn't recommend you try to fly into Moscow that way ... You need stealth.

As to a common European budget, I agree and its been tried (Eurofoghter and even F-35) France keeps bailing out (even if it's for good reasons. I'm not arguing that)

BP

I'd argue that the reason France bailed out on the EuroFighter wasn't a good reason, it was a selfish reason.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 21:36
by mrigdon
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I'd argue that the reason France bailed out on the EuroFighter wasn't a good reason, it was a selfish reason.


The consortium wasn't interested in building a CATOBAR variant of the EuroFighter. I suppose wanting a no-compromise aircraft carrier with catapults is selfish, but it's also a superior platform for deploying ordnance.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Jul 2015, 21:45
by sferrin
mrigdon wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:I'd argue that the reason France bailed out on the EuroFighter wasn't a good reason, it was a selfish reason.


The consortium wasn't interested in building a CATOBAR variant of the EuroFighter. I suppose wanting a no-compromise aircraft carrier with catapults is selfish, but it's also a superior platform for deploying ordnance.


France wanted to run the show. The rest said, "no" so France said, "screw you guys, I'm goin' home".

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 13:32
by wil59
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
blindpilot wrote:You need to adust your "[" quote "]" in the post above. - I've pulled it out here for comment.

As to cost, the reality is Rafale now and in the future appears to be more expensive than the F-35 VLO aircraft. So development costs avoided or whatever in this case is academic to the Air Force/Navy buying one. It saved France money perhaps, but why would I buy a compromise. As to the rest like low altitude flying .... it may work against Libya, but I wouldn't recommend you try to fly into Moscow that way ... You need stealth.

As to a common European budget, I agree and its been tried (Eurofoghter and even F-35) France keeps bailing out (even if it's for good reasons. I'm not arguing that)

BP

I'd argue that the reason France bailed out on the EuroFighter wasn't a good reason, it was a selfish reason.
not selfish; to France in his idea, preferred a multiple capabilities for aircraft replaced the different aircraft for different spot, was the Eurofighter for air superiority is only since the Eurofighter can orients itself multiple capacity;! it is for this reason that France left the proget.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 13:38
by wil59
wil59 wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:
blindpilot wrote:You need to adust your "[" quote "]" in the post above. - I've pulled it out here for comment.

As to cost, the reality is Rafale now and in the future appears to be more expensive than the F-35 VLO aircraft. So development costs avoided or whatever in this case is academic to the Air Force/Navy buying one. It saved France money perhaps, but why would I buy a compromise. As to the rest like low altitude flying .... it may work against Libya, but I wouldn't recommend you try to fly into Moscow that way ... You need stealth.

As to a common European budget, I agree and its been tried (Eurofoghter and even F-35) France keeps bailing out (even if it's for good reasons. I'm not arguing that)

BP

I'd argue that the reason France bailed out on the EuroFighter wasn't a good reason, it was a selfish reason.
not selfish; to France in his idea, preferred a multiple capabilities for aircraft replaced the different aircraft for different spot, was the Eurofighter for air superiority is only since the Eurofighter can orients itself multiple capacity;! it is for this reason that France left the proget.
Moscow, I do not think same f-22 or F-35 if not risk.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 21 Jul 2015, 14:16
by bigjku
Some French reasons were good, they had to have CATOBAR, and some were selfish such as their insistence on using their engines which just aren't as good as what RR can build. All of that is fine, good to France for getting it built and sold.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 20:25
by vanshilar
So this isn't an endorsement of its views, but I found a site that goes into detail about comparing the F-35 with the Rafale from a biased pro-Rafale standpoint:

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... e-vs-f-35/

I say "biased" not because other sources are unbiased (realistically, pretty much everyone has their own biases), but because it will omit information that is not favorable to its position, rather than giving an honest comparison. For example, it acknowledges that the F-35 has better stealth than the Rafale, but then downplays it by saying if the F-35 uses its radar to detect the Rafale, the Rafale would detect the F-35 via its radar emissions long before the F-35 gets strong enough radar returns back from the Rafale -- and thus the Rafale would detect the F-35 first. So neither side would use radar and the F-35's stealth advantage is negated (since radar wouldn't be used); apparently the radar will just be a very heavy deadweight in the nose of both planes in a future engagement. (Both sides would use their IRSTs instead, and it says the F-35 has worse IR characteristics compared with the Rafale.) This ignores that the F-35 uses AESA (low probability of intercept) radar, which will allow it to detect the Rafale even when the Rafale's own radar warning receiver doesn't recognize the emissions. He also claims that the Rafale can sustain 2.7 sorties per day, while the F-35 can only sustain 1 sortie every 2 days; apparently the F-35's operational sortie availability will not improve from its current developmental sortie rate.

Additionally, when it compares the stealthiness of the Rafale compared with other modern airplanes, it ignores that other planes use diverterless supersonic inlets (DSI) which (IIRC) is a stealth features, as well as nose chines. This is partially why it gives more "pluses" to the Rafale compared with other aircraft. It also awards a "plus" to the Rafale for an angled refueling probe, even though other planes like the Typhoon have a retractable refueling probe, which is obviously more stealthy, but not acknowledged. (Side note: The author knows what a DSI is, he uses it to explain why the F-35 can't supercruise here. So it wasn't just an oversight.)

Anyway, interesting to read through, though I'm not really competent enough to evaluate its figures and claims. I didn't see it posted here so thought I'd add it to this thread.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 21:23
by spazsinbad
Search the F-35 [forum] for 'Picard' and I do not think one will garner a good impression of said same blogger.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Oct 2015, 21:36
by XanderCrews
spazsinbad wrote:Search the F-35 for 'Picard' and I do not think one will garner a good impression of said same blogger.


He is a basement dwellers with zero experience in what he writes about

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 01:31
by vanshilar
spazsinbad wrote:Search the F-35 [forum] for 'Picard' and I do not think one will garner a good impression of said same blogger.


Ahahahahahahahahahaha I searched through every page of this thread to see if the website had been linked but didn't think to search through the PAK-FA thread (nor use the, um, search function). I found the site when searching for info on the Rafale. Didn't know it had a history. I mean the analysis and thought process isn't half bad, it's just that the facts and figures used are somewhat, um, suspect. But as they say, GIGO.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 04:17
by eloise
vanshilar wrote:So this isn't an endorsement of its views, but I found a site that goes into detail about comparing the F-35 with the Rafale from a biased pro-Rafale standpoint:

https://defenseissues.wordpress.com/201 ... e-vs-f-35/

I say "biased" not because other sources are unbiased (realistically, pretty much everyone has their own biases), but because it will omit information that is not favorable to its position, rather than giving an honest comparison. For example, it acknowledges that the F-35 has better stealth than the Rafale, but then downplays it by saying if the F-35 uses its radar to detect the Rafale, the Rafale would detect the F-35 via its radar emissions long before the F-35 gets strong enough radar returns back from the Rafale -- and thus the Rafale would detect the F-35 first. So neither side would use radar and the F-35's stealth advantage is negated (since radar wouldn't be used); apparently the radar will just be a very heavy deadweight in the nose of both planes in a future engagement. (Both sides would use their IRSTs instead, and it says the F-35 has worse IR characteristics compared with the Rafale.) This ignores that the F-35 uses AESA (low probability of intercept) radar, which will allow it to detect the Rafale even when the Rafale's own radar warning receiver doesn't recognize the emissions.

even if F-35 didnt have an AESA radar , a RWR still unable to give a firing solution again air target , and the F-35 formation can let a single aircraft transmitting while the rest received information from stealth data links , so which side that rely on RWR only will be at significant disadvantage ( they will think that there is only a single enemy fighter on sky while there are a whole formation )
viewtopic.php?t=27364 ( detail explanation here )
F-35 also have IR reduction measure such as LOAN nozzle , Top coat ..etc

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 05:42
by XanderCrews
vanshilar wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Search the F-35 [forum] for 'Picard' and I do not think one will garner a good impression of said same blogger.


Ahahahahahahahahahaha I searched through every page of this thread to see if the website had been linked but didn't think to search through the PAK-FA thread (nor use the, um, search function). I found the site when searching for info on the Rafale. Didn't know it had a history. I mean the analysis and thought process isn't half bad, it's just that the facts and figures used are somewhat, um, suspect. But as they say, GIGO.


What until you see his slides shows online-- oh lord lol

http://www.slideshare.net/mobile/Picard578

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 06:55
by charlielima223
vanshilar wrote:I mean the analysis and thought process isn't half bad, it's just that the facts and figures used are somewhat, um, suspect. But as they say, GIGO.


Anyone can make a stupid argument/stance sound smart if they put enough effort into it. Of course what is that saying? "The Devil is in the details". Good for you for being able to pick up on his absurd loads of bovine fecal matter. According to that delta-foxtrot, if its not Western European with canards... its a POS (doesn't even have to be his wet dream fapism Rafale).

Unfortunately most if not damn near all people will read something and wont even bother to think about it and just eat it up and then regurgitate it somewhere else... for example this POS chart...

Image

:doh:

To the unwitting that chart makes sense but over here (F-16.net) it can be torn apart and then thrown into a compost heap for it to be actually useful to anyone.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 16:36
by XanderCrews
charlielima223 wrote:
vanshilar wrote:I mean the analysis and thought process isn't half bad, it's just that the facts and figures used are somewhat, um, suspect. But as they say, GIGO.


Anyone can make a stupid argument/stance sound smart if they put enough effort into it.


Geogen in a nutshell^

http://www.slideshare.net/Picard578/qui ... rds-spiral

"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"





"F-16C overweight"

:doh:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 19:01
by eloise
Picard is basically the same as Carlo kopp , the only different is that he like the Rafale instead of the F-22 .

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 19:17
by basher54321
eloise wrote:Picard is basically the same as Carlo kopp , the only different is that he like the Rafale instead of the F-22 .


Not so sure - from what I have seen over the years Copp has an agenda - Picard on the other hand is just totally clueless.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 19:23
by basher54321
XanderCrews wrote:
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"

:doh:


Great stuff - cant fault that logic

-F-15 too large
- F-16A good with upgrades; F-16C overweight
- A-10 and F-15E still capable


F-16A with Pirate IRST and DRFM Jammer for AtA
- Use SAABs help to reduce maintenance


:lmao:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 20:33
by count_to_10
XanderCrews wrote:
Geogen in a nutshell^

http://www.slideshare.net/Picard578/qui ... rds-spiral

"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"





"F-16C overweight"

:doh:

Did you get to the bar charts at the end? They are presented as if the F-35 can't do air superiority.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 22:58
by XanderCrews
basher54321 wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"
"F-16C overweight"

:doh:


Great stuff - cant fault that logic

-F-15 too large
- F-16A good with upgrades; F-16C overweight
- A-10 and F-15E still capable


F-16A with Pirate IRST and DRFM Jammer for AtA
- Use SAABs help to reduce maintenance


:lmao:


Wait until he finds out SAAB made the Gripen NG the same weight as the F-16C ... with a smaller engine

:mrgreen:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Oct 2015, 23:40
by spectre0618
The Shimooka comparison of the Rafale and F-35 was beautifully done. I can see the Rafale as being one of the more (if not most) capable adversaries an F-35 would face but that DAS and the fact that once you're locked on (it can do multiples simultaneously if I'm not mistaken) it can engage any target it wants with clarity and little fear of blue-on-blue from any angle.

In a furball when aircraft are whizzing by at 200-300 knots all you see is a blur in most 4th gen aircraft. The Rafale is likely the closest to this capability next to the F-35 but still, it get's harder and harder to ignore the fact that the F-35 might just be another F-16, meaning it could very well be another game-changer.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Oct 2015, 21:26
by optimist
I wouldn't worry, I'm sure the rafale will rule the sky. With good words like spectra and omnirole, it can't go wrong.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 06:38
by hornetfinn
I find it funny that people really seem to think that Dassault managed to design a superior fighter aircraft 20 years earlier with fraction of the development money than F-35 and that air forces around the world are too stupid to understand that and buy F-35s and not Rafales... Yes, that sounds really plausible.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 11:29
by zero-one
Isn't the Rafale program cost almost as large as the ATF program cost.
IIRC its around $62B.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 12:10
by oldiaf
The Rafale is good design just like EF Typhoon and Su-35S but lacks full stealth that will make it survive against much modern airdefense systems like F-22 , F-35 and PAKFA

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 13:40
by hornetfinn
zero-one wrote:Isn't the Rafale program cost almost as large as the ATF program cost.
IIRC its around $62B.


Yes, that was the projected total program cost for 286 Rafales in 2013 euro value. If I understand correctly it includes the jets, their mission equipment and initial spares along with development costs. AFAIK, the cost also includes VAT, which AFAIK has been about 20 percent in France. Pretty much half of the cost would come from the jets and some cost would be from mission equipment and initial spares. So, I think the development cost is about 1/4 to 1/6 of the development cost of F-35. The development cost of F-35 is already about same size as the whole program cost of Dassault Rafale and that doesn't even include the F135 engine. Of course F-35 development is also standing on the shoulders of F-22 development and gains much from there. Even F-22 development costs should be at least twice the Rafale development costs due to different base year and budgeting differences.

IMO, Rafale is very fine 4th gen fighter and possibly one of the very best of that gen. However, it's also about 20 years older design than F-35 and I don't see any way it can be competitive against FOC F-35, let alone superior. If it was, it would definitely have sold whole lot more than it actually has.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 13:46
by oldiaf
The issue regarding Rafale export is not only dependant on the aircraft capabilities but also on the difference between US and France regarding political reach ... The Rafale now in India , Egypt and Qatar.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 14:37
by optimist
Australia has bought french fighter jets before, we have just bought spanish ships and are getting japanese subs. we have french/euro helicopters. but we rejected the Rafael, eurofighter and superhornet at the time and went with the f-35 in 2001-2006.

This nonsense that countries aren't buying them for all sorts of obscure motives is Bullsh*t

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Oct 2015, 14:54
by spazsinbad
'optimist' said: "Australia has bought french fighter jets before..." and we were burnt by the froggies - not being able to use the Miracles in Vietnam for example with a threat of a spares/support embargo if the RAAF deployed there. Meanwhile the Mirage IIIOs went to neighbouring countries as support at the time.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2015, 11:09
by wil59
spazsinbad wrote:'optimist' said: "Australia has bought french fighter jets before..." and we were burnt by the froggies - not being able to use the Miracles in Vietnam for example with a threat of a spares/support embargo if the RAAF deployed there. Meanwhile the Mirage IIIOs went to neighbouring countries as support at the time.

ls kangaroo had mirage, I did not know

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2015, 11:44
by spazsinbad
Back in late 1970 I was lucky enough to have a ride in the back of a two seat Mirage IIIO with a Fighter Combat Instructor. Two Miracles were visiting NAS Nowra for DACT for a few days. I had my one and only DACT sortie earlier in an A4G as a new sprog A4G pilot going supersonic with two underwing drop tanks (a NATOPS nono 0.9M limit) the dive was very steep some distance behind the Miracle which I could not make up but I was always behind as it zoomed and boomed back into the sun (not on my six but with me in long trail). The A/B acceleration kick was phenomenal and the Miracle rock solid but we ran out of fuel quickly and of course did the fastest landing at NAS Nowra that I would experience (we did not touch down usually doing engine out practice landings HPAs (High Precautionary Approaches) in A4Gs but overshot at low level).

https://www.airforce.gov.au/raafmuseum/ ... es3/A3.htm
&
http://www.adf-serials.com.au/3a3.htm

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2015, 18:18
by icemaverick
France has been trying extremely hard to export the Rafale for over a decade and only recently managed to get 3 small export deals (and the deal with India hasn't even been finalized). In order to get Egypt to buy, France has had to give them generous loans. In total, less than 100 are going to be exported if all the deals go through.

There is no major political hurdle preventing Australia, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, UK, Spain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Singapore from buying the Rafale. It doesn't appear likely that any of those countries will purchase the Rafale and it has very slim prospects for large numbers of exports in the future. Italy and the UK are partners in the Eurofighter consortium but they are both buying F-35 variants.

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Oct 2015, 23:18
by thenonflyingdutchman
icemaverick wrote:

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.


Well, this makes me wonder how inferior the planes are the USN is flying off it's carriers.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 00:21
by XanderCrews
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:
icemaverick wrote:

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.


Well, this makes me wonder how inferior the planes are the USN is flying off it's carriers.


Maybe actually.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 01:07
by spazsinbad
So that would make the F-35 look good (nobody but USN is buying the F-35C for conventional carrier work so far though).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 01:44
by talkitron
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:Well, this makes me wonder how inferior the planes are the USN is flying off it's carriers.


I haven't seen a credible analysis about why one fully mature, Western (sorry Russians and Chinese) generation 4.5 fighter is better than another. This includes Super Hornets, the F-15's being sold to the Saudis and even the F-16V being marketed to the Indonesians. The generation 4.5 space has a lot of competition!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 05:39
by tritonprime
The Swiss Air Force preferred the Dassault Rafale to the Saab Grippen NG and the Eurofighter Typhoon during an evaluation conducted in 2008.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81390363/Swis ... ale#scribd

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 10:32
by wil59
icemaverick wrote:France has been trying extremely hard to export the Rafale for over a decade and only recently managed to get 3 small export deals (and the deal with India hasn't even been finalized). In order to get Egypt to buy, France has had to give them generous loans. In total, less than 100 are going to be exported if all the deals go through.

There is no major political hurdle preventing Australia, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, UK, Spain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Singapore from buying the Rafale. It doesn't appear likely that any of those countries will purchase the Rafale and it has very slim prospects for large numbers of exports in the future. Italy and the UK are partners in the Eurofighter consortium but they are both buying F-35 variants.

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.
If the Rafale is not sold, it is because the USA, Israel put the veto and make a sustained pressure to impose to them camelotte has been of F18 hornet or F16 reorganized with the sauce new age. If the Rafale is not sold, it is that mostly Europe belonged to NATO; that this last is a market for the military industry American which refourgue the old men F16, the old men F18 hornet and soon… X35 whose unit costs are of 140 million euro. There is true swindles on the matter. The gust quite simply is not sold because foreign powers force not to buy the gust with French under penalty of sanction X or Y. It was the case for South Korea from which we know that the large ally is the USA. Tr-s interested by the gust… but niet. It was the case for Brazil… large American pressure so that they do not buy the gust. It is the case for the plain emirates… large American pressure. France… within the framework of Europe must impose its common military policy with Germany and become emancipated the USA and NATO. It is the sine qua non indispensable condition so that Dassault aviation survives and that Europe is true against being able. Unfortunately, Mr. Sarkozy buried one 2nd time the general De Gaulle by integrating France in NATO. It is rotten… by this act, our policies killed any independence with respect to the USA and killed French military industry… and in the long term… European. It is an economic war and the Americans play the leading roles. They are very aggressive and gain the markets while we French… we look at and count the points. It is necessary to react by a military industry of point freed from the USA. China does it… Russia does it… one cannot be under the American military yoke… it is not possible. Combined yes of course… but under protectorate not.rafale is bad hum, give me a more capable aircraft in different mission, and I speak of prouven fight, not on paper supposed reference rafale has proved nothing! he was to Mali, afghanistan, libya, iraq, syria and now it's proven its combat! Now if we look at the international exercises on the 10 last years, dogfight, sead, attacks the ground, so it is the top fighter planes watched the Swiss classification or classification south coréin the problem if the rafale is not exported to coréin! is the country depends on usa so here please consider the rafale is not sold there, the french bashing na more place you must be honest with you same.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 11:02
by vanshilar
charlielima223 wrote:Anyone can make a stupid argument/stance sound smart if they put enough effort into it. Of course what is that saying? "The Devil is in the details".


Yeah that's pretty much it. I mean he makes the argument that pilots have to have enough training to maintain competency. Which sounds good. Then he arbitrarily says this means 30-45 hours per month physically flying the aircraft. This allows him to knock out planes like the F-35 due to high cost per flying hour.

There are a number of problems with that argument though. One, how those numbers of hours per month are established. I get that you want to stay physically familiar with an aircraft. However, from my Internet armchair understanding, the way you fly the F-35 is different from previous generations of aircraft, in that the systems are meant to be highly automated, so the pilot is more a director or a conductor rather than "down in the weeds" fiddling around with knobs and dealing with bloops and bleeps. A more "user-friendly" setup thus requires less training on those particular details that the system automatically takes care of. An analogy is driving via manual versus automatic transmission; if you're using a manual transmission, using the correct gear is something you have to constantly be aware of (taking up some brain processing space), and thus is something you have to regularly be familiar with so that adjusting it is always second nature (to take up the minimum amount of brain processing space). If you're using automatic transmission, then the car takes care of that for you, so you no longer have to be trained (or worry about) adjusting the gear setting as you drive. This frees up your brain for other tasks -- and is one less thing you have to maintain proficiency at.

This ties in with the second problem, that there's a heavier focus on situational awareness with the F-35. Again, from my Internet armchair understanding, this means being able to look at a situation from a more tactical level, in the sense of, you see a bogey, how do you maneuver so that he doesn't detect you yet you get into a good missile firing position or identification position? and similar issues like that. But this doesn't need to be done in a physical plane, since it's more about understanding the capabilities of different aircraft (detection, maneuvering, energy, etc.). Hence the higher reliance on simulators for pilot training for the F-35 -- I suspect there's a heavier emphasis on understanding different situations and how to turn them to your advantage (or to maximize your advantage) rather than the physical aspects of correct power settings for the engine, how to point the nose of the plane, etc.

With these two points, then, for a highly automated aircraft like the F-35, a pilot could maintain proficiency with a relatively low number of hours per month actually physically flying the plane. However, if I'm understanding things correctly, the result is that the cost per flying hour ends up increasing, since the denominator (hours the plane is physically in the air) decreases while the numerator (feeding the pilot, housing the pilot, maintenance on the plane, etc.) somewhat decreases (due to lower maintenance costs since the plane is flown less) but not as much (because the pilot's pay is the same, you have to pay for the simulators, etc.). Thus, total running costs may actually decrease despite the cost per flying hour increasing. And therein lies the problem of claiming an "apples to apples" comparison of the planes using hours per month physically flying the aircraft and cost per flying hour. They're meant to be "top level" figures of merit, but by being so "top level", they obscure all the underlying performance aspects (high level of automation, heavy use of simulators, etc.), and thus the underlying figures of merit that the "top level" figures of merit don't capture (operating cost, lifetime of aircraft, etc.).

In short, the Devil is in the details.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 11:56
by vilters
Europe?
What Europe, Where Europe?
There is no Europe.

The F-16, F-15, F-18, F-35 all come from the same political power. The USA.

Typhoon, Rafale come from 2 different and competing parts of Europe.
There is no "common European power" to support either of them.
In the best case they tolerate each other.

Neither airplane is "special" or has a huge advantage over the other one.
Both "live" to support the local industry.
Both are extremely expensive to maintain.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 12:58
by wil59
vilters wrote:Europe?
What Europe, Where Europe?
There is no Europe.

The F-16, F-15, F-18, F-35 all come from the same political power. The USA.

Typhoon, Rafale come from 2 different and competing parts of Europe.
There is no "common European power" to support either of them.
In the best case they tolerate each other.

Neither airplane is "special" or has a huge advantage over the other one.
Both "live" to support the local industry.
Both are extremely expensive to maintain.
really expensive? look how much costs 1 hour flight, maintenance and operating costs for 100 aircraft: F-35 vs rafale vs eurofither vs f-22 aircraft that are modern, dear europe?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 14:43
by icemaverick
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:
icemaverick wrote:

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.


Well, this makes me wonder how inferior the planes are the USN is flying off it's carriers.


Carrier based fighter planes are at an inherent disadvantage to their land based counterparts. How many countries even operate CATOBAR carriers? Also, the Hornet has had a few export customers and the Super Hornet has Australia. There's a good chance Canada will buy it now that the Liberals won the election there.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 14:57
by icemaverick
wil59 wrote:
icemaverick wrote:France has been trying extremely hard to export the Rafale for over a decade and only recently managed to get 3 small export deals (and the deal with India hasn't even been finalized). In order to get Egypt to buy, France has had to give them generous loans. In total, less than 100 are going to be exported if all the deals go through.

There is no major political hurdle preventing Australia, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, UK, Spain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Singapore from buying the Rafale. It doesn't appear likely that any of those countries will purchase the Rafale and it has very slim prospects for large numbers of exports in the future. Italy and the UK are partners in the Eurofighter consortium but they are both buying F-35 variants.

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.
If the Rafale is not sold, it is because the USA, Israel put the veto and make a sustained pressure to impose to them camelotte has been of F18 hornet or F16 reorganized with the sauce new age. If the Rafale is not sold, it is that mostly Europe belonged to NATO; that this last is a market for the military industry American which refourgue the old men F16, the old men F18 hornet and soon… X35 whose unit costs are of 140 million euro. There is true swindles on the matter. The gust quite simply is not sold because foreign powers force not to buy the gust with French under penalty of sanction X or Y. It was the case for South Korea from which we know that the large ally is the USA. Tr-s interested by the gust… but niet. It was the case for Brazil… large American pressure so that they do not buy the gust. It is the case for the plain emirates… large American pressure. France… within the framework of Europe must impose its common military policy with Germany and become emancipated the USA and NATO. It is the sine qua non indispensable condition so that Dassault aviation survives and that Europe is true against being able. Unfortunately, Mr. Sarkozy buried one 2nd time the general De Gaulle by integrating France in NATO. It is rotten… by this act, our policies killed any independence with respect to the USA and killed French military industry… and in the long term… European. It is an economic war and the Americans play the leading roles. They are very aggressive and gain the markets while we French… we look at and count the points. It is necessary to react by a military industry of point freed from the USA. China does it… Russia does it… one cannot be under the American military yoke… it is not possible. Combined yes of course… but under protectorate not.rafale is bad hum, give me a more capable aircraft in different mission, and I speak of prouven fight, not on paper supposed reference rafale has proved nothing! he was to Mali, afghanistan, libya, iraq, syria and now it's proven its combat! Now if we look at the international exercises on the 10 last years, dogfight, sead, attacks the ground, so it is the top fighter planes watched the Swiss classification or classification south coréin the problem if the rafale is not exported to coréin! is the country depends on usa so here please consider the rafale is not sold there, the french bashing na more place you must be honest with you same.


1. Your English is awful and very difficult to understand.
2. Israel doesn't weild veto power over any European countries. In fact, France has much more political clout in the EU and many Western countries.
3. With regards to Korea and Japan, it's understandable why they would buy American. Only the United States is likely to come to their aid militarily in the event of a major military confrontation. Singapore, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Canada, Brazil, Australia, Norway, Denmark, the Netherlands, Belgium, Italy, the UK, UAE etc. all have good relations with France and are free to buy from them. A number of those countries chose to buy non-American fighters (Gripen NG, Typhoon).

If the Rafale really was all that great it would have a lot more buyers. France has lobbied very hard to sell it, but time and again, military experts have rejected it. For India, Egypt and Qatar the F-35 isn't really even an option. Also, the F-35 full rate production cost will be $85 million....considerably cheaper than the Rafale.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 15:32
by blindpilot
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:
icemaverick wrote:

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.


Well, this makes me wonder how inferior the planes are the USN is flying off it's carriers.


Inferior seen in what context?

The application of air power with the Carrier Task Force has different variables than land based homelands. US CTF Air Defense is heavily anchored in Aegis, and being well off shore (out of range) This tilts the requirements towards long range BVR interceptions, and responding with penetrating interdiction.

Homelands can't move. Carriers can, and often do at great speed.

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 15:36
by XanderCrews
wil59 wrote:
icemaverick wrote:France has been trying extremely hard to export the Rafale for over a decade and only recently managed to get 3 small export deals (and the deal with India hasn't even been finalized). In order to get Egypt to buy, France has had to give them generous loans. In total, less than 100 are going to be exported if all the deals go through.

There is no major political hurdle preventing Australia, Brazil, Canada, Norway, Switzerland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Italy, UK, Spain, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Singapore from buying the Rafale. It doesn't appear likely that any of those countries will purchase the Rafale and it has very slim prospects for large numbers of exports in the future. Italy and the UK are partners in the Eurofighter consortium but they are both buying F-35 variants.

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.
If the Rafale is not sold, it is because the USA, Israel put the veto and make a sustained pressure to impose to them camelotte has been of F18 hornet or F16 reorganized with the sauce new age. If the Rafale is not sold, it is that mostly Europe belonged to NATO; that this last is a market for the military industry American which refourgue the old men F16, the old men F18 hornet and soon… X35 whose unit costs are of 140 million euro. There is true swindles on the matter. The gust quite simply is not sold because foreign powers force not to buy the gust with French under penalty of sanction X or Y. It was the case for South Korea from which we know that the large ally is the USA. Tr-s interested by the gust… but niet. It was the case for Brazil… large American pressure so that they do not buy the gust. It is the case for the plain emirates… large American pressure. France… within the framework of Europe must impose its common military policy with Germany and become emancipated the USA and NATO. It is the sine qua non indispensable condition so that Dassault aviation survives and that Europe is true against being able. Unfortunately, Mr. Sarkozy buried one 2nd time the general De Gaulle by integrating France in NATO. It is rotten… by this act, our policies killed any independence with respect to the USA and killed French military industry… and in the long term… European. It is an economic war and the Americans play the leading roles. They are very aggressive and gain the markets while we French… we look at and count the points. It is necessary to react by a military industry of point freed from the USA. China does it… Russia does it… one cannot be under the American military yoke… it is not possible. Combined yes of course… but under protectorate not.rafale is bad hum, give me a more capable aircraft in different mission, and I speak of prouven fight, not on paper supposed reference rafale has proved nothing! he was to Mali, afghanistan, libya, iraq, syria and now it's proven its combat! Now if we look at the international exercises on the 10 last years, dogfight, sead, attacks the ground, so it is the top fighter planes watched the Swiss classification or classification south coréin the problem if the rafale is not exported to coréin! is the country depends on usa so here please consider the rafale is not sold there, the french bashing na more place you must be honest with you same.



Its lazy to blame politics, and a lot of stuff you say doesn't track. like for example US "pressure" in brazil. Yeah that worked great. Regarding Europe, you seem to have forgotten that the MRCA started from breaking away from the Eurofighter, so that divide is not new. You didn't really expect all the eurofighter countries to buy MRCA after the French broke away did you? I'm also curious how the US Sabotaged all these countries and especially India.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 15:40
by XanderCrews
blindpilot wrote:
thenonflyingdutchman wrote:
icemaverick wrote:

At a certain point you have to admit that the reason for your product's poor sales might just be because you have an inferior product.


Well, this makes me wonder how inferior the planes are the USN is flying off it's carriers.


Inferior seen in what context?

The application of air power with the Carrier Task Force has different variables than land based homelands. US CTF Air Defense is heavily anchored in Aegis, and being well off shore (out of range) This tilts the requirements towards long range BVR interceptions, and responding with penetrating interdiction.

Homelands can't move. Carriers can, and often do at great speed.



BP



Hits the nail on the head. the Super Hornet would sell a lot more if other nations had CVNs. Obviously you can land base them, but they are some heavy jets and there just doesn't seem to be much interest. This is an airplane that is limited to 7.6G, and was designed as a interim airplane

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Oct 2015, 15:42
by XanderCrews
tritonprime wrote:The Swiss Air Force preferred the Dassault Rafale to the Saab Grippen NG and the Eurofighter Typhoon during an evaluation conducted in 2008.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/81390363/Swis ... ale#scribd


Of course it beat the Gripen NG LOL, That thing is a joke

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 Oct 2015, 02:24
by spazsinbad
wil59 wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:'optimist' said: "Australia has bought french fighter jets before..." and we were burnt by the froggies - not being able to use the Miracles in Vietnam for example with a threat of a spares/support embargo if the RAAF deployed there. Meanwhile the Mirage IIIOs went to neighbouring countries as support at the time.

ls kangaroo had mirage, I did not know

The photo shows an A4G side number 889 (lost to that dreaded cold catapult with pilot going over the front into the water with canopy gone then scrapping down the side of MELBOURNE as 889 sank, thankfully missing the props and then pilot surfacing OK to be rescued by Pedro SAR helo diver etc.) landing at RAAF Williamtown with a Mirage IIIO taxiing. I guess this is a Wal Nelowkin photo. The VF-805 A4Gs would have been visiting for DACT during September 1970.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Oct 2015, 21:31
by cantaz
Came across this today, I've underlined the significant portion.

http://www.mbda-systems.com/mediagallery/#/news/2453

DDM NG incorporates a new infrared array detector which enhances performance with regard to the range at which a missile firing will be detected, offers improved rejection of false alarms and gives an angular localisation capability which will be compatible with the future use of Directional Infra Red Counter Measures (DIRCM). With two sensors, each equipped with a fish-eye lens, DDM NG provides a spherical field of view around the aircraft.


Come on MBDA, it's pretty damn transparent to anyone with eyes that you can't achieve a full spherical field of view with only a pair of sensors on top of a V-stab. The rest of the aircraft is acting as your blind spot.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 00:18
by sprstdlyscottsmn
Or better yet, that two sensors will have the same resolution (i.e. Range) as six covering the same area.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 08:01
by Corsair1963
Absurd Thread as the Rafale wouldn't last 5 second vs the F-35A/B/C. :doh:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 10:21
by oldiaf
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd Thread as the Rafale wouldn't last 5 second vs the F-35A/B/C. :doh:

I don't think we are going to see that ever ... unless Canada Purchase the Rafale and then we might see them in RedFlag

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 10:37
by spazsinbad
Why would not RAFALE exercise against/with F-35 variants? For example the Naval RAFALE cross decks with Hornets at moment and they do exercises together. The F-35C will not deck land on CdeG however.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 11:00
by oldiaf
spazsinbad wrote:Why would not RAFALE exercise against/with F-35 variants? For example the Naval RAFALE cross decks with Hornets at moment and they do exercises together. The F-35C will not deck land on CdeG however.

Is that related to the shorter steam catapult ? But the SH can land and launch from it !

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Oct 2015, 14:20
by spazsinbad

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Oct 2015, 09:57
by wil59
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd Thread as the Rafale wouldn't last 5 second vs the F-35A/B/C. :doh:

You already said it in 2006, look at 1st page and now 2015 and you said still the méme thing! Or the f 35 made some fight?! RAFALE na not of probléme of software! Has missile mica ir, pod RECO-NG who with the fusion(merger) of datum which works him(her)! Has a perfect capacity has to see what takes place around the plane, is 360 degrees he(it) na not need in 6/12/1000 sensor to see what takes place all around!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2015, 03:06
by Corsair1963
wil59 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd Thread as the Rafale wouldn't last 5 second vs the F-35A/B/C. :doh:


You already said it in 2006, look at 1st page and now 2015 and you said still the méme thing! Or the f 35 made some fight?! RAFALE na not of probléme of software! Has missile mica ir, pod RECO-NG who with the fusion(merger) of datum which works him(her)! Has a perfect capacity has to see what takes place around the plane, is 360 degrees he(it) na not need in 6/12/1000 sensor to see what takes place all around!


Rafale with all of those features will still die in mere seconds... Again Absurd Thread! :bang:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2015, 13:10
by wil59
wil59 wrote:
Corsair1963 wrote:Absurd Thread as the Rafale wouldn't last 5 second vs the F-35A/B/C. :doh:

You already said it in 2006, look at 1st page and now 2015 and you said still the méme thing! Or the f 35 made some fight?! RAFALE na not of probléme of software! Has missile mica ir, pod RECO-NG who with the fusion(merger) of datum which works him(her)! Has a perfect capacity has to see what takes place around the plane, is 360 degrees he(it) na not need in 6/12/1000 sensor to see what takes place all around!


https://medium.com/war-is-boring/f-35-s ... .65ernfrio http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-mil ... -time.html

The Rafale pilot is folded laugh when you said the Rafale would not want 5 seconds; Rafale didn't all these problem, he proves it every day on operations during the conflict, honestly f-35 would be dead if it must be confronted now has a Rafale!

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents ... p6/a205074

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 Oct 2015, 16:32
by wil59
XanderCrews wrote:
wil59 wrote:https://medium.com/war-is-boring/f-35-s ... .65ernfrio http://www.pogo.org/our-work/straus-mil ... -time.html the rafale pilot is folded laugh when you said the rafale would not want 5 seconds;rafale didnt all these problem, he proves it every day on operations during the conflict, honestly f-35 would be dead if it must be confronted now has a rafale!


oh lord.
no argument to defend the f-35 ?! you know that the F-35 can not be deployed on the current conflict has software problem, of ejection seat, data fusion, engine that burns the deck of aircraft carrier, engine burns, thus the Automatic Logistics Information System (ALIS), so operating the unit has more than 30 million lines of code system is still far from giving full satisfaction with the regular discovery failures. Now this software is supposed to provide information to both pilots that ground staff on the status of the aircraft.

Other software affected by problems which gives rise to inaccuracies in particular regarding the navigation system and to failures in the fusion of data obtained via the various sensors, which causes "false alarms and errors of target ". Clearly, the F-35 has difficulty "finding targets, to detect and ward off enemy defenses and to avoid fratricide."


Regarding the F-35B, problems in the flight controls were detected, especially during high speed maneuvers. The device is also protected in case ... little storm: it is vulnerable to lightning effect (strange for a Lightning II) if he is forced to fly twice in the space of 12 hours, to unless its fuel tanks were regularly purged. In question? Their regulation system of the oxygen partial pressure. However, this problem was already identified in 2013. But, obviously, a solution is not yet developed.

Finally, another concern among others, of the components of F-35 unreliable, thus increasing maintenance time and thus costs. Are particularly concerned avionics, engine, landing gear tires, OBOGS (board oxygen generating system) or the ejector seat.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2015, 10:33
by eloise
wil59 wrote:
Regarding the F-35B, problems in the flight controls were detected, especially during high speed maneuvers. The device is also protected in case ... little storm: it is vulnerable to lightning effect (strange for a Lightning II) if he is forced to fly twice in the space of 12 hours, to unless its fuel tanks were regularly purged. In question? Their regulation system of the oxygen partial pressure. However, this problem was already identified in 2013. But, obviously, a solution is not yet developed.

Finally, another concern among others, of the components of F-35 unreliable, thus increasing maintenance time and thus costs. Are particularly concerned avionics, engine, landing gear tires, OBOGS (board oxygen generating system) or the ejector seat.

wrong

lighting problem => fixed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ng-II.html
Britain’s £150 million new combat jet has been banned from flying in bad weather amid fears that it could explode.

Fixed already
http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/0 ... -lightning
The F-35 Lightning II program office says a problem with the jet’s electrical and fuel tank systems has been fixed, removing restrictions that at one time prohibited the plane from flying within 25 miles of the nearest thunder and lightning storm.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the formerly unresolved safety risk, which was identified in a report released earlier this year by the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, is no longer impeding the now $1.4 trillion program’s progress.

“We had a problem with lightning,” Bogdan said Tuesday. “We were having a problem qualifying the airplane to fly in lightning, (but) that problem is basically behind us.”

As proof, Bogdan offered the committee an anecdote about an F-35 being tested two weeks ago at Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base. The plane was hit by lightning, but apparently with no damaging effects.

“It was in clear air and it was struck by lightning and absolutely nothing bad happened to the airplane,” he said. “The pilot landed the airplane (with) no warnings and cautions, no problems. We could see where the lightning went into the right wingtip and came out.”



fuel problem = BS propaganda
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... hades.html
Fuel Temperature Can Shut Down F-35

“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the- ... -jet-fuel/

engine problem => fixed
A top Air Force general said problems with the Pratt & Whitney engine on the F-35 advanced fighter have been fixed, and all of the planes will have newly engineered engines by June of next year.

“We are producing fully capable engines on the production line,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan, the head of the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office.

An engine fire last year temporarily grounded the F-35 fleet. At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday, Bogdan said 61 F-35s have been “retrofitted” to eliminate the problem that caused the fire, and new airplanes have retooled engines.



http://ctmirror.org/2015/10/21/pentagon ... -is-fixed/

Helmet problem => fixed
In 2011, Department of Defense F-35 program officials were concerned about some major problems with the second generation of the HMDS helmet. One of them was “jitter," a sensitivity in the helmet’s motion sensors that caused the symbology displayed inside the helmet’s visor to bounce when the aircraft was being buffeted by winds or experiencing vibration.

There was also a latency in the video from the DAS cameras that caused the pilots' view to slightly lag behind where their heads were pointed. As a result, pilots were suffering from motion sickness caused by the helmet display—a symptom that many users of other virtual reality systems have experienced, including in early versions of the Oculus Rift VR headset.

Another problem was the helmet’s display of night vision video. The resolution in the original sensor used in the system had 20/70 acuity—meaning the device could see things at 20 feet that a normally sighted person could see at 70 feet in daylight. Most military night vision goggles have an acuity of 20/25. That meant the night-vision features of the helmet were nearly worthless in combat situation
Rockwell Collins and Elbit had solved the majority of the issues with their HMDS in its third generation. After more than 15,000 hours of flight time testing, Lockheed Martin and the DOD signed off on the Rockwell/Elbit helmet as their sole solution.

Gen III of the HMDS has an improved infrared sensor and head-tracking technology, as well as a better imaging system with a backlit internal display. Vision Systems International has delivered 160 of the helmet systems to Lockheed so far, and the helmets will be rolled into the next round of low-rate production for the aircraft.


http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... -delivery/

and i havent not heard of F-35 problem with landing gear or oxygen system :?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2015, 11:58
by hornetfinn
oldiaf wrote:
spazsinbad wrote:Oh dear Oh dear Oh dearie me - a 6lb addition to HMDS III - go on - make my day - old old 'oldiaf' befuddled as ever....

Its bogdan who said that not me and btw your comment is also one line comment !


The whole helmet doesn't weigh 6 pounds. It was 6 ounces, which is "slightly" different to 6 pounds.

http://www.airforcetimes.com/story/military/capitol-hill/2015/10/25/f-35-helmet-6-ounces-too-heavy/74467222/

6 ounces is 170 grams which is about 1/3 of a pound.

Besides, that weight is a potential problem only the lightest pilots during ejection.

Interestingly the F-35 helmet is only slightly heavier than TopOwl or Striker helmet mounted display systems when all are configured similarly (night vision and binocular display systems). If the weight reduction takes place, the three systems have pretty much equal weight.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2015, 18:11
by XanderCrews
eloise wrote:
wil59 wrote:
Regarding the F-35B, problems in the flight controls were detected, especially during high speed maneuvers. The device is also protected in case ... little storm: it is vulnerable to lightning effect (strange for a Lightning II) if he is forced to fly twice in the space of 12 hours, to unless its fuel tanks were regularly purged. In question? Their regulation system of the oxygen partial pressure. However, this problem was already identified in 2013. But, obviously, a solution is not yet developed.

Finally, another concern among others, of the components of F-35 unreliable, thus increasing maintenance time and thus costs. Are particularly concerned avionics, engine, landing gear tires, OBOGS (board oxygen generating system) or the ejector seat.

wrong

lighting problem => fixed
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... ng-II.html
Britain’s £150 million new combat jet has been banned from flying in bad weather amid fears that it could explode.

Fixed already
http://www.standard.net/Military/2015/0 ... -lightning
The F-35 Lightning II program office says a problem with the jet’s electrical and fuel tank systems has been fixed, removing restrictions that at one time prohibited the plane from flying within 25 miles of the nearest thunder and lightning storm.

Testifying before the House Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Air Force Lt. Gen. Christopher Bogdan said the formerly unresolved safety risk, which was identified in a report released earlier this year by the Defense Department’s Director of Operational Test and Evaluation, is no longer impeding the now $1.4 trillion program’s progress.

“We had a problem with lightning,” Bogdan said Tuesday. “We were having a problem qualifying the airplane to fly in lightning, (but) that problem is basically behind us.”

As proof, Bogdan offered the committee an anecdote about an F-35 being tested two weeks ago at Florida’s Eglin Air Force Base. The plane was hit by lightning, but apparently with no damaging effects.

“It was in clear air and it was struck by lightning and absolutely nothing bad happened to the airplane,” he said. “The pilot landed the airplane (with) no warnings and cautions, no problems. We could see where the lightning went into the right wingtip and came out.”



fuel problem = BS propaganda
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... hades.html
Fuel Temperature Can Shut Down F-35

“This is not an F-35 issue; there are no special restrictions on the F-35 related to fuel temperature. The F-35 uses the same fuel as other military aircraft. It can fly under the same temperature conditions as any other advanced military aircraft,” said Joe DellaVedova, program spokesman, in an email yesterday evening.

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/12/the- ... -jet-fuel/

engine problem => fixed
A top Air Force general said problems with the Pratt & Whitney engine on the F-35 advanced fighter have been fixed, and all of the planes will have newly engineered engines by June of next year.

“We are producing fully capable engines on the production line,” said Lt. Gen. Christopher C. Bogdan, the head of the Pentagon’s F-35 Joint Program Office.

An engine fire last year temporarily grounded the F-35 fleet. At a hearing of the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday, Bogdan said 61 F-35s have been “retrofitted” to eliminate the problem that caused the fire, and new airplanes have retooled engines.



http://ctmirror.org/2015/10/21/pentagon ... -is-fixed/

Helmet problem => fixed
In 2011, Department of Defense F-35 program officials were concerned about some major problems with the second generation of the HMDS helmet. One of them was “jitter," a sensitivity in the helmet’s motion sensors that caused the symbology displayed inside the helmet’s visor to bounce when the aircraft was being buffeted by winds or experiencing vibration.

There was also a latency in the video from the DAS cameras that caused the pilots' view to slightly lag behind where their heads were pointed. As a result, pilots were suffering from motion sickness caused by the helmet display—a symptom that many users of other virtual reality systems have experienced, including in early versions of the Oculus Rift VR headset.

Another problem was the helmet’s display of night vision video. The resolution in the original sensor used in the system had 20/70 acuity—meaning the device could see things at 20 feet that a normally sighted person could see at 70 feet in daylight. Most military night vision goggles have an acuity of 20/25. That meant the night-vision features of the helmet were nearly worthless in combat situation
Rockwell Collins and Elbit had solved the majority of the issues with their HMDS in its third generation. After more than 15,000 hours of flight time testing, Lockheed Martin and the DOD signed off on the Rockwell/Elbit helmet as their sole solution.

Gen III of the HMDS has an improved infrared sensor and head-tracking technology, as well as a better imaging system with a backlit internal display. Vision Systems International has delivered 160 of the helmet systems to Lockheed so far, and the helmets will be rolled into the next round of low-rate production for the aircraft.


http://arstechnica.com/information-tech ... -delivery/

and i havent not heard of F-35 problem with landing gear or oxygen system :?


Well said.

Isn't it funny how the F-35s problems are "unfixable" yet when other aircraft have development issues that get fixed they are forgotten? Remember how the Rafale sprung straight from Zeus's head fully combat capable?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2015, 18:39
by sferrin
XanderCrews wrote:Isn't it funny how the F-35s problems are "unfixable" yet when other aircraft have development issues that get fixed they are forgotten? Remember how the Rafale sprung straight from Zeus's head fully combat capable?


And how the Typhoon had an AESA and ground attack capability from the get go, and how Germany ISN'T refusing to accept Typhoon deliveries due to abysmal quality? :wink:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 Oct 2015, 18:40
by spazsinbad
"...Remember how the Rafale sprung straight from Zeus's head fully combat capable?" AAAHHH GORGON another nickname for the F-35 & with a song also 'snakes in your head' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3OD4kHKA3I

THE NIGHT TRIPPER


Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2015, 17:41
by SpudmanWP
selvagor wrote:The F-35 will be as "cheap" as the F-22 or the B-2 and a lot of customers will have a big surprise...


Customers no.... enemies yes ;)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 Oct 2015, 19:27
by krorvik
selvagor wrote:The F-35 will be as "cheap" as the F-22 or the B-2 and a lot of customers will have a big surprise...


Funny that.... two F-35s were recently rolled out for Norway. On time. On price.

Doesn't sound like a surprise to me.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Dec 2015, 12:18
by vanshilar
XanderCrews wrote:Isn't it funny how the F-35s problems are "unfixable" yet when other aircraft have development issues that get fixed they are forgotten? Remember how the Rafale sprung straight from Zeus's head fully combat capable?


Incidentally, when I was looking up the history of the Rafale, most people say it entered service in 2001, whereas I consider its date as Oct 2002 with its official IOC instead. I think people say 2001 because the naval squadron (Flottille 12F) was activated on May 18, 2001, along with France's aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle (and because Wikipedia says it was introduced in 2001). Two Rafales M's were also sent to Afghanistan on Charles de Gaulle in Nov 2001. However, France only has one aircraft carrier, which was sent to Afghanistan to support operations against the Taliban. They were also trying to train to operate the Rafales at the time, so it seems to me more like the Rafales were just "along for the ride" in Afghanistan, rather than doing any combat missions. Furthermore, the Rafale M only had air-to-air capability at the time; it didn't get its software with air-to-ground ("F2" standard) until 2006. So unless the Taliban invested in an air force, the Rafale M's couldn't really contribute much to the Afghanistan effort.

As a side note, Wikipedia seems to list the "Introduction" date as the date of IOC for U.S. planes like the F-22 and F-35, while that date is the date of delivery for Euro planes like the Rafale and Typhoon. Its listed introduction date for the F-22 is Dec 15 2005, which is when the F-22 reached IOC, and its date for the F-35 is Jul 31 2015, which is when the F-35B reached IOC. However, it lists May 18 2001 for the Rafale when that's when the squadron was activated, while the Rafale M didn't reach IOC until Oct 2002 and FOC in 2004 (I'm not sure when the Air Force variant reached IOC, but it reached FOC in 2006). For the Typhoon, it lists the introduction date as Aug 4 2003, but that's when the plane was delivered to Germany. The Typhoon's own technical guide link (https://www.eurofighter.com/downloads/TecGuide.pdf) lists its IOC as Summer 2004.

Basically, although not a big difference, it means that the Euro planes will seem to have been about a year or so faster in their progress compared with U.S. planes, if one looks at Wikipedia entries. I'm assuming IOC means similar things in different countries, though I'm not proficient at by how much it differs compared to activating a squadron (Rafale) or delivering a plane from the manufacturer to the military (Germany).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2015, 12:44
by hornetfinn
I think this discussion belongs better in this thread.

tchaou wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:I think Rafale is very fine 4th++ gen fighter and one of the best multi-role fighters. It does have many technological and combat performance disadvantages compared to F-35 though:

1. It has pretty good flight performance, range and combat load and decent stealthiness (for 4th gen fighter). It can have only one or two of these at the same time, though. F-35 has all of these at the same time and huge advantage in stelthiness.



The F-35 has to compromise too.It can't have both payload and stealth, or payload and performance (a Rafale is still able to supercruise with 4, possibly 6 missiles, and a center tank).Even in a clean, and more than that, empty, configuration, it was at "a distinct energy disavantage" against a two-seat F-16 with two drop tanks.(the report I m referring to wasn't, as said, an early evaluation of flight controls laws, it took place in january this year, and even if there is room for improvment there, it isn't going to solve all the energy disadvantage problem, and the F-35 isn't meant to dogfight anyway, according to LM)


F-35 can go Mach 1.6+ with 2 2,000lbs JDAMs or 8 SDBs and 2 AMRAAMs while having full target designation capabilities. It will also have very long range whereas Rafale would require at least 2 2,000 liter EFTs. Rafale would be subsonic only and have far inferior maneuverability in this configuration until it dropped both bombs and EFTs. That is bad if it happens before bombs can be dropped to target.

I do agree that Rafale will likely be good performer lightly loaded but it isn't really stealthy in any configuration whereas F-35 is. Of course F-35 can carry as heavy or heavier load farther if stealth is no consideration.

tchaou wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:2. It has much less capable sensors and networking capability (MADL, Link 16 and SATCOM vs. Link 16 type only) which means each aircraft can keep an eye on much smaller airspace or patch of land or sea. For example AN/APG-81 likely outranges RBE2 AESA by at least 50 percent (due to much bigger antenna) which means it covers over twice the area at any moment. This means Rafales would be much less effective in finding their targets without external cueing and one would need more of them.



The AN/APG-81 looks goods but so does the RBE AA.The ranges are classified.It depends not only on size but on modules, technology, energy…The Rafale will have GaN modules radars in a future upgrade.Reportedly, the RBE2 AA has more than enough range to shoot the Meteor, although it is sometimes used as lower ranges to increase discretion.It would probably be done also on the F-35.


I don't doubt RBE2 AA is a good radar with impressive range. As target get stealthier and EW systems evolve, having even better performance is good to have.

Of course radar performance depends on many factors. In AESA radars the main factors are:
1. Number of T/R modules
2. T/R module power
3. System losses in radar (how much energy is lost in transmitting and receiving)
4. Sensitivity of receiver

Number of T/R modules is very dominating factor in AESA radar performance. It directly affects radar output power and antenna gain in both transmit and receive paths. Output power is number of modules times module power. Gain is similarly basically number of modules times single module gain. Since AN/APG-81 has about 60-70 percent more modules than RBE2 AA, it will have about 50 percent longer range assuming 2 to 4 are about equal in both. To counter the disadvantage in number of modules RBE2 AA would need to have 4 to 5 times more powerful modules or have similarly lower losses and higher receiver sensitivity (or combination of all). That's however very unlikely as US manufacturers have more experience in designing and manufacturing AESA radars and at least equal technological base to Thales. AN/APG-81 is developed with much more money, that's for sure and it might well be that AN/APG-81 actually has higher powered modules and lower losses and higher sensitivity while having much higher number of modules.

Fighter AESA radars will definitely go GaN in the future as there are already many ground based systems that use GaN. US is leading the development, although European manufacturers are following pretty closely. With GaN RBE2 AA would likely have similar range to GaAs AN/APG-81. However when both have GaN modules, AN/APG-81 advantage will stay and it's quite possible that F-35 will have GaN radar before Rafale.

tchaou wrote:We can't say the other sensors are less capable than the F-35's.Dassault isn't allowed to communicate on the exact performance of its sensors by the gvt, that's explain it is underestimated. SPECTRA seems pretty good.Data fusion on the Rafale is reportedly in a world of its own.It was also a strong point of the rafale in the Swiss evaluation.The reason the data fusion on the F-35 is much advertised in the US is because they know only previous US aircraft, F-16, F-15,…which don't have it.The Rafale pilot doesn't know which sensor is working, he just has the tactical situation displayed.SPECTRA seems also good in decoying ennemy radars and is able to re-route the aircraft in flight, and make use of terrain cover, to avoid unexpected threats.The MICA IR sensors or the pod are used as FLIR, while the TV, cued by SPECTRA, identifies targets at more than 40 km.This may not seem much but I doubt the AN/APG-81 would be able to positively identify an aircraft as hostile at much more than that while staying not detectable.And ROE sometimes (often?) need positive ID.If an aggressive threat appears MICA can be fired over the shoulder, cued by its own SPECTRA (DDM) or another aircraft.This all seems much more integrated to give the pilot a target designation than just the F-35 radar


Like people have said, that's just BS. Yes, Spectra seems good and Rafale sensor fusion seems good. That doesn't make them better or equal or even close to F-35 sensor fusion. Btw, the reason why Rafale sensor fusion is advertised in France is because French only know previous French aircraft, Mirage 2000, F1 etc... which don't have it.

Rafale sensor fusion is standard track correlation system (from Dassault descriptions), which is basic level of sensor fusion (Level 1 fusion in JDL data fusion model). That's good compared to legacy systems without any sensor fusion. However, F-35 has very different level of sensor fusion which gives far superior sensor fusion capabilities. What is described as F-35 sensor fusion is usually called Level 4 fusion (JDL data fusion model). This level includes many new things, mainly automated tasking of resources (like sensors), situation and impact assessment. This can include for example relations between several objects, even dissimilar ones (like communications between fighters and ships) or calculating probabilities of something to happen (like enemy radar or ESM detecting own fighter). All these can seriously improve situational awareness about what exactly is happening outside.

Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.

tchaou wrote:MADL has range limitations and the F-22 won't have it.


Everything has range limitations and F-22 was supposed to have it but for the time being will use IFDL which is similar but older system. Rafale doesn't have anything like MADL or IFDL. Link 16 has bandwidth and latency limitations and isn't stealthy as it's omnidirectional system

tchaou wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:3. With Rafale you need to buy EFTs (cost several tens of thousands of dollars/euros each nowadays) and targeting pods if you intend to go after ground targets in meaningful way. These hike the cost of each aircraft by millions if decent number of EFTs and targeting pod equal to EOTS is bought.


Yes you need to buy them, but it isn't so costly.EFT are not expansive, as you said, and 10 or 20 SNIPER pods will cost what, 40 millions?A Rafale with a few AREOS reconnaissance pods would also be useful for Canada.


Having enough EFTs still costs money (especially if they need to be dropped for air-to-air combat or evading missiles) and buying only 10 to 20 Sniper pods will mean only 10 or 20 (max) aircraft can designate targets and pods need to be swapped from aircraft to aircraft during operations. All F-35s carry targeting pods which simplifies planning and operations a lot compared to having small number of pods available. F-35 probably doesn't even need any recon pod (especially after EOTS upgrades) and in any case can fly much closer to hostile areas to do recon.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2015, 17:22
by XanderCrews
Well explained hornetfinn

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2015, 18:30
by arrow-nautics
Somewhat off topic but check out the Mighty Rafale with these 2 garbage fighters:

12391131_1244983558862207_1913917584787809354_n.jpg


:devil:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 Dec 2015, 23:59
by popcorn
Is that one of dem RCS-enhancer thingys on da bottom of the F-22 fuselage or is the Raptor just excited to see them? :D

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 15 Dec 2015, 00:40
by meatshield
Love your work hornetfinn :salute:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 19:16
by les_paul59
I didn't want to start a new thread, so I posted in this one. Admittedly the rafale is my favorite euro-canard, I was looking for more information regarding the jet's performance at past red flag exercises. But I can't find much if anything besides picard spouting nonsense about how the rafale's irst will spot a raptor from over 100km from the front angle.

If any one could post some links in this thread it would be very much appreciated.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Mar 2017, 23:15
by durahawk
les_paul59 wrote:I didn't want to start a new thread, so I posted in this one. Admittedly the rafale is my favorite euro-canard, I was looking for more information regarding the jet's performance at past red flag exercises.


From what I have read, it seems like the French are more concerned with snooping on everyone else's capabilities at Red Flag rather than demonstrating their own...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 00:11
by geokav
durahawk wrote:From what I have read, it seems like the French are more concerned with snooping on everyone else's capabilities at Red Flag rather than demonstrating their own...

Considering Colonel Terrence Fornof... (around 00:55 until 02:05)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ibgAQ7lv0w

and explains what vanshilar said about Afghanistan. Les Paul59 you will not find any information available easily, you keep these information classified (Armée de l'air of course...) :wink:
Despite that, Rafale is a remarkable fighter plane. But the fundamental principle of aerial combat still remain the same since WWI. Who sees the other first..., wins. And the F35 remains hidden from enemy radars, when in the same time scans and fire at the enemy... That's the "game changer" that LM says.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 00:57
by white_lightning35
durahawk wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:I didn't want to start a new thread, so I posted in this one. Admittedly the rafale is my favorite euro-canard, I was looking for more information regarding the jet's performance at past red flag exercises.


From what I have read, it seems like the French are more concerned with snooping on everyone else's capabilities at Red Flag rather than demonstrating their own...


Can you elaborate on this please? I have heard something like this before but without details.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 02:31
by durahawk
white_lightning35 wrote:
durahawk wrote:
les_paul59 wrote:I didn't want to start a new thread, so I posted in this one. Admittedly the rafale is my favorite euro-canard, I was looking for more information regarding the jet's performance at past red flag exercises.


From what I have read, it seems like the French are more concerned with snooping on everyone else's capabilities at Red Flag rather than demonstrating their own...


Can you elaborate on this please? I have heard something like this before but without details.


See the video geokav posted. It's mostly related to how they conducted themselves at 08-4 when the Indians brought their Flankers. It doesn't look like they have brought the Rafale back since.
http://www.dreamlandresort.com/info/flag_units.html

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Mar 2017, 18:15
by mixelflick
arrow-nautics wrote:Somewhat off topic but check out the Mighty Rafale with these 2 garbage fighters:

12391131_1244983558862207_1913917584787809354_n.jpg


:devil:


Rafale is a good looking bird, but not in comparison to Typhoon/F-22 IMO. It has sexy intakes and streamlined fuselage aka "waist". A nice hourglass figure, LOL.

Typhoon looks better though, IMO. It has that nasty looking (in a good way) squared off intake, feeding those powerful engines. And those angled,. whisker like canards. The big difference between the Typhoon and Rafale being the EFT's. On the Typhoon, they look positively under-sized. On the Rafale, the jumbo ones look ridiculous. Sort of like DDD's on a woman who's a size 0.

Though I usually love me some top heavy "EFT's"... :wink:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Mar 2017, 19:42
by les_paul59
Both Rafale and Eurofighter are good looking birds, I think the stealth shaping of the lockheed jets look sterile.

I know that active bvr missiles are renowned for longer range especially with the new missiles like the meteor. But I just noticed that the active mica missile has thrust vectoring because the seeker is interchangeable it uses the same body and rocket motor as mica IR

off the top of my head I don't know of any other active missile with thrust vectoring

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:27
by halloweene
Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.


So why doesnt it work properly yet on F-35?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:53
by castlebravo
halloweene wrote:
Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.


So why doesnt it work properly yet on F-35?


Because the jet is still in development. Read the paragraph above the line you quoted. F-35 sensor fusion is above and beyond anything that came before it. Compare the Rafale's ~2 million lines of code to the F-35's ~8 million lines. Some of those features aren't working properly yet, but the current "flawed" software version is still kicking a$$ at red flag.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 Mar 2017, 22:53
by blindpilot
hornetfinn wrote:Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.


Hornetfinn, I must tell you I have great respect for your experence, knowledge, and your posts which I read to learn.

However .... (there`s always that "BUT").. I`m going to disagree here.

I`m sure when the iPhone came out, people said, "there are many other systems, this is an old invention. Have you seen the new Samsung Intensity II and Blackberry? Cell phones are well understood in every modern country, including the home of Nokia!"

Except ... you don`t know what you don`t know. Even the US developers, operational pilots and squadrons don`t understand sensor fusion "well" yet. But they are working late hours to get there. And they are getting close to rapid acceleration downhill. Because they have the tools now. F-22`s no longer fly like F-15`s used to. That is sooooo ... last year!

A Blackberry is not an iPhone, and the Androids are only close because they did a rapid copy and catch up of what cell phones had become, while they hustled to understand what they didn`t even know existed.

Siri on an iPhone is not a talking Garmin, even if the map looks exactly the same, and the voice sounds like the very same voice over lady..

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 10:28
by hornetfinn
blindpilot wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.


Hornetfinn, I must tell you I have great respect for your experence, knowledge, and your posts which I read to learn.

However .... (there`s always that "BUT").. I`m going to disagree here.

I`m sure when the iPhone came out, people said, "there are many other systems, this is an old invention. Have you seen the new Samsung Intensity II and Blackberry? Cell phones are well understood in every modern country, including the home of Nokia!"

Except ... you don`t know what you don`t know. Even the US developers, operational pilots and squadrons don`t understand sensor fusion "well" yet. But they are working late hours to get there. And they are getting close to rapid acceleration downhill. Because they have the tools now. F-22`s no longer fly like F-15`s used to. That is sooooo ... last year!


I agree that F-35 level sensor fusion is totally unprecedented and will likely remain so for some time. I must say that I tried to say that the theory of sensor fusion is well understood in many developed countries but that doesn't easily translate in developing operational systems. One thing is that there are huge differences in sensor fusion systems. Most simple ones just correlate track data from several similar sensors like radars. Most advanced ones combine all the data from several dissimilar sensors and other data sources (like maps, threat libraries, weather data) and create tracks and other situational awareness data from there. The basic process for the advanced systems is pretty simple, but implementing it is very difficult and requires huge amount of work and really good hardware and software to handle all the data and be fast and reliable. That means the real world systems are complex and difficult to implement. I think currently only USA has the capabilities and money of developing advanced sensor fusion system for operational fighter aircraft. One very important thing is that USA has developed such systems for decades while other countries are following with vastly smaller resources. There is no way Sweden could implement similar sensor fusion system in Gripen E for example. It would be simply far too expensive and require far too much effort for such a small country to do even though Sweden is one of the most technologically advanced countries in the world.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 12:03
by botsing
hornetfinn wrote:I think currently only USA has the capabilities and money of developing advanced sensor fusion system for operational fighter aircraft.

I think the USA has the hardware edge, the money and especially the leadership vision to use it.

Software wise I am pretty sure that several other countries could reach the same level if they had the same resources available. I even think that a country with a blindpilot like autonomous task force could do a lot with limited resources to reach a limited force multiplier.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 14:21
by mixelflick
blindpilot wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.


Hornetfinn, I must tell you I have great respect for your experence, knowledge, and your posts which I read to learn.

However .... (there`s always that "BUT").. I`m going to disagree here.

I`m sure when the iPhone came out, people said, "there are many other systems, this is an old invention. Have you seen the new Samsung Intensity II and Blackberry? Cell phones are well understood in every modern country, including the home of Nokia!"

Except ... you don`t know what you don`t know. Even the US developers, operational pilots and squadrons don`t understand sensor fusion "well" yet. But they are working late hours to get there. And they are getting close to rapid acceleration downhill. Because they have the tools now. F-22`s no longer fly like F-15`s used to. That is sooooo ... last year!

A Blackberry is not an iPhone, and the Androids are only close because they did a rapid copy and catch up of what cell phones had become, while they hustled to understand what they didn`t even know existed.

Siri on an iPhone is not a talking Garmin, even if the map looks exactly the same, and the voice sounds like the very same voice over lady..

MHO,
BP


What does this mean please? "F-22's no longer fly like F-15's used to..."??

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 15:45
by XanderCrews
mixelflick wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.


Hornetfinn, I must tell you I have great respect for your experence, knowledge, and your posts which I read to learn.

However .... (there`s always that "BUT").. I`m going to disagree here.

I`m sure when the iPhone came out, people said, "there are many other systems, this is an old invention. Have you seen the new Samsung Intensity II and Blackberry? Cell phones are well understood in every modern country, including the home of Nokia!"

Except ... you don`t know what you don`t know. Even the US developers, operational pilots and squadrons don`t understand sensor fusion "well" yet. But they are working late hours to get there. And they are getting close to rapid acceleration downhill. Because they have the tools now. F-22`s no longer fly like F-15`s used to. That is sooooo ... last year!

A Blackberry is not an iPhone, and the Androids are only close because they did a rapid copy and catch up of what cell phones had become, while they hustled to understand what they didn`t even know existed.

Siri on an iPhone is not a talking Garmin, even if the map looks exactly the same, and the voice sounds like the very same voice over lady..

MHO,
BP


What does this mean please? "F-22's no longer fly like F-15's used to..."??


Means different tactics and techniques. As had been said and alluded to by all 5th generation pilots

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 15:51
by Dragon029
F-15s: Image

F-22s against F-15s: Image

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 19:53
by blindpilot
XanderCrews wrote:
mixelflick wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
....But they are working late hours to get there. And they are getting close to rapid acceleration downhill. Because they have the tools now. F-22`s no longer fly like F-15`s used to. That is sooooo ... last year!


What does this mean please? "F-22's no longer fly like F-15's used to..."??


Means different tactics and techniques. As had been said and alluded to by all 5th generation pilots


Bingo, except note they also have said, "for several years we flew the same tactics as we did in the F-15`s .." until as to the subject discussed here, they realized, "Yeah we are better, but .... that is totally not the subject any more!"

Love the pictures Dragon!

BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 20:25
by blindpilot
botsing wrote:.... I even think that a country with a blindpilot like autonomous task force could do a lot with limited resources to reach a limited force multiplier.


Actually it`s beyond that.. Not me ..not at my level. My first exposure to a computer was at age 20ish, learning Algol on a room sized system reading punch cards at USAFA. I still used a slide rule.

Not even my kids. And they grew up with a computer in the house, and learned how to speak Hex right along with English. They still used calculators.

No we are entering the world of my grandkids, who are never even arms length from more networked computing power than the entire world had when my kids were their age, and who think Apps and Games are as much a part of the environment as football in the back yard, with the trees playing cornerback. (those DB hits are brutal when you go over the middle :shock: :shock: )

If you aren`t wired with a tablet in your cradle, and I`m not, we really don`t have a clue yet. And honestly, except for maybe a few, Japan, South Korea, et al, and a few European countries, ... other countries don`t have a large pool of "cyborgs" to recruit from. It`s a brave new world out there.

MHO,
BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 20:50
by luke_sandoz
Dragon029 wrote:F-15s: Image

F-22s against F-15s: Image



Oh look!

It's that Stealth thingy!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Mar 2017, 21:06
by blindpilot
luke_sandoz wrote:....


Oh look!

It's that Stealth thingy!


<sarc on> Oh Yeah?! Well the Brits could "detect" them easily,just by listening (with audible range ears) for leaves rustling in the bushes .. and .. and Brits were professional soldiers and better marksmen .... and ... and that Stealth thingy totally didn`t work! <sarc off>

Those are great instructional pictures to use!

MHO
BP

"Those are great instructional pictures to use!"
PS The analogies are unending -
Even if they hadn`t hidden in the trees, they were better with their 300 yard Pennsylvania rifles ... except with slow loading they might be overrun WVR.. except ... they could have quickload smooth bore guards nearby for that ... on the wingtips! .. and.... WELL, basically the change in tactics sort of made those discussions irrelevant? The "what if`s" never happened, the Brits in the woods all died ... and only marched "very carefully" through the forest, once reality set in after that.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 00:08
by halloweene
castlebravo wrote:
halloweene wrote:
Btw, there are many other systems which have sensor fusion and whole sensor fusion thing is an old invention. I'm sure sensor fusion is very well understood in every modern country.


So why doesnt it work properly yet on F-35?


Because the jet is still in development. Read the paragraph above the line you quoted. F-35 sensor fusion is above and beyond anything that came before it. Compare the Rafale's ~2 million lines of code to the F-35's ~8 million lines. Some of those features aren't working properly yet, but the current "flawed" software version is still kicking a$$ at red flag.


Where did you get those fancy values? From antiquated stop gap Rafale F1 numbers?
At Red Flag, yes it kicked a$$... To f16 block 30... Helped by awacs and F-22.

Same thing as assessing Rafale sensor fusion is lev1 sensor fusion level (JDL). Mere allegation from Lockheed PR. Data granularity is considered as "grandad's "data fusion by Rafale engineers...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 01:14
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:Same thing as assessing Rafale sensor fusion is lev1 sensor fusion level (JDL). Mere allegation from Lockheed PR. Data granularity is considered as "grandad's "data fusion by Rafale engineers...


Interesting considering rafale predates JSF and has traditionaly had a helluva time with being able to afford upgrades.

Magic is everywhere.

The F4 standard that was just approved a few days ago isn't expected to be full up until 2025.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 05:31
by garrya
halloweene wrote:At Red Flag, yes it kicked a$$... To f16 block 30... Helped by awacs and F-22.

Red air in red flag exercise were supported by support jamming and ground SAM too (Likely S-300V , S-300P and PAC-2/3) They also outnumbered F-35 significantly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgLjNsB_hyM&t=109s

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 10:55
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:
castlebravo wrote:Because the jet is still in development. Read the paragraph above the line you quoted. F-35 sensor fusion is above and beyond anything that came before it. Compare the Rafale's ~2 million lines of code to the F-35's ~8 million lines. Some of those features aren't working properly yet, but the current "flawed" software version is still kicking a$$ at red flag.


Where did you get those fancy values? From antiquated stop gap Rafale F1 numbers?


Rafale lines of code value from here:
http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/fra ... ale-05991/

Rafale F3...
.
.
.
The Rafale’s radar took a quantum leap forward as of Rafale #C137, with Thales’ RBE2-AA AESA radar replacing the mechanically-scanned RBE2 array on previous aircraft. The new radar has hundreds of active T/R modules, and involves about 400,000 lines of code all by itself. This compares to about 2 million lines of code for the aircraft’s entire original avionics suite. In exchange, AESA radars generally create roughly 2x-3x better range or resolution than current PESA technologies. Note that older Rafales don’t currently have AESA radars, but they’re expected to see upgrades under a EUR 1+ billion F3R program.


So by reading the article above, castlebravo's lines of code value is a (little) bit on the lower side if we take into consideration the Rafale F3. So the Rafale F3 software have around 2.4 million lines of code (instead of around 2 million), that's a WoW :roll:
(actually as you can see castlebravo didn't err by much)

Now compared to the F-35 which software has indeed more than 8 million lines of code, the Rafale simply pales in comparison. Here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... wa-425098/

With more than 8 million lines of code controlling every onboard sensor and weapon system, the F-35 is the most complex and software-dependent fighter jet in history.




halloweene wrote:At Red Flag, yes it kicked a$$... To f16 block 30... Helped by awacs and F-22.


garrya already replied to you about this.
I just want to add that I would like to see the Rafale in those same conditions (as the F-35 in that Red Flag exercise). And with this thought in my mind I'm starting to feel sorry for the Rafale and all the pilots who would have to fly and fight in it in such similar conditions...




halloweene wrote:Same thing as assessing Rafale sensor fusion is lev1 sensor fusion level (JDL). Mere allegation from Lockheed PR. Data granularity is considered as "grandad's "data fusion by Rafale engineers...


You really want to talk about company PR?? Really?
Ok, lets talk about Dassault's PR:
- During one of my discussions over the web (this time at Ottawa's Citizen Defence Watch) I caught with a guy which was from Dassault's/Rafale PR staff (the guy was called Ives Pagot or something like that). When I mentioned the "inevitable" advantage of the F-35 over the Rafale which is Stealth that guy came up with the SPECTRA (System of Protection and Avoidance of enemy Fire-Control for Rafale, in English) and claimed that SPECTRA basically replaces stealth.
Then I countered him by explaining that SPECTRA is nothing more than a self-defence system that manages aircraft's ECM, RWR, decoys and MAWS something that many other modern fighter/combat aircraft already have! (for example the Super Hornet has the IDECM)
After this, the guy just ran with "his tail between his legs".

Anyway and the bottom line is, don't get me that crap of "Lockheed Martin's PR" when it's the other companies (such as Dassault) which constantly come up with "PR crap" and display "aggressive PR", going into the extreme of sending people to spread propaganda in public news sites or even to fund propaganda "documentaries" that air in cable channels around the world just like one (curiously also about the Rafale) that I watched the other day!

Besides and this is my personal opinion, if there's something which I believe that Lockheed Martin's (LM) fails is exactly on PR. I don't think that LM PR can be considered to be "good". (but this is only my personal opinion or more precisely, my feeling).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 11:03
by juretrn
ricnunes-to be fair, the amount of lines of code is a meaningless measure all by itself, as more code != better. There can also be different ways of defining what a "line" is.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 11:23
by ricnunes
juretrn wrote:ricnunes-to be fair, the amount of lines of code is a meaningless measure all by itself, as more code != better. There can also be different ways of defining what a "line" is.


The higher amount of lines usually means that the Software can perform more tasks.

Try programing (using whatever computer language you wish) and make two very simple programs:

- One program that accepts two numbers and make one mathematical operation (sum for example) and displays the result.

then,

- Make another program, this once also accepts two number but allows the user to choose a mathematical operation between the 4 basic mathematical operations (sum, subtraction, multiplication and division) and displays the result.

And then tell me which one has more lines of code!?

Yes, a good programmer could perform optimizations which could reduce lines in an un-optimized program but there's only so much he/she can/could reduce.
Resuming, usually the more lines of code that a program has the more tasks this program does - this is specially true when we're talking about programs which have a difference in lines of code in the order of MILLIONS.
Finally, I believe that both Lockheed Martin and Dassault programmers are competent which is more than enough to conclude that the F-35 does much more things than Rafale does - Actually we just have to lock at the capabilities of one aircraft compared to the other to reach this same conclusion.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 13:31
by sferrin
ricnunes wrote:
juretrn wrote:ricnunes-to be fair, the amount of lines of code is a meaningless measure all by itself, as more code != better. There can also be different ways of defining what a "line" is.


The higher amount of lines usually means that the Software can perform more tasks.


Or sloppy code, or bloatware, or more detailed imbedded documentation. . .

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 14:39
by ricnunes
sferrin wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
The higher amount of lines usually means that the Software can perform more tasks.


Or sloppy code, or bloatware, or more detailed imbedded documentation. . .


Sure, but please note that I said:
"higher amount of lines usually means that the Software can perform more tasks" (please note the word "usually").

So in a well structured program, usually and normally a good programing practice dictates that you should have an/one instruction (which equals a small task) per each line.

Sure you can have a "sloppy code" when for example in order to execute a certain larger task you'll have lets say "4 lines" (or 4 "instructions") when you could only have 2 and so on...
An inverse is also true where you could have several instructions in a single line, that's also correct (which is what I believe juretrn meant).

However and again I remind you that both Lockheed Martin and Dassault programmers are certainly very competent and certainly you don't or won't have one those two companies programmers doing a "sloppy coding/programing" while the programmers from the other doing a far more efficient (not sloppy) programing.
In the end the "final proof" if you will, is that the F-35 performs far larger number and far more complex task that a Rafale (or any 4.5th gen fighter aircraft) will do.

Just a small example: in the F-35, the exact same Hardware - for this example DAS (Distributed Aperture System) - is capable of executing several and much different tasks such as providing a pilot's spherical 360º IR vision, Missile Warning Approach System and Tracking, Launch point detection, IRST, similar roles of the EOTS, etc...
All of this is achieved thru an extremely complex software (remember we are still talking about the same hardware - DAS) and remember that this is only a small example from a single (of many) F-35 systems.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 17:12
by loke
Personally I think comparing the Rafale to the F-35 is not really an "apples-to-apples" comparison in the sense that they belong to different "generations" and it seems clear that there is a significant capability gap between them, in favor of the F-35.

Having said that, several people (apart from the French) claim that the Rafale is still a very capable a/c, with high survivability in the medium/near future:

Reacting to the the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter being unveiled earlier his week, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command, Air Marshal SB Deo, said that it was not a cause for concern and that Rafale aircraft being inducted by India also had stealth features. On a visit to the Ambala air base, Air Marshal Deo said that the Indian government is also seized of the importance of acquiring fighter aircraft with stealth features and this is why the Rafale aircraft being acquired from France has some special stealth features. “The radar cross section of the aircraft is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size. There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage,” he said.


http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... e-3737350/

What the Swiss said about Rafale:

Among the three NFA candidates, the Rafale was the aircraft which demonstrated the best effectiveness and suitability in the accomplishment of all types of Air-to-Air missions, Recce and Strike missions. In addition, the Rafale made the best impression to the pilots.

The strong points of the Rafale were the quality of its sensors such as the PESA Radar, the Frontal Optronics, and the EW suite SPECTRA. The good data fusion of all its sensors allowed to provide to the pilot a very good Situational Awareness. A new concept to display all mission data has been implemented. The Recce Pod demonstrated also outstanding performances. The actual weak point of the Rafale was the lack of Helmet Mounted Sight System. The Rafale has been rated Satisfactory in the accomplishment of all types of Air-to-Air, Recce and Strike missions with some enhancing characteristics in several domains. The Rafale obtained the 1st rank in the evaluation of effectiveness.
...
Among the three NFA candidates, Rafale was the aircraft with the best effectiveness and suitability of a typical Air Policing mission.
......
Among the three NFA candidates, Rafale was the aircraft with the best effectiveness and suitability of typical Defensive Counter Air missions.
.....
Among the three NFA candidates, Rafale was the aircraft with the best effectiveness and suitability for the accomplishment of a typical OCA/AI/DA (Escort) mission.
....
In the Recce domain, the Rafale has been assessed with the best effectiveness.
......
In the Strike domain, the Rafale has been assessed with the best effectiveness.


For the Typhoon they said: "the sensors data fusion and the EW suite performance can be mentioned among the weak points".

It's a pity that the Swiss eval did not include the SH. On the other hand we have the Danish eval which showed that Typhoon and SH were roughly in the same ballpark when it comes to technical capabilities, both with some weak and strong points. And finally in the Indian eval the Typhoon was shortlisted but not the SH. So my guess would be that the Rafale is comparing very well also to the SH.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Rafale still has a lot of growth potential. India has specified some "modifications" that are quite expensive, and word is that it will include significant boosting of the EW capabilities -- the Swiss rated the EW capabilities of the Rafale very high already back in 2008/2009, and if that is boosted even further it should ensure a highly survivable a/c, in spite of not being in the same class as the F-35.

Rafale is currently in competitions in Belgium and Finland. I hope that at least one of those countries will do as the Danes did; publish high-level summaries showing how each fighter scored in various categories. My guess is that several people in this forum will be surprised when they see the Rafale scores and how it compares to not only the Typhoon but also to the SH (assuming such documents are published). I may be wrong of course :)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Mar 2017, 17:21
by botsing
sferrin wrote:Or sloppy code, or bloatware, or more detailed imbedded documentation. . .

I agree that this would be applicable for smartphone apps.

However, for sensor fusion as used in fighter aircraft the software needs to be able to perform near real time data crunching on an n-amount of internal en external data sources, sloppy programming is out of the question here. Bloatware by definition will not exists in this code and we must assume that with lines of code they are talking about the compiled end-product, else counting the lines of 'code' is just meaningless.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2017, 22:38
by armedupdate
How can Rafale even compare? F-35 has 360 vision to guide it's missile. So even if the Rafale is more agile, the F-35 can fire and missiles and turn immediately while guiding it's missiles by looking back. This is a huge kinetmatic advantage. Rafale lacks broadband datalinks, so it's fusion only is for the plane itself, not networks. Meaning the F-35 can draw information from multiple planes, meaning better situational awareness(Better sensor feeds), it can jam better(cooroperative jamming).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 16 Apr 2017, 22:52
by gta4
armedupdate wrote:How can Rafale even compare? F-35 has 360 vision to guide it's missile. So even if the Rafale is more agile, the F-35 can fire and missiles and turn immediately while guiding it's missiles by looking back. This is a huge kinetmatic advantage. Rafale lacks broadband datalinks, so it's fusion only is for the plane itself, not networks. Meaning the F-35 can draw information from multiple planes, meaning better situational awareness(Better sensor feeds), it can jam better(cooroperative jamming).


And I am highly skeptical about Rafale's agility. No canard fighter has high AOA maneuverability (including rafale) and I doubt Rafale could perform a pedal turn that maintains 28deg/sec

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 00:37
by armedupdate
gta4 wrote:And I am highly skeptical about Rafale's agility. No canard fighter has high AOA maneuverability (including rafale) and I doubt Rafale could perform a pedal turn that maintains 28deg/sec

I believe the Rafale is limited to around 32 degrees AOA vs F-35 around 50 degrees.

The Rafale isn't designed to maneuver high AoA like a Super Hornet. Judging by it's size it's at good very sharp turns and rolls.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 00:59
by gta4
armedupdate wrote:
gta4 wrote:And I am highly skeptical about Rafale's agility. No canard fighter has high AOA maneuverability (including rafale) and I doubt Rafale could perform a pedal turn that maintains 28deg/sec

I believe the Rafale is limited to around 32 degrees AOA vs F-35 around 50 degrees.

The Rafale isn't designed to maneuver high AoA like a Super Hornet. Judging by it's size it's at good very sharp turns and rolls.


I am still wondering the true capability of Rafale. Judging by its airshow performance (360deg turn time, 360deg roll time...), it's noting special.

During the MMRCA competition the indian air force put high emphasis on sustained turn rate. They tested all contenders at 5000ft indian hot atmosphere. Typhoon is an example of good sustained turner, which sustained at 16.2deg/sec. F/A-18E is an example of a not so good sustained turner, which sustained at 15deg/sec. There is only 7~8% difference between F/A-18E and Typhoon. Rafale should fall somewhere between F/A-18E and Typhoon.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 03:47
by steve2267
gta4 wrote:During the MMRCA competition the indian air force put high emphasis on sustained turn rate. They tested all contenders at 5000ft indian hot atmosphere. Typhoon is an example of good sustained turner, which sustained at 16.2deg/sec. F/A-18E is an example of a not so good sustained turner, which sustained at 15deg/sec. There is only 7~8% difference between F/A-18E and Typhoon. Rafale should fall somewhere between F/A-18E and Typhoon.


Were those turn rates for clean airframes? If not, how much junk were they specified to be hauling around at the time?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 17 Apr 2017, 15:59
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:Personally I think comparing the Rafale to the F-35 is not really an "apples-to-apples" comparison in the sense that they belong to different "generations" and it seems clear that there is a significant capability gap between them, in favor of the F-35.

Having said that, several people (apart from the French) claim that the Rafale is still a very capable a/c, with high survivability in the medium/near future:

Reacting to the the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter being unveiled earlier his week, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command, Air Marshal SB Deo, said that it was not a cause for concern and that Rafale aircraft being inducted by India also had stealth features. On a visit to the Ambala air base, Air Marshal Deo said that the Indian government is also seized of the importance of acquiring fighter aircraft with stealth features and this is why the Rafale aircraft being acquired from France has some special stealth features. “The radar cross section of the aircraft is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size. There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage,” he said.


http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... e-3737350/

What the Swiss said about Rafale:

Among the three NFA candidates, the Rafale was the aircraft which demonstrated the best effectiveness and suitability in the accomplishment of all types of Air-to-Air missions, Recce and Strike missions. In addition, the Rafale made the best impression to the pilots.

The strong points of the Rafale were the quality of its sensors such as the PESA Radar, the Frontal Optronics, and the EW suite SPECTRA. The good data fusion of all its sensors allowed to provide to the pilot a very good Situational Awareness. A new concept to display all mission data has been implemented. The Recce Pod demonstrated also outstanding performances. The actual weak point of the Rafale was the lack of Helmet Mounted Sight System. The Rafale has been rated Satisfactory in the accomplishment of all types of Air-to-Air, Recce and Strike missions with some enhancing characteristics in several domains. The Rafale obtained the 1st rank in the evaluation of effectiveness.
...
Among the three NFA candidates, Rafale was the aircraft with the best effectiveness and suitability of a typical Air Policing mission.
......
Among the three NFA candidates, Rafale was the aircraft with the best effectiveness and suitability of typical Defensive Counter Air missions.
.....
Among the three NFA candidates, Rafale was the aircraft with the best effectiveness and suitability for the accomplishment of a typical OCA/AI/DA (Escort) mission.
....
In the Recce domain, the Rafale has been assessed with the best effectiveness.
......
In the Strike domain, the Rafale has been assessed with the best effectiveness.


For the Typhoon they said: "the sensors data fusion and the EW suite performance can be mentioned among the weak points".

It's a pity that the Swiss eval did not include the SH. On the other hand we have the Danish eval which showed that Typhoon and SH were roughly in the same ballpark when it comes to technical capabilities, both with some weak and strong points. And finally in the Indian eval the Typhoon was shortlisted but not the SH. So my guess would be that the Rafale is comparing very well also to the SH.

Another thing to keep in mind is that Rafale still has a lot of growth potential. India has specified some "modifications" that are quite expensive, and word is that it will include significant boosting of the EW capabilities -- the Swiss rated the EW capabilities of the Rafale very high already back in 2008/2009, and if that is boosted even further it should ensure a highly survivable a/c, in spite of not being in the same class as the F-35.

Rafale is currently in competitions in Belgium and Finland. I hope that at least one of those countries will do as the Danes did; publish high-level summaries showing how each fighter scored in various categories. My guess is that several people in this forum will be surprised when they see the Rafale scores and how it compares to not only the Typhoon but also to the SH (assuming such documents are published). I may be wrong of course :)


The SH was out early in India because they didn't lie through their teeth about what they could deliver.

DAssault promised them the moon, and then shockingly there were troubles --shockingly.

It's not like boeing are choir boys, there are just US laws that prevent them from selling for less what the US Gov pays. Not to mention mandatory R+D and FMS fees. It was very easy to underbid boeing. You're about to see first hand with Canada how little latitude boeing has with price breaks that the euro competition is not saddled with.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 01:31
by armedupdate
gta4 wrote:I am still wondering the true capability of Rafale. Judging by its airshow performance (360deg turn time, 360deg roll time...), it's noting special.

During the MMRCA competition the indian air force put high emphasis on sustained turn rate. They tested all contenders at 5000ft indian hot atmosphere. Typhoon is an example of good sustained turner, which sustained at 16.2deg/sec. F/A-18E is an example of a not so good sustained turner, which sustained at 15deg/sec. There is only 7~8% difference between F/A-18E and Typhoon. Rafale should fall somewhere between F/A-18E and Typhoon.

I think it isn't just turn rate that's important. The corner speed is also important for faster turns.

I believe Rafale is reported to be more agile than SU-30MKI(which beat the Typhoon in agility), F-16 and F-18.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 478968.cms

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 16:30
by gta4
armedupdate wrote:
gta4 wrote:I am still wondering the true capability of Rafale. Judging by its airshow performance (360deg turn time, 360deg roll time...), it's noting special.

During the MMRCA competition the indian air force put high emphasis on sustained turn rate. They tested all contenders at 5000ft indian hot atmosphere. Typhoon is an example of good sustained turner, which sustained at 16.2deg/sec. F/A-18E is an example of a not so good sustained turner, which sustained at 15deg/sec. There is only 7~8% difference between F/A-18E and Typhoon. Rafale should fall somewhere between F/A-18E and Typhoon.

I think it isn't just turn rate that's important. The corner speed is also important for faster turns.

I believe Rafale is reported to be more agile than SU-30MKI(which beat the Typhoon in agility), F-16 and F-18.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 478968.cms


And I do believe you should check various sources:

1. Only India claims Su30MKI won the dogfight against Typhoon. Typhoon pilots said they outmaneuvered Su30MKI easily:
typhoon vs su30MKI.jpg


And india is elusive about the fact that Typhoon was easy on them earlier to let them get familiar with the airspace. Once the tutorial is done, Typhoon beat the Su30MKI with no mercy:
http://www.forces.net/news/raf/raf-chal ... ash-claims

2. F-18 (with 2 fuel tanks) outmaneuvered Rafale in 2016:
f18 vs rafale.jpg


3. Rafale pilot admitted that they are under powered compared to F-16 in UAE:

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... -2012.html

"One Rafale pilot at Solenzara who has flown in the UAE remarked that one reason they want a more powerful engine is that its pilots are now used to the latest F-16 Block 60, which is essentially a small airframe built around a very big engine, and so find the Rafale underpowered by comparison. "

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 16:41
by gta4
I think it isn't just turn rate that's important. The corner speed is also important for faster turns.


Good point. F-18 has an equivalent corner speed below 150 kts:
(Ordinary jets has poor turn rate below corner speed, but F-18 still has peak turn rate below 150kt)
pirouette.jpg

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 Apr 2017, 23:05
by armedupdate
Super Hornet big AoA assisted manuver only works in lower altitudes however.

I believe when French fought the Super Hornet, they said the Rafale was a more agile fighter in general. F-16 I am not too sure about. Newer F-16 due to higher T/W, can probably win in a vertical/acceleration fight, while Rafale may win a slow speed low altitude battle along with having more instantaneous turn, while the F-16 may sustain turns better. The F-35(A model at least) accelerates just as good as the F-16.

I believe in F-16 has around a sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second, and instantaneous of 26.
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm

F-35 looks like it can pull 25 degrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XeViHEWzLk

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2017, 15:17
by mixelflick
armedupdate wrote:Super Hornet big AoA assisted manuver only works in lower altitudes however.

I believe when French fought the Super Hornet, they said the Rafale was a more agile fighter in general. F-16 I am not too sure about. Newer F-16 due to higher T/W, can probably win in a vertical/acceleration fight, while Rafale may win a slow speed low altitude battle along with having more instantaneous turn, while the F-16 may sustain turns better. The F-35(A model at least) accelerates just as good as the F-16.

I believe in F-16 has around a sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second, and instantaneous of 26.
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm

F-35 looks like it can pull 25 degrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XeViHEWzLk


Mighty impressive around the 2:50 mark. She can turn no doubt, and is probably holding back some given her real capabilities..

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2017, 15:20
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:The SH was out early in India because they didn't lie through their teeth about what they could deliver.

DAssault promised them the moon, and then shockingly there were troubles --shockingly.

It's not like boeing are choir boys, there are just US laws that prevent them from selling for less what the US Gov pays. Not to mention mandatory R+D and FMS fees. It was very easy to underbid boeing. You're about to see first hand with Canada how little latitude boeing has with price breaks that the euro competition is not saddled with.

SH was dropped in India not because of price --they never made it that far.

AFAIK in India 6 a/c were evaluated on technical performance -- 2 were shortlisted on the basis of their technical performance. SH was not one of them.

Had they made it to the second round then most likely they would have won since SH is cheaper than Rafale, I think even the Indians realize that.

Interesting to note that after the cancellation of the MMRCA they still decided to pick the Rafale -- in spite of the high price.

Since the MMRCA was cancelled and they did a gov-to-gov deal instead they could have picked anything; the F-16, the SH, the Typhoon, the Su-30 or Su-35 (which were not even part of the MMRCA). However they decided to go for the Rafale. I may be wrong but I doubt they did it just to be nice to the French after the French had been "lying through their teeth"...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2017, 15:33
by steve2267
mixelflick wrote:
armedupdate wrote:F-35 looks like it can pull 25 degrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XeViHEWzLk


Mighty impressive around the 2:50 mark. She can turn no doubt, and is probably holding back some given her real capabilities..


Unless those were 3F equipped test aircraft, she had at least another 2g available. But it is very likely that F-35 was not flying fast enough (i.e. well below corner speed) to get to 7g. (I am unable to judge from that video the airspeed entering the turn.)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2017, 16:02
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:The SH was out early in India because they didn't lie through their teeth about what they could deliver.

DAssault promised them the moon, and then shockingly there were troubles --shockingly.

It's not like boeing are choir boys, there are just US laws that prevent them from selling for less what the US Gov pays. Not to mention mandatory R+D and FMS fees. It was very easy to underbid boeing. You're about to see first hand with Canada how little latitude boeing has with price breaks that the euro competition is not saddled with.

SH was dropped in India not because of price --they never made it that far.

AFAIK in India 6 a/c were evaluated on technical performance -- 2 were shortlisted on the basis of their technical performance. SH was not one of them.

Had they made it to the second round then most likely they would have won since SH is cheaper than Rafale, I think even the Indians realize that.

Interesting to note that after the cancellation of the MMRCA they still decided to pick the Rafale -- in spite of the high price.


I guess the boeing guys I know who were there were wrong. :roll:

Since the MMRCA was cancelled and they did a gov-to-gov deal instead they could have picked anything; the F-16, the SH, the Typhoon, the Su-30 or Su-35 (which were not even part of the MMRCA). However they decided to go for the Rafale. I may be wrong but I doubt they did it just to be nice to the French after the French had been "lying through their teeth"...]
[/quote]

Yes and MMRCA wasn't cancelled after 2 years of contract hell that failed to go anywhere and the Rafale doubling in costs previously agreed on during the evaluations :roll: obviously something went very wrong. if you think the Indians weren't getting whispers even early on I have some beachfront property in AZ to sell you.

For years Dassault wasn't even an option in Canada and they wouldnt shut up about the things they would give the Canadians.

again I know people who were there, and the French pushed the charm to 9000 level While the Americans basically told them up front what they couldn't do. Where were you during the MMRCA tender?

Its very funny to me that people will concoct all manner of conspiracy theories about how the F-35 wins contracts but in a place famous for its bribery like INDIA, we just assume everything is kosher? That Dassault wasn't giving "opening remarks" about costs and offsets before the official cost evals?

LOL ok. I hope the backdoor dealings and shady promises are the truth, because the alternative is the Indians have the most ridiculous procurement process in the world and thats really saying something, and worse that people believe everything they read on the internet. This isn't key pubs. There are actually people here who do this work for a living. I don't work for Boeing but I know A LOT of people who do going back to the days when it was McDonnell Douglas. I even know one guy who was working for Hughes, before McD bought them

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 19 Apr 2017, 18:36
by gta4
armedupdate wrote:Super Hornet big AoA assisted manuver only works in lower altitudes however.

I believe when French fought the Super Hornet, they said the Rafale was a more agile fighter in general. F-16 I am not too sure about. Newer F-16 due to higher T/W, can probably win in a vertical/acceleration fight, while Rafale may win a slow speed low altitude battle along with having more instantaneous turn, while the F-16 may sustain turns better. The F-35(A model at least) accelerates just as good as the F-16.

I believe in F-16 has around a sustained turn rate of 18 degrees per second, and instantaneous of 26.
http://www.fighter-planes.com/info/f16.htm

F-35 looks like it can pull 25 degrees
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7XeViHEWzLk


Source is important. The only reliable sources are flight test data from fight manual, test reports and technical papers.
Webpages, such as wikipedias, have plenty of wrong data. For instance, wikipedia claims F-16 has a rate of climb of only 254m/sec.

A F-16 can sustain 18deg/sec only when it is heavily loaded.
A F-16 with 60%fuel, 6 amraams and pylons (26000lbs, drag index=50) can sustain 18.5deg/sec:
19261.jpg

26000lb.jpg


A lightly loaded F-16 could outturn almost anyone that flies if you apply the same standard:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510&start=75
I do think we have discussed about this before:
viewtopic.php?f=55&t=52510&start=30
Since you did not rebuttal my uploaded proof, I assume you agreed with me.

What I have proved:

Su-27 at 18920kg flying weight could sustain at 21 deg/sec, and that is about 1800kg total fuel weight.

To achieve similar afterburner duration, a F-15C needs only 1600kg fuel, resulting in 15200kg total flying weight. The corresponding sustained rate of turn is 22.5 deg/sec (converted from 20.5 deg/sec at 37000lb. See flight manual).

To achieve similar afterburner duration, a F-18E needs only 1500kg fuel, resulting in 15792kg total flying weight. The corresponding sustained rate of turn is 21.5 deg/sec (converted from 18 deg/sec at 42100lb. See GAO report). Note that we are using single seater 18E, not 18F. 18F is slightly heavier (32000lb vs 31500lb operation empty weight).

To achieve similar afterburner duration, a F-16C-50 needs only 936kg fuel, resulting in 9675kg total flying weight. The corresponding sustained rate of turn is 22 deg/sec (converted from 21.5 deg/sec at 22000lb. See flight manual). Note that the operating empty weight of F-16C-50 is 19261lb instead of 20000lb, where the latter is an approximated value which could not be used to calculate performance.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 20 Apr 2017, 12:45
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:I guess the boeing guys I know who were there were wrong. :roll:

So according to your sources, what exactly happened in India? SH was short-listed on technical capabilities but lost on cost against the Rafale? Seems strange since 100% of all reports I have seen mentioned only Typhoon and Rafale as being short-listed.

Or are you claiming that all the reports from FlightGlobal, Aviationweek, etc. etc. were wrong and the short-list were not the a/c that met technical critera but the cost criteria? Think logically about this for a moment; the implication would then be that also Eurofighter were "lying through their teeth" since they were short-listed together with the Rafale (which in this scenario would mean the Typhoon was also "cheap") whereas the SH was not.

Or perhaps you misinterpreted what your friends were telling you.

Or perhaps it is just a question of "sour grapes"... (although that concept cannot possibly ever apply to Americans can it).

Don't get me wrong, for sure the MMRCA was a big mess, however I am struggling to reconcile your claims with what has been widely reported.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 14:59
by ricnunes
My "2 cents" about the subject of India's MMRCA is the following:

- I believe it's hardly a news that India traditionally wanted to operate combat aircraft from different sources, namely and specially from Russian (Soviet in the old times) and from European origin. We just need to look at the historical Indian Air Force "list of combat aircraft" to realize this. Historically India operated a wide array of different combat aircraft ranging from aircraft of Soviet/Russian origin like the Mig-21, Mig-27, Mig-29, etc... while at the same time it also operated aircraft from European origin such as the SEPECAT Jaguar, Mirage 2000, etc...
So in my opinion it seems clear that India wants to continue this same trend, where the Su-30Mki was planned to supplant or even replace the older Soviet/Russian origin combat aircraft while also in my opinion the MMRCA was intended to do the same but regarding older European origin combat aircraft.
As such and if I'm not mistaken with this reasoning of mine I would say that only three (3) of the 6 (six) MMRCA initial candidates had any chance of wining - Eurofighter Typhoon, Rafale and Gripen since they were the "only" European fighter aircraft competing in the MMRCA program.
Also since the eliminating factor was "capability" there's absolutely no surprise (to me at least) that the two finalists ended up being the Eurofighter Typhoon and Rafale.
And it's also because of this "reasoning" that I believe that India ended up buying the Rafale despite all the "disaster" that this MMRCA program ended up being.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 21 Apr 2017, 15:45
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:So according to your sources, what exactly happened in India? SH was short-listed on technical capabilities but lost on cost against the Rafale? Seems strange since 100% of all reports I have seen mentioned only Typhoon and Rafale as being short-listed.


it basically went exactly as I said. Pay attention. Rafale from the START went in promising the moon. If you think that doesn't have influence and "set the bar" especially knowing the "Make in india" rule, I don't know what to tell you. Other than maybe.

Brace yourself


What officially happens and what actually happens can be 2 very different things

Or are you claiming that all the reports from FlightGlobal, Aviationweek, etc. etc. were wrong and the short-list were not the a/c that met technical critera but the cost criteria?


Perish the thought! Avaition week and Flight global wrong!?

Sweetie I'm implying that the Indians put out "feelers" before the official reports and made it clear to Boeing they didn't stand a chance if they didn't sweeten the deal like Dassault had done. Boeing also not being stupid had the 3 or 4 things that were the big (and factual) selling points for their aircraft and then stood back in awe of the audicity of Dassault as they listed feature after feature from building to cost that were to prove over the next 2 years to be UTTERLY FALSE. Dassault came on hard early, and forced the competitors to try and match them. Boeing basically said "we can't match that, nice seeing you" and didn't play along

Sorry that wasn't in Aviation week. You do realize this isn't investigative reportering right? like they just re-report what has been officially said? India tells them they are going to buy a flock of sea gulls for fleet defense, and aviation week will simply repeat what they are told for suckers right?

This isn't woodward and Bernstein. They write content to sell Advertising. Avaition week without reporters who are willing to get into the nitty gritty dont report how the sausage gets made, but simply that sausage is being made and here are the flavors. Theyre basically Buzzfeed, and very few people especially with Sweetman poisoning their objectivity, take them very seriously anymore. 15 years ago yes. Now? its Buzzfeed.

So "wrong"? Not wrong, just VERY superficial reporting. It was hardly the whole story. You're welcome to post articles from the time. I remember them being extremely basic. People have written whole books on procurements and aviation week writes 250 words here and there and you think it's the whole story. SMH

Think logically about this for a moment; the implication would then be that also Eurofighter were "lying through their teeth" since they were short-listed together with the Rafale (which in this scenario would mean the Typhoon was also "cheap") whereas the SH was not.


swing and a miss champ.

Or perhaps you misinterpreted what your friends were telling you.


Don't think so as we talked about it several times and from other sources as well.

Or perhaps it is just a question of "sour grapes"... (although that concept cannot possibly ever apply to Americans can it).


Thank god you brought nationalism into it. :roll:

They weren't "sour" at all being out early and seeing what Dassault was promising they were excited to see the train wreck and they were not disappointed.

Theyve been in the business long enough to see what was happening. Rafale went in lets just say "Heavily favored" thanks to all the tall tales they had spun.

Enjoy your interpretation of things without you being there at all... have you considered a job with Aviation week? They love people who do little research, make implications, and don't bother to speak with people who are involved in the actual story.

Don't get me wrong, for sure the MMRCA was a big mess, however I am struggling to reconcile your claims with what has been widely reported.


Youre right. These reporters are always accurate. There are no gray zones, they were behind all the closed doors and on the inside, and reporters never ever simply qoute other reporters without doing their own research until they have effectively parroted one another into obvlivion.

Another issue that went widely unreported was the Indians were very happy with the Mirage 2000, and this again favored assault early. Amazingly this was missed by reporters.

I really don't understand why you don't understand to be honest. This is pretty simple isn't it? Are my claims that outlandish? But but but it wasn't in aviation week! You're joking right? After F-35 I'm happy if they get 10 percent of the story correct, and that's the good version. The bad version is sweetman who basically attacked it with malicious bias to the point he was suspended and had his fellow reporters apologizing for him. I also read about Aurora for years... turned out to be totally false

Sit down for this, because it might shock you. What I am saying is that Boeing was out early because even aside from what official reports were done, what we can call "straw polls" were done with probing and questions from those concerned about who could do what.

Clearly the entire thing was rather farcical given what transpired for years after the MMRCA was awarded to Dassault. Thats where all of Dassaults unofficial hype had to suddenly become official and thats where the YEARS of contract issues "suddenly" cropped up.

Again Loke, you weren't there. Do you know anyone who was? Because I do. And you don't know $hit. Back to reading ave week, rookie. Surely those of us in the business don't know what the "journalists" and Internet denizens who buy their BS hook line and sinker do.

Tell us more, and make sure to mention "Americans" again. Once again you reading into things with ZERO context. You are now trying to imply my friends' moods when they told me this?

If you just want to talk about "official" stuff we can do that, but its a short thread, and only some of the truth. You want real life, real world, real grit, that stuff rarely gets reported, and thats the stuff worth talking about. Whats the point of these forums if you cant share experiences and anecdotes?

Back to carrying Internet reporter's water for you

I like to think I have a pretty good reputation on this forum, and I like to think when I say something and give some inside info that again (Perish the thought!) was not reported by the standard rags, that I have some credibility. If you don't want to believe me fine, but don't imply things like "sour grapes" and don't bring nationalism into. This isn't Key pubs, and I want to keep it that way. IF it (meaning the spoken truth) is too much for you please, stay there and let the adults carry on here

:wink:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2017, 10:23
by loke
XanderCrews wrote:Sweetie I'm implying that the Indians put out "feelers" before the official reports and made it clear to Boeing they didn't stand a chance if they didn't sweeten the deal like Dassault had done. Boeing also not being stupid had the 3 or 4 things that were the big (and factual) selling points for their aircraft and then stood back in awe of the audicity of Dassault as they listed feature after feature from building to cost that were to prove over the next 2 years to be UTTERLY FALSE. Dassault came on hard early, and forced the competitors to try and match them. Boeing basically said "we can't match that, nice seeing you" and didn't play along

OK I think I get what you mean.

Another issue that went widely unreported was the Indians were very happy with the Mirage 2000, and this again favored assault early. Amazingly this was missed by reporters.

Actually this is not entirely correct -- some reporters did mention this.


Sit down for this, because it might shock you. What I am saying is that Boeing was out early because even aside from what official reports were done, what we can call "straw polls" were done with probing and questions from those concerned about who could do what.

I am not sure if I understand this part..? Are you referring to things like tech transfer? Or something else?

Clearly the entire thing was rather farcical given what transpired for years after the MMRCA was awarded to Dassault. Thats where all of Dassaults unofficial hype had to suddenly become official and thats where the YEARS of contract issues "suddenly" cropped up.


A thing that I find very strange is that, even after cancelling the MMRCA and going for a gov-to-gov deal they still went for Rafale. There was a new government at that time so it could have been an opportunity to go for another a/c alltogether and blame the MMRCA failure on the previous government (which they did in any case). Since cost seemed to be a major issue the F-16 block 70 or SH may have been relevant choices, but still they went for 36 Rafale, at a very high cost, and none of them built in India, so "made in Inda" could not be used as an argument.

They must have had some pretty strong reasons for sticking to the Rafale after the MMRCA cancellation.

Another thing that is also a bit strange is that Boeing has not made any fuss around the situation in MMRCA (AFAIK); whereas in Denmark they sued the Danes after they chose the F-35 -- they have also quit the competition in Belgium in a very public manner, complaining that it is not a "level playing field". It seems a bit odd that they take such actions when competing against the F-35 which is cleary superior to the SH (and also have the "NATO commonality" advantage) whereas in India where they have the advantage of lower cost compared to the Rafale, prefer to remain mum.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2017, 17:21
by talkitron
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Another thing that is also a bit strange is that Boeing has not made any fuss around the situation in MMRCA (AFAIK); whereas in Denmark they sued the Danes after they chose the F-35 -- they have also quit the competition in Belgium in a very public manner, complaining that it is not a "level playing field". It seems a bit odd that they take such actions when competing against the F-35 which is cleary superior to the SH (and also have the "NATO commonality" advantage) whereas in India where they have the advantage of lower cost compared to the Rafale, prefer to remain mum.


Belgium and Denmark are likely more into accountability in procurement than India and so such a public strategy might work better in certain European countries than in India. Also, I would suspect the bulk of Boeing's business on the Super Hornet going forward will still be the US Navy so there is a domestic audience for arguments that the Super Hornet is relevant in a world with the Lighting II.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 24 Apr 2017, 19:40
by loke
talkitron wrote:
loke wrote:Belgium and Denmark are likely more into accountability in procurement than India and so such a public strategy might work better in certain European countries than in India. Also, I would suspect the bulk of Boeing's business on the Super Hornet going forward will still be the US Navy so there is a domestic audience for arguments that the Super Hornet is relevant in a world with the Lighting II.

This does not make much sense to me -- perhaps they are "more into accountability in procurement than India" but I don't see how that can change anything in either Belgium or Denmark -- Boieng lost in D, no way that an F-35 partner country (well apart from those crazy Canadians) will consider the SH over the F-35, that makes no sense whatsoever.

As for Belgium; since Boeing withdre voluntarily it's not like "more accountability in procurement" will help them at all in a competition they do not participate in...

Perhaps the reason why they did not make more noises in India is because they knew that although the French played a dirty game the Rafale is after all a pretty good package and that it would be a challenge to bring the SH to the same level?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2017, 17:31
by ricnunes
I believe that what talkitron said about "Belgium and Denmark are likely more into accountability in procurement than India" and putting it in plain English is that:
- Belgium and Denmark are less corrupt than India! (like it or not, that's a fact like the sky is blue or the water is wet)
and thus any company is more likely to successfully counter a "rigged" decision in Belgium or Denmark compared to India.

And again due to the reasons that I mention in my last post here in this thread, I believe that the MMRCA decision was more than rigged to either the Rafale or the Typhoon or both. And since the Rafale is reportedly a bit cheaper than Typhoon and with apparently better multi-role, specially air-to-ground capabilities and finally the Indian Air Force already operates the Mirage 2000 then it's no surprise that India choose the Rafale (over the Typhoon).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Apr 2017, 22:01
by loke
ricnunes wrote:I believe that what talkitron said about "Belgium and Denmark are likely more into accountability in procurement than India" and putting it in plain English is that:
- Belgium and Denmark are less corrupt than India! (like it or not, that's a fact like the sky is blue or the water is wet)
and thus any company is more likely to successfully counter a "rigged" decision in Belgium or Denmark compared to India.

Wrong;

1. Indian defence procurement used to be corrupt, but not anymore (believe it or not); they have very strict anti-corruption laws in India these days. Google India Bofors Scandal, and read on from there.
2. I don't know about Denmark but Belgium for sure has a long history of being very corrupt, in particular in the defence field. I am not at all convinced they have cleaned up like they did in India (I may be wrong).
3. Did you read my post at all? Can you please explain to me how suing Denmark (a F-35 partner nation) will overturn their decision and switch to SH? That's definitely not why they are suing... Can you also explain how withdrawing from the competition in Belgium can help Boeing win that competition? To put it in plain English: withdrawing from a competition means than one leaves the competion; one says "I don't want to play along anymore". Do you really think that this will make Belgium say "oh, we are so sorry, we made a mistake, please come back?"

I do have a few bridges to sell you.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2017, 12:02
by ricnunes
loke wrote:Wrong;

1. Indian defence procurement used to be corrupt, but not anymore (believe it or not); they have very strict anti-corruption laws in India these days. Google India Bofors Scandal, and read on from there.


Don't confuse personal believes with facts!

And just because ONE corruption scandal got public it doesn't mean that no more corruption scandals occur in India. Actually in a corrupt riddled country such as India it sure won't be a single case (albeit big/huge) gone public that will solve your corruption problems. But if you want to be naïve and continue to believe in this, you could as well believe in Santa Claus...

loke wrote:2. I don't know about Denmark but Belgium for sure has a long history of being very corrupt, in particular in the defence field. I am not at all convinced they have cleaned up like they did in India (I may be wrong).


LOL, that one got my rolling on the ground laughing :doh:

Do you know that Denmark is actually the LESS corrupt country in the entire world according to the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2016??
And that in the same index, Belgium was placed in 15th??

And you know where your India (I'm assuming you're from India, or am I wrong?) is placed in the same index?? In 70th!!

Here, amuse yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruptio ... ions_Index

So not even in your wet dream Denmark and Belgium have half of India's corruption (even in defence) let alone being more corrupt!


loke wrote:3. Did you read my post at all? Can you please explain to me how suing Denmark (a F-35 partner nation) will overturn their decision and switch to SH? That's definitely not why they are suing... Can you also explain how withdrawing from the competition in Belgium can help Boeing win that competition? To put it in plain English: withdrawing from a competition means than one leaves the competion; one says "I don't want to play along anymore". Do you really think that this will make Belgium say "oh, we are so sorry, we made a mistake, please come back?"


Yes, I read. About your questions:
Boeing has ZERO chances to "overturn" Denmark's decision and Boeing knows it!
In my opinion the reason why Boeing sued Denmark is related to Canada - it was a publicity stunt aimed at Canada to capitalize the (idiotic) notion that many Canadians have that most of the countries that bought the F-35 did it because of US government and LM pressures. Apparently this somehow worked since no long after this (Boeing suing Denmark), Canada went ahead with the intent to purchase 18 "interim" Super Hornets.
The fact the Boeing withdrew from the Belgium competition can be justified by the following:
1- The requirements that Belgium placed for its future fighter clearly places the F-35 at a much bigger advantage compared to the Super Hornet so Boeing feels (and rightly so) that it simply doesn't have a chance winning that contest and it doesn't want to go the same route as Denmark when its product (Super Hornet) was clearly shown and proven to be inferior to the F-35.
2- Also related to 1-, Boeing only has only one potential western costumer which is Canada (which is also a JSF member) so losing an another competition in a western/allied country would only cripple the potential Canadian Super Hornet purchase - I'm sure that at some point many Canadians would wonder why NO other western country purchased the Super Hornet specially after and if the Super Hornet lose the Belgium competition.


loke wrote:I do have a few bridges to sell you.


And I also have lots of common sense to sell you.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 Apr 2017, 21:42
by loke
ricnunes wrote:
loke wrote:Wrong;

1. Indian defence procurement used to be corrupt, but not anymore (believe it or not); they have very strict anti-corruption laws in India these days. Google India Bofors Scandal, and read on from there.


Don't confuse personal believes with facts!

And just because ONE corruption scandal got public it doesn't mean that no more corruption scandals occur in India. Actually in a corrupt riddled country such as India it sure won't be a single case (albeit big/huge) gone public that will solve your corruption problems. But if you want to be naïve and continue to believe in this, you could as well believe in Santa Claus...

loke wrote:2. I don't know about Denmark but Belgium for sure has a long history of being very corrupt, in particular in the defence field. I am not at all convinced they have cleaned up like they did in India (I may be wrong).


LOL, that one got my rolling on the ground laughing :doh:

Do you know that Denmark is actually the LESS corrupt country in the entire world according to the Corruption Perceptions Index in 2016??
And that in the same index, Belgium was placed in 15th??

And you know where your India (I'm assuming you're from India, or am I wrong?) is placed in the same index?? In 70th!!

Here, amuse yourself:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruptio ... ions_Index

So not even in your wet dream Denmark and Belgium have half of India's corruption (even in defence) let alone being more corrupt!


loke wrote:3. Did you read my post at all? Can you please explain to me how suing Denmark (a F-35 partner nation) will overturn their decision and switch to SH? That's definitely not why they are suing... Can you also explain how withdrawing from the competition in Belgium can help Boeing win that competition? To put it in plain English: withdrawing from a competition means than one leaves the competion; one says "I don't want to play along anymore". Do you really think that this will make Belgium say "oh, we are so sorry, we made a mistake, please come back?"


Yes, I read. About your questions:
Boeing has ZERO chances to "overturn" Denmark's decision and Boeing knows it!
In my opinion the reason why Boeing sued Denmark is related to Canada - it was a publicity stunt aimed at Canada to capitalize the (idiotic) notion that many Canadians have that most of the countries that bought the F-35 did it because of US government and LM pressures. Apparently this somehow worked since no long after this (Boeing suing Denmark), Canada went ahead with the intent to purchase 18 "interim" Super Hornets.
The fact the Boeing withdrew from the Belgium competition can be justified by the following:
1- The requirements that Belgium placed for its future fighter clearly places the F-35 at a much bigger advantage compared to the Super Hornet so Boeing feels (and rightly so) that it simply doesn't have a chance winning that contest and it doesn't want to go the same route as Denmark when its product (Super Hornet) was clearly shown and proven to be inferior to the F-35.
2- Also related to 1-, Boeing only has only one potential western costumer which is Canada (which is also a JSF member) so losing an another competition in a western/allied country would only cripple the potential Canadian Super Hornet purchase - I'm sure that at some point many Canadians would wonder why NO other western country purchased the Super Hornet specially after and if the Super Hornet lose the Belgium competition.

Facts? And then you refer to a "perception index"? That was almost funny. No doubt India is in general a very corrupt place however here we are talking specifically about corruption related to large defence procurement deals. Believe it or not, India has actually managed to reduce that significantly (but not necessarily in other parts of society, which is what your "perception index" is reflecting).

I happen to know Belgium quite well, and it is more corrupt than many people are led to believe.

I do not understand why you accuse me of talking up corruption in Denmark since I specifically stated that I did not know much about it.

I asked a rethorical question and you answered it... oh well. However your answer does not really mesh up with what you stated in previous posts. It seems to me that you are struggling a bit with constructing a logical chain of thought. You did not manage to connect the (perceived) low level of corruption in Belgium and Denmark with Boeings actions in those countries.

And do you really believe Canada decided to go for F-18 because B sued Denmark?? Read up a bit on Canadian politics instead; you find the answer there.

I think I leave it at that.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 Apr 2017, 14:10
by ricnunes
loke wrote:Believe it or not, India has actually managed to reduce that significantly (but not necessarily in other parts of society, which is what your "perception index" is reflecting).


No, I do not believe.
My experience tells me that in extremely corrupt countries which India is definitely the case, corruption affects all sectors (namely public) and certainly a sector such as defence which moves Billions of dollars (specially in India) is certainly NOT immune to corruption. Resuming saying that India solved it's corruption problems in the defence sector is being naïve at best!


loke wrote:I happen to know Belgium quite well, and it is more corrupt than many people are led to believe.


All countries in the world have corruption, some less, others more and India is more corrupt than Belgium and there's no other way around.


loke wrote:I do not understand why you accuse me of talking up corruption in Denmark since I specifically stated that I did not know much about it.


I put Denmark because it's considered the LEAST corrupt country in the world and then I post Belgium which you claim to be "extremely corrupt". I went on to say that in terms of being less corrupt Belgium is in the 15th place which is not far from the 1st place occupied by Denmark (which you briefly mentioned) which means that this FULLY CONTRADICTS what you claim about Belgium and its corruption levels!


loke wrote:I asked a rethorical question and you answered it... oh well. However your answer does not really mesh up with what you stated in previous posts. It seems to me that you are struggling a bit with constructing a logical chain of thought. You did not manage to connect the (perceived) low level of corruption in Belgium and Denmark with Boeings actions in those countries.


You provided an opinion (thru rethorical question) and I disagree with your opinion, simple as that!

No, I did manage to "connect the (perceived) low level of corruption in Belgium and Denmark with Boeings actions in those countries." now that you didn't understand my reasoning, that's your problem :wink:

About why Boeing left the Belgium competition you just need to have some knowledge about the Super Hornet capabilities and READ the Belgium new fighter requirements (you'll find the document here in f-16.net) and it's not hard to understand why Boeing left the competition - The Super Hornet doesn't have a chance (specially when compared to the F-35) to be able to perform many of the Belgium competition requirements.


loke wrote:And do you really believe Canada decided to go for F-18 because B sued Denmark?? Read up a bit on Canadian politics instead; you find the answer there.


No and I didn't say that!
Now what I REALLY SAID was that Boeing suing Denmark helped a good part of the PUBLIC OPPINION is CANADA to "support" or favour Boeing and the Super Hornet (and against the F-35). This is a clear perception when talking with many Canadians (By the way, I'm also Canadian).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2017, 04:39
by gta4
armedupdate wrote:I believe when French fought the Super Hornet, they said the Rafale was a more agile fighter in general.

Yes, French pilots claims Rafale to be more agile, while USN pilots claims the contrary. Which do you believe in?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 May 2017, 07:16
by hornetfinn
gta4 wrote:
armedupdate wrote:I believe when French fought the Super Hornet, they said the Rafale was a more agile fighter in general.

Yes, French pilots claims Rafale to be more agile, while USN pilots claims the contrary. Which do you believe in?


Maybe it's the definition of "agile"? SH defnitely has better high AoA capability and slow speed maneuvering. Rafale has higher T/W ratio and G rating, basically making it roughly similar to F-16 Block 50 in flight performance.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 May 2017, 10:25
by halloweene
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:Sweetie I'm implying that the Indians put out "feelers" before the official reports and made it clear to Boeing they didn't stand a chance if they didn't sweeten the deal like Dassault had done. Boeing also not being stupid had the 3 or 4 things that were the big (and factual) selling points for their aircraft and then stood back in awe of the audicity of Dassault as they listed feature after feature from building to cost that were to prove over the next 2 years to be UTTERLY FALSE. Dassault came on hard early, and forced the competitors to try and match them. Boeing basically said "we can't match that, nice seeing you" and didn't play along

OK I think I get what you mean.

Another issue that went widely unreported was the Indians were very happy with the Mirage 2000, and this again favored assault early. Amazingly this was missed by reporters.

Actually this is not entirely correct -- some reporters did mention this.

Actually, they did ask for explanations (aswell as LM did), had them and then declared they were statisfied.
Sit down for this, because it might shock you. What I am saying is that Boeing was out early because even aside from what official reports were done, what we can call "straw polls" were done with probing and questions from those concerned about who could do what.

I am not sure if I understand this part..? Are you referring to things like tech transfer? Or something else?

Clearly the entire thing was rather farcical given what transpired for years after the MMRCA was awarded to Dassault. Thats where all of Dassaults unofficial hype had to suddenly become official and thats where the YEARS of contract issues "suddenly" cropped up.


A thing that I find very strange is that, even after cancelling the MMRCA and going for a gov-to-gov deal they still went for Rafale. There was a new government at that time so it could have been an opportunity to go for another a/c alltogether and blame the MMRCA failure on the previous government (which they did in any case). Since cost seemed to be a major issue the F-16 block 70 or SH may have been relevant choices, but still they went for 36 Rafale, at a very high cost, and none of them built in India, so "made in Inda" could not be used as an argument.

They must have had some pretty strong reasons for sticking to the Rafale after the MMRCA cancellation.

Another thing that is also a bit strange is that Boeing has not made any fuss around the situation in MMRCA (AFAIK); whereas in Denmark they sued the Danes after they chose the F-35 -- they have also quit the competition in Belgium in a very public manner, complaining that it is not a "level playing field". It seems a bit odd that they take such actions when competing against the F-35 which is cleary superior to the SH (and also have the "NATO commonality" advantage) whereas in India where they have the advantage of lower cost compared to the Rafale, prefer to remain mum.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 May 2017, 23:04
by halloweene
gta4 wrote:
armedupdate wrote:I believe when French fought the Super Hornet, they said the Rafale was a more agile fighter in general.

Yes, French pilots claims Rafale to be more agile, while USN pilots claims the contrary. Which do you believe in?


Find me one USA pilot claiming that please ;)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 15:27
by mixelflick
I would be surprised if you couldn't find just 1 SH pilot not claiming his mount was more agile. Not because of any great superiority in this area, but if nothing else bias in what they currently fly.

I've heard Rafale pilots saying things to the effect of "SH pilots don't want to fly against Rafale/Meteor" or whatever air to air equivalent weapon they use. Whatever the case, it's close - real close as to the real capabilities of both. What's shocking (to me) is that the Rafale was designed almost a full generation ahead of the basic Hornet lineage...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 21:28
by gc
halloweene wrote:
gta4 wrote:
armedupdate wrote:I believe when French fought the Super Hornet, they said the Rafale was a more agile fighter in general.

Yes, French pilots claims Rafale to be more agile, while USN pilots claims the contrary. Which do you believe in?


Find me one USA pilot claiming that please ;)


From the VFA-131 2016 cruise video. Not sure why the video was taken down. Maybe due to protests from the French? Its all down to pilot skill after all.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 22:24
by spazsinbad
About 11min 52 seconds in for five seconds the shootdown seen:


Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 22:47
by neurotech
VFA-131 Wildcats still flies the F-18C not the Super Hornet, and were actually the first Navy F/A-18 squadron in the Atlantic Fleet when they were stood up in 1983 and moved east in 1985.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 23:07
by halloweene
Nice video. However, i do not doubt there's been Rafale in F-18 huds.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 14 May 2017, 23:12
by quicksilver
Once upon a time, it would have been kinda cheesy to post a few frames of HUD video that didn't necesssarily convey the reality of the overall engagement.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 18 May 2017, 10:49
by halloweene
Btw,... About the "active cancellation", here are some recent SAAB claims...
The Gripen E's new EW system uses three types of signal generators to obscure the existence of the aircraft or cause confusion about its location and/or existence so that an adversary cannot choose a proper firing solution. The three types of signal generators are Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM), Doppler, and Noise. DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


Well let's call it active stealth? (note, i do not think it is a magic bullet, but maybe can be used in order to break kill chain at a point or another so as to force attacker to restart it?

http://www.janes.com/article/70320/grip ... capability

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 15:29
by loke
halloweene wrote:Btw,... About the "active cancellation", here are some recent SAAB claims...
The Gripen E's new EW system uses three types of signal generators to obscure the existence of the aircraft or cause confusion about its location and/or existence so that an adversary cannot choose a proper firing solution. The three types of signal generators are Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM), Doppler, and Noise. DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


Well let's call it active stealth? (note, i do not think it is a magic bullet, but maybe can be used in order to break kill chain at a point or another so as to force attacker to restart it?

http://www.janes.com/article/70320/grip ... capability

The Swedes seem to be very confident in the EW capabilities of both the current Gripen C/D and the future E.

It is difficult for people from the outside to tell -- in an execersise with e.g. Norway or Finland it is highly unlikely that they would show off all their tricks. So even people like superhornet probably don't know the real EW capabilities of the Gripen.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 16:09
by halloweene
We will not know easily... But there is adoubt. Maybe not as impossible as we were told.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 18:54
by blindpilot
halloweene wrote:We will not know easily... But there is adoubt. Maybe not as impossible as we were told.


We are not going to be able to look into the classified world of EW on a forum like this. But we can get some insight by watching what countries actually do. Other than US (and perhaps Russian/Chinese etc. efforts to some extent), the Israeli's are generally considered masters of EW .... and let's see ...

They bought 50 Gripens! .... oh Wait!!! ... that didn't happen!! ... then maybe it was Rafales! .. or was it SH's or ..

.. hmmm... it was 50 F-35s ... wonder what that means? ... ponder ... not having classified data and all ...

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 19:13
by playloud
blindpilot wrote:
halloweene wrote:We will not know easily... But there is adoubt. Maybe not as impossible as we were told.


We are not going to be able to look into the classified world of EW on a forum like this. But we can get some insight by watching what countries actually do. Other than US (and perhaps Russian/Chinese etc. efforts to some extent), the Israeli's are generally considered masters of EW .... and let's see ...

They bought 50 Gripens! .... oh Wait!!! ... that didn't happen!! ... then maybe it was Rafales! .. or was it SH's or ..

.. hmmm... it was 50 F-35s ... wonder what that means? ... ponder ... not having classified data and all ...

MHO
BP

Unfortunately, since Israel pays for their equipment with US money, there may have been other reasons to go with the F-35. Also, the Gripen has to choose between range and payload.
I don't think we can really compare EW based on their decision.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 22 May 2017, 19:26
by blindpilot
playloud wrote: ...
Unfortunately, since Israel pays for their equipment with US money, there may have been other reasons to go with the F-35. Also, the Gripen has to choose between range and payload.
I don't think we can really compare EW based on their decision.

<sarc on>
Yep, of all the countries in the world, Israel is the one that addresses defense needs for political reasons. They have no reason to care about actual capabilities in combat ...
<sarc OFF>

Cash is fungible. You can move US $$ under other projects and free up funds for non-US purchases. Israel does it all the time. They don't seem to have many M1A2 Abrams tanks ...

Just saying,
BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 01:13
by spazsinbad
HOPE FLOATS or SPRINGS ETERNAL:
Dassault Eyes Swiss Fighter Contract (Again)
23 May 2017 Angus Batey

"...In May 2014, Swiss voters rejected their defense ministry's 2008 decision to replace the Swiss Air Force's Northrop F-5 Tiger fighters with Saab Gripen jets. Last year, the Swiss defense minister confirmed that the process will be restarted, but will also include replacement of the country's Boeing F/A-18s, due out of service in 2025. Although an official announcement of the re-start has yet to be made, Dassault opened an office in Bern in February.

The business package bidders assemble will be as vital as aircraft performance. In the original competition, each bidder was expected to include work for Swiss industry of at least $2.2bn. Dassault told the Aargauer Zeitung newspaper in February that Swiss industry could be involved in "all parts of the program: production, assembly, maintenance, logistics, further development.""

Source: http://aviationweek.com/ebace-2017/dass ... ract-again

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 03:56
by mrigdon
blindpilot wrote:
Cash is fungible. You can move US $$ under other projects and free up funds for non-US purchases. Israel does it all the time. They don't seem to have many M1A2 Abrams tanks ...

Just saying,
BP


The Israeli Merkava is a homegrown design (basically it came about because no one would sell them tanks), so it's not exactly a prime example.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 05:48
by lbk000
i think the ones that act dumb are the ones you have to watch out for. the us doesn't exactly toot loudly when it comes to the really interesting stuff, the blu-114 comes to my mind.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 06:36
by linkomart
halloweene wrote:Btw,... About the "active cancellation", here are some recent SAAB claims...
The Gripen E's new EW system uses three types of signal generators to obscure the existence of the aircraft or cause confusion about its location and/or existence so that an adversary cannot choose a proper firing solution. The three types of signal generators are Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM), Doppler, and Noise. DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


Well let's call it active stealth? (note, i do not think it is a magic bullet, but maybe can be used in order to break kill chain at a point or another so as to force attacker to restart it?

http://www.janes.com/article/70320/grip ... capability


DRFM, Doppler (I Think it's called doppler shift, but I'm not an expert) and noise. Is not active stealth, it's just classic jamming and spoofing.
Not sure why Gripen is in the Rafale vs F-35 thread, so back on topic, the sprectra system is one of the systems on the Rafale that we have the least information about, for good reasons.
It has good integration capabilities, and covers a large bandwith. Don't know much about the F-35 in the em-band but at least in the optical band it is probably a lot better.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 09:09
by hornetfinn
halloweene wrote:Btw,... About the "active cancellation", here are some recent SAAB claims...
The Gripen E's new EW system uses three types of signal generators to obscure the existence of the aircraft or cause confusion about its location and/or existence so that an adversary cannot choose a proper firing solution. The three types of signal generators are Digital Radio Frequency Memory (DRFM), Doppler, and Noise. DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


Well let's call it active stealth? (note, i do not think it is a magic bullet, but maybe can be used in order to break kill chain at a point or another so as to force attacker to restart it?

http://www.janes.com/article/70320/grip ... capability


LOL, that's pretty wild over-simplification of DRFM technology. It's not like DRFM can make a target to disapper from radar, it just creates false target(s) with similar properties (for radar) to real target. Against some radars which track only one target at a time, it might make the real target to disappear as the radar tracks a false target. However most modern radars can track large number of targets and thus can definitely see the real target and false targets. DRFM jammer can't make the radar returns from real target to disappear and it can't alter them. It can only generate additional signals to confuse the radar with false targets.

DRFM requires that enemy signal is detected, analyzed and fully reproduced and then modified to send a signal that is very similar to radar returns from the aircraft itself, but with modifications to make it look like false target is in different distance than the real target. It works very well, but can also be pretty readily countered with modern agile radars which can change their radar signals very quickly and randomly. Sensor fusion is another one which can pretty easily counter the effects.

Of course it's much easier to do all kinds of jamming, including DRFM when aircraft itself has very low RCS. Low RCS lowers the distance where jamming is needed and power that is needed for jamming. This cuts the number of simultaneous enemy radars that need to be served and also less power is needed for each radar.

While that link is for Gripen, Rafale also has DRFM jammer just like most other modern fighters:
https://www.thalesgroup.com/en/content/ ... d-rafale-0

Of course F-35 most definitely has DRFM techniques:
https://www.f35.com/about/capabilities/ ... nicwarfare

"False targets" basically means DRFM is used.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 09:43
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:Btw,... About the "active cancellation", here are some recent SAAB claims...


That's exactly the problem! Saab CLAIMS many things and most of the things that Saab claims end up being false (I would even say "propaganda"), like for example:
- Saab claimed that the Gripen E would weight 1000kg (or 1 ton) less than it ended up weighting.
- Saab claimed that the Gripen E would have 40% increase in range. That also seems to be false since what Saab did was to increase in 40% the internal fuel loadout by adding extra internal fuel tanks into what was previously the landing gear pit, and suddenly they would expect and automatic 40% range increase - So, for Saab the weight of those extra internal fuel tanks don't count?? Or even the extra fuel doesn't have any weight?? :roll:
- Saab claimed the Gripen E would be cheap, LoL! The Gripen E is anything but cheap. It's probably more expensive or at best just as expensive as a F-35! Yes, you "heard it", likely more expensive than a F-35!
- And so on...

What puzzles me is that when Lockheed Martin claims things and later proves to be right most people seem to jump out and say: This is conspiracy or something along these lines.
But when Saab claims one thing but is later proven to be wrong (which is almost always the case) most of these same people still continue to believe in Saab's BS! You know, like that "Active Stealth" nonsense! :doh:


halloweene wrote:Well let's call it active stealth?


NOPE! And others already explained you why.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 13:23
by linkomart
ricnunes wrote:
What puzzles me is that when Lockheed Martin claims things and later proves to be right most people seem to jump out and say: This is conspiracy or something along these lines.
But when Saab claims one thing but is later proven to be wrong (which is almost always the case) most of these same people still continue to believe in Saab's BS! You know, like that "Active Stealth" nonsense! :doh:



Saab has, to my knowledge, never said that Gripen have active stealth. It has a good EW system, and that's all I'll say about that. Active stealth was a claim, or a misinterpretation, from a commenter here.

On the other hand: (Witch this thread really should be about)
Some people claims that the spectra system involves "Active cancellation technique" witch can be interpreted as active stealth, and there have been some funding from DGA for studying that. I've even seen a presentation about how it could work, but.... atleast I don't believe it has got active stealth, it is probably too complex.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 13:34
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:LOL, that's pretty wild over-simplification of DRFM technology. It's not like DRFM can make a target to disapper from radar, it just creates false target(s) with similar properties (for radar) to real target. Against some radars which track only one target at a time, it might make the real target to disappear as the radar tracks a false target. However most modern radars can track large number of targets and thus can definitely see the real target and false targets. DRFM jammer can't make the radar returns from real target to disappear and it can't alter them. It can only generate additional signals to confuse the radar with false targets.

DRFM requires that enemy signal is detected, analyzed and fully reproduced and then modified to send a signal that is very similar to radar returns from the aircraft itself, but with modifications to make it look like false target is in different distance than the real target. It works very well, but can also be pretty readily countered with modern agile radars which can change their radar signals very quickly and randomly. Sensor fusion is another one which can pretty easily counter the effects.


Some years ago a US pilot was filmed while talking about a recent Red Flag -- one of the things I recall him saying was that the Indian Bison were "invisible" to the US planes (F-15?) until the merge; I believe he attributed this to the Bison's EW system (which is Israeli made), which "confused" the US radars such that they were not able to "see" the target.

Does this indicate that the US planes participating in that Red Flag were not able to track more than one target at a time?

Or are there other techniques than DRFM that can make the planes become "invisible" to some radars?

Or is there another explanation?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 14:02
by hornetfinn
loke wrote:Some years ago a US pilot was filmed while talking about a recent Red Flag -- one of the things I recall him saying was that the Indian Bison were "invisible" to the US planes (F-15?) until the merge; I believe he attributed this to the Bison's EW system (which is Israeli made), which "confused" the US radars such that they were not able to "see" the target.

Does this indicate that the US planes participating in that Red Flag were not able to track more than one target at a time?

Or are there other techniques than DRFM that can make the planes become "invisible" to some radars?

Or is there another explanation?


If that happended, most probable explanation to this is that they used basic noise jamming to hide the MiG-21 from F-15 radar. A powerful noise jammer will make the target aircraft "invisible" because the noise overwhelms the radar. F-15 would know the direction where the jamming was coming from, but not the distance to jammer. Of course there are many ways to counter noise jamming like networking fighters with each other and other assets or use IRST systems or get better radars (like AESA). It might well be that F-15 radars used single (or limited) training frequency and not full capabilities of the radar. This would make it very easy for powerful jammer to counter MSA radar in F-15.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 14:26
by krorvik
linkomart wrote:Saab has, to my knowledge, never said that Gripen have active stealth. It has a good EW system, and that's all I'll say about that. Active stealth was a claim, or a misinterpretation, from a commenter here.


Yep. Active cansellation of radar signals would be an extremely difficult task, espcially given the abilities of modern radars - and the fact that you'd have to reflect the inverse signal the very instant it arrives, in it's precise direction, and duplicate it's waveform precisely if it is not a single frequency. And, you'd actually transmit a signal yourself - that would highly likely be visible to others in other directions unless you could send a perfect firected signal. Sounds dangerous ;)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 15:56
by wil59
playloud wrote:
blindpilot wrote:
halloweene wrote:We will not know easily... But there is adoubt. Maybe not as impossible as we were told.


We are not going to be able to look into the classified world of EW on a forum like this. But we can get some insight by watching what countries actually do. Other than US (and perhaps Russian/Chinese etc. efforts to some extent), the Israeli's are generally considered masters of EW .... and let's see ...

They bought 50 Gripens! .... oh Wait!!! ... that didn't happen!! ... then maybe it was Rafales! .. or was it SH's or ..

.. hmmm... it was 50 F-35s ... wonder what that means? ... ponder ... not having classified data and all ...

MHO
BP

Unfortunately, since Israel pays for their equipment with US money, there may have been other reasons to go with the F-35. Also, the Gripen has to choose between range and payload.
I don't think we can really compare EW based on their decision.

It is normal that they buy f35, the usa gives several billion dollars to help the Israeli army for several years, so obligation to buy us is a weak word!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 16:19
by playloud
I'm sure there would those who question our funding of Israel, if all of the sudden they took our money and bought Rafales or Gripens. It's not a stated obligation, but the money is more likely to continue flowing if they purchase from us.
Don't get me wrong, I think the F-35 is the best option, and Israel generally wants it. I'm just saying there are factors that prevent one from using their purchase as an argument.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 18:57
by zerion
loke wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:LOL, that's pretty wild over-simplification of DRFM technology. It's not like DRFM can make a target to disapper from radar, it just creates false target(s) with similar properties (for radar) to real target. Against some radars which track only one target at a time, it might make the real target to disappear as the radar tracks a false target. However most modern radars can track large number of targets and thus can definitely see the real target and false targets. DRFM jammer can't make the radar returns from real target to disappear and it can't alter them. It can only generate additional signals to confuse the radar with false targets.

DRFM requires that enemy signal is detected, analyzed and fully reproduced and then modified to send a signal that is very similar to radar returns from the aircraft itself, but with modifications to make it look like false target is in different distance than the real target. It works very well, but can also be pretty readily countered with modern agile radars which can change their radar signals very quickly and randomly. Sensor fusion is another one which can pretty easily counter the effects.


Some years ago a US pilot was filmed while talking about a recent Red Flag -- one of the things I recall him saying was that the Indian Bison were "invisible" to the US planes (F-15?) until the merge; I believe he attributed this to the Bison's EW system (which is Israeli made), which "confused" the US radars such that they were not able to "see" the target.

Does this indicate that the US planes participating in that Red Flag were not able to track more than one target at a time?

Or are there other techniques than DRFM that can make the planes become "invisible" to some radars?

Or is there another explanation?

The US planes were not using AESA radar.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 19:31
by SpudmanWP
Has the Bison ever been to Red Flag????

IIRC the Bison/F-15 reference was in relation to a Cope India exercise from 2004 and the Red Flag reference was to SU-30 MKIs.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 23 May 2017, 21:57
by icemaverick
SpudmanWP wrote:Has the Bison ever been to Red Flag????

IIRC the Bison/F-15 reference was in relation to a Cope India exercise from 2004 and the Red Flag reference was to SU-30 MKIs.


You are right. Col Fornoff was referring to Cope India. He said the Bisons were surprisingly tricky because they were difficult to acquire and track with legacy F-15 radars. That's not going to be a problem for any decent AESA radar though.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 19:12
by halloweene
Some people claims that the spectra system involves "Active cancellation technique" witch can be interpreted as active stealth, and there have been some funding from DGA for studying that. I've even seen a presentation about how it could work, but.... atleast I don't believe it has got active stealth, it is probably too complex.


If you had the presentation... Btw, the objective is not to be permanently invisible etc. Just to break kill chain. @hornetfinn. You do not need to analyse a signal to apply a it a Fourier transform.

Btw, simple google research... https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=air ... wQgQMIJzAA

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 19:41
by steve2267
halloweene wrote:
Some people claims that the spectra system involves "Active cancellation technique" witch can be interpreted as active stealth, and there have been some funding from DGA for studying that. I've even seen a presentation about how it could work, but.... atleast I don't believe it has got active stealth, it is probably too complex.


If you had the presentation... Btw, the objective is not to be permanently invisible etc. Just to break kill chain. @hornetfinn. You do not need to analyse a signal to apply a it a Fourier transform.



@Halloweene, for "active cancellation technique" to work, does not "fake or modified" signal need to be transmitted the instant the signal is received, if you are going to "cancel" out the original signal? But applying Fourier transform is going to take some finite amount of time, no matter how short, with even best FPGA or other CPU or chip, is it not? So by definition, how can you possibly send back "cancellation" signal if you have to apply any amount of processing to the signal to-be-cancelled?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 20:39
by jj284b
wait, how exactly you wanna cancel something that shouldnt even be there??? if there is nothing there, radar waves would continue until they meet something... so to cancel the wave, you need to cancel your own reflection somehow... you cant send a reflection with nothing, because there shouldnt be any reflection from it in the first place...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 21:42
by juretrn
jj284b wrote:wait, how exactly you wanna cancel something that shouldnt even be there??? if there is nothing there, radar waves would continue until they meet something... so to cancel the wave, you need to cancel your own reflection somehow... you cant send a reflection with nothing, because there shouldnt be any reflection from it in the first place...

You can estimate the phase of the return signal, but my guess is you need to be really, really quick to respond (perhaps inconceivably so), or maybe predict when and at what frequency the next pulse is going to be.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 21:48
by botsing
halloweene wrote:
Some people claims that the spectra system involves "Active cancellation technique" witch can be interpreted as active stealth, and there have been some funding from DGA for studying that. I've even seen a presentation about how it could work, but.... atleast I don't believe it has got active stealth, it is probably too complex.


If you had the presentation... Btw, the objective is not to be permanently invisible etc. Just to break kill chain. @hornetfinn. You do not need to analyse a signal to apply a it a Fourier transform.

Btw, simple google research... https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=air ... wQgQMIJzAA

AFAIK, The idea is to pick up a radar signal and then emit an opposite phase shifted signal (and amplitude, frequency and polarization too among other) to cancel the original signal (let's just call this the "phase shifted" signal for short). Like two water waves canceling each other out.

The issues with this however is that it is extremely difficult to:

1) make a perfect phase shifted signal that cancels the original signal (the higher the frequency the harder it is to make this perfect and the more likely it is that extra noise is generated).

2) make the phase shifted contra-signal to compensate for any signal from any direction, you will need multiple sensors and transmitters groups for this. Another issue with this is that you have to take into account the direction of the original signal and how this will reflect on your airplane body to have a perfect cancelation signal (here comes in the analysis and latency that hornetfinn talks about). This point also explains why the antenna and contra transmitter needs to be between the radar and the airplane body to work.

3) have an antenna that will have a perfect input on the send radar signal to use as the input for the phase shifted signal (remember this must be perfect to start with, all antenna have interference and you need to only catch the radar signal or else you will be a transmitter of noise instead of a cancelation unit).

4) make this workable versus more than one radar (practically impossible due to leaking side lobes that will pollute the signal to at least one radar receiver and this is probably also what hornetfinn was hinting at).

5) your cancelation signal will be transmitted to all directions, so this might make you actually be trackable by a passive receiver.

Due to these issues I see little practical use of this in a real life scenario. In my opinion this belongs to the same category of "plasma stealth" (nice theory but practically impossible to implement).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 22:25
by herciv
steve2267 wrote:
halloweene wrote:
Some people claims that the spectra system involves "Active cancellation technique" witch can be interpreted as active stealth, and there have been some funding from DGA for studying that. I've even seen a presentation about how it could work, but.... atleast I don't believe it has got active stealth, it is probably too complex.


If you had the presentation... Btw, the objective is not to be permanently invisible etc. Just to break kill chain. @hornetfinn. You do not need to analyse a signal to apply a it a Fourier transform.



@Halloweene, for "active cancellation technique" to work, does not "fake or modified" signal need to be transmitted the instant the signal is received, if you are going to "cancel" out the original signal? But applying Fourier transform is going to take some finite amount of time, no matter how short, with even best FPGA or other CPU or chip, is it not? So by definition, how can you possibly send back "cancellation" signal if you have to apply any amount of processing to the signal to-be-cancelled?


@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 22:45
by botsing
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.

Long before?

If your sensor is sticking out 50 cm of the surface towards the radar signal you have about 1/3000000000 (one three hundred millionth) of a second to analyse that signal.

In that short time you have to take into account the direction where the radar signal comes from and the reflection that will give on your surface to compensate. Also part of your latency will be the time the electrical signals need to route through your computer, if the total path is for example 10cm then you loose another 10% of your analysis in this case.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 22:56
by XanderCrews
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.


Lol wut?

Good god it's like dealing with children "I'm invisible too because magic!"

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 23:00
by herciv
XanderCrews wrote:
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.


Lol wut?

Good god it's like dealing with children "I'm invisible too because magic!"


"Magic" Is it how you call what you don't understood ?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 23:00
by herciv
XanderCrews wrote:
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.


Lol wut?

Good god it's like dealing with children "I'm invisible too because magic!"


"Magic" Is it how you call what you don't understand ?

@botsing
I should have said "duplicated" in place of 'analysed". With FFT it's quite easy. And you're totally wrong if you considered a plane reflect a wave in a homogenous way.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 23:07
by botsing
herciv wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.


Lol wut?

Good god it's like dealing with children "I'm invisible too because magic!"


"Magic" Is it how you call what you don't understood ?

Then for you this is magic...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 23:11
by juretrn
herciv wrote:"Magic" Is it how you call what you don't understood ?

Maybe you should start studying electromagnetism and antennas first before making assumptions about others' presumed ignorance?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 26 May 2017, 23:36
by botsing
herciv wrote:
@botsing
I should have said "duplicated" in place of 'analysed". With FFT it's quite easy. And you're totally wrong if you considered a plane reflect a wave in a homogenous way.

Only on a perfectly flat and infinite surface, something that is far from reality on an airplane.

You are missing a lot of variables in your assumptions. Airplane surfaces are non linearly curved and have non linear edges for example. Another thing you miss is that on a platform like the Rafale you have many things sticking out that also reflect radar, like fuel tanks, weapons and pods. This all you have to take into account to offset that to the vector where the radar signal comes from.

That is why you need analysis of the signal. Mix this together with multiple antenna+computer+emitter arrays sticking out of your airplane and you will start to understand why this is practically not workable.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 00:40
by nutshell
I think the point of Rafale's system is not to return a perfect inverted copy of the original signal; but accurate "enough" to alter dramatically the expected feedback by the enemy system

So even if the sum of the original signal and the altered one isn't 0, the real goal is to return anything but the expected radio wave.

At that point, this enemy tracking system might misjudge altitude and speed of the french fighter.

My opinion, tho, is that Spectra might be prone to be naturally countered by the nature of AESA radars unless Spectra masking is completely aleatory.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 02:33
by XanderCrews
botsing wrote:
herciv wrote:
@botsing
I should have said "duplicated" in place of 'analysed". With FFT it's quite easy. And you're totally wrong if you considered a plane reflect a wave in a homogenous way.

Only on a perfectly flat and infinite surface, something that is far from reality on an airplane.

You are missing a lot of variables in your assumptions. Airplane surfaces are non linearly curved and have non linear edges for example. Another thing you miss is that on a platform like the Rafale you have many things sticking out that also reflect radar, like fuel tanks, weapons and pods. This all you have to take into account to offset that to the vector where the radar signal comes from.

That is why you need analysis of the signal. Mix this together with multiple antenna+computer+emitter arrays sticking out of your airplane and you will start to understand why this is practically not workable.


Bro the magical external tanks carry jammers too. It's bro science

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 02:35
by XanderCrews
herciv wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.


Lol wut?

Good god it's like dealing with children "I'm invisible too because magic!"


"Magic" Is it how you call what you don't understand ?
.


Magic is fiction, just like your assertions.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 05:00
by neptune
XanderCrews wrote:
botsing wrote:
herciv wrote:
@botsing
I should have said "duplicated" in place of 'analysed". With FFT it's quite easy. And you're totally wrong if you considered a plane reflect a wave in a homogenous way.

Only on a perfectly flat and infinite surface, something that is far from reality on an airplane.

You are missing a lot of variables in your assumptions. Airplane surfaces are non linearly curved and have non linear edges for example. Another thing you miss is that on a platform like the Rafale you have many things sticking out that also reflect radar, like fuel tanks, weapons and pods. This all you have to take into account to offset that to the vector where the radar signal comes from.

That is why you need analysis of the signal. Mix this together with multiple antenna+computer+emitter arrays sticking out of your airplane and you will start to understand why this is practically not workable.


Bro the magical external tanks carry jammers too. It's bro science


...the Israelis have said the EFT are to be similar to the F-22s and I doubt they will turn their "Test F-35" into a porcupine!
:D

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 05:37
by halloweene
XanderCrews wrote:
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.


Lol wut?

Good god it's like dealing with children "I'm invisible too because magic!"


Nope what Herciv meant i think is that some planes like B2 tend to use waves scattering on curves to "concentrate spikes at precise locations like sharp edges.

Btw, never seen any claim that active cancellation was sensed to completely suppress radar signature, especially vs modern radars using frequency hopping etc. Highest value i ever heard was around 15-20 db.

Btw, each time any item is added to Rafale (as we are taking this example), she spends several weeks in "Solange" (anechoic chamber). Why in your opinion?
Abstract
Active cancellation stealth is a smart signal blanking method, that it has become an important developing direction on modern stealth technology. In order to further explore the active cancellation stealth technology, we are considering the detection and cancellation of receiving/transmitting antenna pattern is different. Put forward active cancellation system simulation structure diagram based on MATLAB/SIMULINK, where the phased array radar system as the modelling object, and established the active cancellation stealth system mathematical model based on digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) and the radar signal processing system of the coherent video simulation model, based on linear frequency modulation and radar coherent pulse signal simulation, verified the rationality and validity of the design, as the active cancellation stealth engineering technology laid the foundation.


Optik vol 125 n°18, 2014

etc. Elsevier do not regularly publish papers about magic, do they?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 06:54
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:
XanderCrews wrote:
herciv wrote:@steve2267 Perhaps should take into account that you don't have to apply active cancelation on the whole surface of the rafale. You only have to apply on where your signals are really reflected. In that case there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces.


Lol wut?

Good god it's like dealing with children "I'm invisible too because magic!"


Nope what Herciv meant i think is that some planes like B2 tend to use waves scattering on curves to "concentrate spikes at precise locations like sharp edges.

Btw, never seen any claim that active cancellation was sensed to completely suppress radar signature, especially vs modern radars using frequency hopping etc. Highest value i ever heard was around 15-20 db.

Btw, each time any item is added to Rafale (as we are taking this example), she spends several weeks in "Solange" (anechoic chamber). Why in your opinion?
Abstract
Active cancellation stealth is a smart signal blanking method, that it has become an important developing direction on modern stealth technology. In order to further explore the active cancellation stealth technology, we are considering the detection and cancellation of receiving/transmitting antenna pattern is different. Put forward active cancellation system simulation structure diagram based on MATLAB/SIMULINK, where the phased array radar system as the modelling object, and established the active cancellation stealth system mathematical model based on digital radio frequency memory (DRFM) and the radar signal processing system of the coherent video simulation model, based on linear frequency modulation and radar coherent pulse signal simulation, verified the rationality and validity of the design, as the active cancellation stealth engineering technology laid the foundation.


Optik vol 125 n°18, 2014

etc. Elsevier do not regularly publish papers about magic, do they?


Are you the kind of guy who just reads the back of the book jacket and thinks he has now read the whole thing?

Do you cover the aircraft In these papers? Because that's a long way off. They have been talking about this stuff for well over a decade, theory and practice are two different things and people like yourself seem to be confusing the two. Hence magic. I can still find articles that talk about it in the future tense in fact. It's theoretically possible, as is time travel and cold fusion-- that doesn't mean the Rafale has a flux capacitor or a reactor. Spectra is good but it's not that good. As far as I can tell it's at the very basic sense, intellegent jamming but making a rafale disappear is not easy In the slightest

I want to know on the Rafale where "there are many points where you can analysed the signals long before they arrived on the relective surfaces"

Long before? What?

I've seen how you operate Halloweene so there is no reference too obscure or far fetched. So it's me against you and the internet, I'm sure you'll win as I'm stuck dealing with facts. And of course your willingness to believe that if someone said it, it must be true. That seems to be your only criteria with no context or analysis and your attempt to always have the last word and attempt to close the door on a subject.

I look at the growler and other EW aircraft and the millions of lines of code and years of development for the F-35 and I'm curious how the rafale manages an even more complex system without paying the butcher's bill. Sprinkle some overzealous fanboy in there and you have some problems. I'm reminded of Russia's alleged "plasma stealth" again theory, lots of papers published. All the rage on the internet and it amounted to...

Can you tell me what level rafales actual operational active cancellation is officially? What do Thales and dassault say?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 13:12
by halloweene
Sorry Xander, i am not "against" you (neither am i herciv btw). I am here to talk, learn and transmit. The topic of active cancellation is a very interesting one. For example, iFi audio use it to clean usb power. Next gen of F-18 will use it in order to counter noise/jamming for radio communications.
Just in order to answer to a remark, Spectra represent 40% of the Rafale R&D program. Next gen (spctra 5T) will be implemented on F3R with some results from DEDIRA (demonstrateur de Discretion du Rafale) dev. plan.
The first time i heard about active cancellation was in a S. Coonts book, the minautor (1989). It has been quite widely questioned if NG was sued for not being able to implement it on B2. Quite an old story.
Dassault answers "ask Thales" and Thales answer "everything about spectra is classified" (yes, i tried).
So doese it exist? Afaik noone (among public commentators) can assert it doese neither claim it doese not.
Maybe the truth is in between, it exist but is only efficient in certain circumstances.
But asseting one or the other is imho, a bit presumptuous.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 19:12
by blindpilot
halloweene wrote:...
Maybe the truth is in between, it exist but is only efficient in certain circumstances.
But asseting one or the other is imho, a bit presumptuous.


EW is basically a Black World (classified). We see some fringes of it without context, effectiveness assessment, or any basis to speculate. Those who have used it, don't talk. We had gizmo's way back in the KC-135Q days of the 70's. That's about all I can say about that. Actually that's close to all I know about that, beyond turn this dial, flip dat switch...

There's theory and laws of physics, but that says nothing. I might only risk an observation of economics. If you have 10 times the people and ten times the $$$ working on ideas, you probably have a head start. Even prodigy geniuses need $$$ to build their toys. No $$$, no genius.

Those that know won't say. Those that say don't know. So the conversation is by definition fruitless, and speculating about things without any foundation. We know the French love to join exercises without playing. They turn off everything except the passive signal vacuum cleaners. But then what do we think all the EC/RC platforms that the US and Russians run up and down the coasts are doing?

If there is one thing the F-35 has in spades over French and Russian (and other) programs, it is $$$, people, and toys. That law of economics almost assuredly trumps any theoretical law of physics. And the decisions by those who read the classified data indicate, the F-35 has something people want. Other platforms, not so much. (beyond India and the holes they make into which to pour $$$)

But in the end, we don't know enough to even hazard guesses, or post on forums.
We only know folks who receive classified briefings, and are allowed to purchase them, are ordering F-35s, not Rafales. That's what we "know."

MHO
BP

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 20:38
by botsing
halloweene wrote:...
Maybe the truth is in between, it exist but is only efficient in certain circumstances.
But asseting one or the other is imho, a bit presumptuous.
Bull**** will buy you exactly nothing, it is that easy. There is no magical "truth in between" that you can fall back on. That, like plasma stealth and "active cancellation", is just nonsense. Those tales are for losers who have to keep their local politics satisfied.


If you are unable to grasp that then it does not mean there is an "alternative", it just means you are not able to grasp reality. Learn to cope with it.

I tried my best to explain it to you but you seem to be unable to apply those facts.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 20:53
by wrightwing
The proof is in the pudding. How many air forces are lining up to buy Rafales?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 27 May 2017, 21:13
by XanderCrews
botsing wrote:
halloweene wrote:...
Maybe the truth is in between, it exist but is only efficient in certain circumstances.
But asseting one or the other is imho, a bit presumptuous.
Bull**** will buy you exactly nothing, it is that easy. There is no magical "truth in between" that you can fall back on. That, like plasma stealth and "active cancellation", is just nonsense. Those tales are for losers who have to keep their local politics satisfied.


If you are unable to grasp that then it does not mean there is an "alternative", it just means you are not able to grasp reality. Learn to cope with it.

I tried my best to explain it to you but you seem to be unable to apply those facts.



Yep!

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/M ... eanFallacy


In fact I'm curious how you meet in the middle and "partially active cancel a signal" is it like being half pregnant? The return signal is being duped or the airplane is giving a return right?

This seems like one of those rumours or "maybe someday" or "theoretically Spectra could" that got waaaaay out of hand and now here we are. And again I don't see Thales or dasault making a lot of public noise about it.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2017, 07:57
by rheonomic
I skimmed through the article (this one, AFAICT; also seems more like a note to me) and while I'm not an RF expert, it seems *very* 6.1 to me.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 28 May 2017, 14:43
by loke
blindpilot wrote:But in the end, we don't know enough to even hazard guesses, or post on forums.
We only know folks who receive classified briefings, and are allowed to purchase them, are ordering F-35s, not Rafales. That's what we "know."

MHO
BP

What we do know is that Rafale's EW in one very thorough evaluation scored above 8 on a scale from 1 to 9, where 9 is the maximum score possible. We also know that France has a long tradition of producing world-class EW systems.

Thus it seems safe to say the Rafale EW is pretty good.

There are many reasons why people would prefer F-35 over Rafale as I am sure you know; there is this little thing called "stealth"; in addition, although the Rafale's sensors are very good no doubt the F-35 sensors are even better; ditto for sensor fusion and data links; now if you add to this three other highly important advantages (lower cost; interoperability with the US and most of her allies; and (for many countries) political advantages of purchasing F-35 over Rafale) it becomes a no-brainer.

In this picture it does not really matter whether the Rafale's EW capabilities are on par with the F-35 or not, there are so many other selling points for the F-35 that EW capabilities is not going to be what makes or breaks a sales of Rafale vs F-35.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2017, 13:37
by hornetfinn
Rafale does seem to have very good EW system for 4th gen fighter jet. It also has pretty low RCS which helps the EW system do its job. RCS and EW go hand in hand. You can stuff B-52 with all the jamming systems in the world, but it won't be able to survive the way B-2 or even B-1B can. We can be very certain that F-35 has much lower RCS than Rafale and that helps a lot in the EW department. Even if Rafale had significantly better EW system than F-35, it would not be as effective overall due to vast difference in RCS.

It's true that we don't know how different EW systems stack up, but there are several things that point to the fact that F-35 has the edge in EW department even if RCS was similar. Like people have said, there is a lot more money and resources available to develop F-35 than Rafale. Another point is that F-35 is a lot newer design with 15-20 years of difference depending on how they are compared. Then is the point that F-35 is said to have 10 times the effective radiated power of any legacy fighter. That's huge difference given the low RCS of the airframe. This gives it the capability to do stand-off jamming which means they can cover each other or even legacy jets with very powerful jamming. There have been comments by pilots about how F-35 creates wormholes in the airspace for legacy aircraft. It basically has capability to do stand-off jamming by standing close to enemy radars. That capability alone might well make sales vs. any other fighter, including Rafale. An air force can use their 4th gen fighters longer when they have F-35 being the eyes and ears and electronic guardians for them.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 29 May 2017, 16:20
by ricnunes
Gents,

I believe it's safe to say that "Active stealth" or whatever someone wants to call it simply doesn't exist, period!

Yes, the Rafale may have a very good defensive EW system - in this case SPECTRA - and I never said otherwise (by the way) but claiming that SPECTRA or other similar EW suites are "active stealth" devices, well... it's like claiming that my Sedan car is an Australian Road Train just because my Sedan can carry stuff and an Australian Road Train also carries stuff. The truth is that they are so different that there's simply no possible comparison (between EW like SPECTRA and real "Passive Stealth").


hornetfinn wrote:Rafale does seem to have very good EW system for 4th gen fighter jet. It also has pretty low RCS which helps the EW system do its job. RCS and EW go hand in hand.


I'm also aware that Dassault claims that Rafale has a "pretty low RCS" but the fact is that I'm not remotely convinced by such claim!
For example the air intakes which are normally considered one of the aircraft parts that's most responsible for increasing RCS in any aircraft, are rounded-shaped in the Rafale much like and very similar to the legacy Hornet.
McDonnell Douglas (later Boeing) when designing the Super Hornet where one of its requirements was a considerably lower RCS compared to existing 4th aircraft like the legacy Hornet changed the air intakes shape to a "square-ish" shape, similar to most other Stealth aircraft in existence (including the F-22 and later the F-35).
So for some reason Dassault claims that the Rafale with a "traditional" "non-stealth looking" round-shaped air intakes manages to lower the Rafale's RCS to the level or even lower level when compared to a Super Hornet (and its square-ish air intakes)?? Well, I don't think so...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 00:13
by nutshell
Worth to mention then going with the Rafale also means re-weaponize your new squadrons.

For a.country that stockpiled aim9 and aim120s, F35 seems even more then a nobrainer.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 03:06
by jessmo111
ricnunes wrote:Gents,

I believe it's safe to say that "Active stealth" or whatever someone wants to call it simply doesn't exist, period!

Yes, the Rafale may have a very good defensive EW system - in this case SPECTRA - and I never said otherwise (by the way) but claiming that SPECTRA or other similar EW suites are "active stealth" devices, well... it's like claiming that my Sedan car is an Australian Road Train just because my Sedan can carry stuff and an Australian Road Train also carries stuff. The truth is that they are so different that there's simply no possible comparison (between EW like SPECTRA and real "Passive Stealth").


hornetfinn wrote:Rafale does seem to have very good EW system for 4th gen fighter jet. It also has pretty low RCS which helps the EW system do its job. RCS and EW go hand in hand.


I'm also aware that Dassault claims that Rafale has a "pretty low RCS" but the fact is that I'm not remotely convinced by such claim!
For example the air intakes which are normally considered one of the aircraft parts that's most responsible for increasing RCS in any aircraft, are rounded-shaped in the Rafale much like and very similar to the legacy Hornet.
McDonnell Douglas (later Boeing) when designing the Super Hornet where one of its requirements was a considerably lower RCS compared to existing 4th aircraft like the legacy Hornet changed the air intakes shape to a "square-ish" shape, similar to most other Stealth aircraft in existence (including the F-22 and later the F-35).
So for some reason Dassault claims that the Rafale with a "traditional" "non-stealth looking" round-shaped air intakes manages to lower the Rafale's RCS to the level or even lower level when compared to a Super Hornet (and its square-ish air intakes)?? Well, I don't think so...


Isnt there a great big probe on the nose also?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 09:17
by Corsair1963
ricnunes wrote:

I'm also aware that Dassault claims that Rafale has a "pretty low RCS" but the fact is that I'm not remotely convinced by such claim!
For example the air intakes which are normally considered one of the aircraft parts that's most responsible for increasing RCS in any aircraft, are rounded-shaped in the Rafale much like and very similar to the legacy Hornet.
McDonnell Douglas (later Boeing) when designing the Super Hornet where one of its requirements was a considerably lower RCS compared to existing 4th aircraft like the legacy Hornet changed the air intakes shape to a "square-ish" shape, similar to most other Stealth aircraft in existence (including the F-22 and later the F-35).
So for some reason Dassault claims that the Rafale with a "traditional" "non-stealth looking" round-shaped air intakes manages to lower the Rafale's RCS to the level or even lower level when compared to a Super Hornet (and its square-ish air intakes)?? Well, I don't think so...


Hardly, matters if the Rafale has a modest RCS while flying clean. As it would never go into combat in that condition. Which, means it real RCS is actually quite high.....that is in the real world. :wink:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 09:58
by ricnunes
jessmo111 wrote:Isnt there a great big probe on the nose also?


Precisely!

Corsair1963 wrote:Hardly, matters if the Rafale has a modest RCS while flying clean. As it would never go into combat in that condition. Which, means it real RCS is actually quite high.....that is in the real world. :wink:


Yes indeed, you're absolutely right.
However my point is that even clean I very much doubt that the Rafale has such a low RCS as Dassault claims, this due to the reasons mentioned above coupled with jessmo111's observation about the air refueling probe.
Or resuming I doubt that a clean Rafale has an RCS as low as a clean Super Hornet.

But of course you're right that in real world/real combat none of this really matters much. However I believe it's still an interesting study case that may be an indication of yet another BS claim from Dassault (and/or its "minions").

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 11:27
by hornetfinn
I'd say latest versions of Super Hornet, Eurofighter Typhoon and Dassault Rafale have the lowest RCS of all current operational 4th gen fighters. Super Hornet very likely has the lowest RCS when all are clean, but what weapons and other stuff is carried matters a lot. The differences are likely pretty small between these aircraft however. It's not like any one of these has RCS of F-15 or Su-27. And of course none of these or any other 4th gen fighter jet is even remotely comparable to F-35 or F-22 when it comes to RCS and stealth qualities. This automatically means Rafale EW suite is pretty immaterial when compared to F-35 unless it somehow is thousands of times better than the EW suite in F-35. Even then it would not be as good unless it always works to perfection every time. Passive stealth has the good quality that it always works against all threats all the time at least to some degree. Even lowest frequency radars are always degraded by shaping and RAM even if not nearly as much as higher frequency radars. Active EW can further improve survivability but it always also has limitations and can fail due to large number of reasons.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 12:28
by loke
ricnunes wrote:Yes indeed, you're absolutely right.
However my point is that even clean I very much doubt that the Rafale has such a low RCS as Dassault claims, this due to the reasons mentioned above coupled with jessmo111's observation about the air refueling probe.
Or resuming I doubt that a clean Rafale has an RCS as low as a clean Super Hornet.

But of course you're right that in real world/real combat none of this really matters much. However I believe it's still an interesting study case that may be an indication of yet another BS claim from Dassault (and/or its "milnions").

Reacting to the the Chinese J-20 stealth fighter being unveiled earlier his week, the Air Officer Commanding-in-Chief Western Air Command, Air Marshal SB Deo, said that it was not a cause for concern and that Rafale aircraft being inducted by India also had stealth features. On a visit to the Ambala air base, Air Marshal Deo said that the Indian government is also seized of the importance of acquiring fighter aircraft with stealth features and this is why the Rafale aircraft being acquired from France has some special stealth features. “The radar cross section of the aircraft is significantly smaller for an aircraft of that size. There are many other features too which I would not like to disclose at this stage,” he said.


http://indianexpress.com/article/india/ ... e-3737350/

As hornetfinn just tried to explain to you, and what is confirmed by this Air Marshal, Rafale does have stealth features -- of course not at all the same level as the F-35 or F-22 but nevertheless, it's there and combined with good sensors, excellent EW, good weapons suite (now including Meteor) and a bit of sensor fusion, it should not be underestimated (unless the opponent is F-22 or F-35)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 19:46
by ricnunes
loke wrote:As hornetfinn just tried to explain to you, and what is confirmed by this Air Marshal, Rafale does have stealth features -- of course not at all the same level as the F-35 or F-22 but nevertheless, it's there and combined with good sensors, excellent EW, good weapons suite (now including Meteor) and a bit of sensor fusion, it should not be underestimated (unless the opponent is F-22 or F-35)


Look! (not Loke, it's really look)

- I never said that the Rafale didn't have measures to reduce its RCS. However some (or even I dare to say many) sources seem to put the RCS at even lower values compared to the Super Hornet and there's not a snowball's chance in hell for this to be true.
I agree that with hornetfinn that the difference between a Rafale and a Super Hornet in terms of RCS is not that big and for example I believe that the Rafale RCS may be lower than for example the RCS of the F-16 but at the same time that I believe this, I have some hard time believing that the Rafale's RCS (CLEAN) is actually lower than 1 Square Meter which is the info (albeit not official it seems) that is often referred to in terms of the Rafale's RCS. I admit that I could be wrong since this is a rather "empirical observation" but again those round-shaped air intakes and that air refueling probe sticking out almost like a pantograph from an electrical train/locomotive makes me believe otherwise.
- I never said that the Rafale was NOT a thread to any other existing 4th and 4.5th fighter aircraft such again as the Super Hornet (or others like the Typhoon, etc...)!

Capiche?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 21:58
by loke
ricnunes wrote:- I never said that the Rafale didn't have measures to reduce its RCS. However some (or even I dare to say many) sources seem to put the RCS at even lower values compared to the Super Hornet and there's not a snowball's chance in hell for this to be true.
I agree that with hornetfinn that the difference between a Rafale and a Super Hornet in terms of RCS is not that big and for example I believe that the Rafale RCS may be lower than for example the RCS of the F-16 but at the same time that I believe this, I have some hard time believing that the Rafale's RCS (CLEAN) is actually lower than 1 Square Meter which is the info (albeit not official it seems) that is often referred to in terms of the Rafale's RCS.


Can you please list some of the many sources that put Rafale's RCS "lower" than the SH?

Also while you're at it, where are the sources stating that Rafale's RCS is "lower than 1m2"? What does that even mean? In which band? from which angle? You do realize that "RCS" is not really a single number, do you ?

Someone said something about an echocamber recently -- probably the wisest post written on this forum for quite some time...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 30 May 2017, 22:22
by herciv
I've found this line. Very nice to read.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 4206m.html

In fact the price of LRIP9 F-35 could be 206 millions$.

Compare to it rafale is one third of this price.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2017, 18:31
by playloud
herciv wrote:I've found this line. Very nice to read.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 4206m.html

In fact the price of LRIP9 F-35 could be 206 millions$.

Compare to it rafale is one third of this price.

Not even close. The Rafale is more expensive than 1/3 that price. Also, that price is wrong. See SpudmanWP's post to show how that author is full of it...

SpudmanWP wrote:There are the basics that Long Lead items are included in the final contracted price. This is even shown in the annual budget breakdown. I'll try and find specific language to that affect, but that is the normal acquisition process and is backed up by SAR & budget numbers.

Looking at the listed contracts that he was posting and you can see that they cover a lot more than production. Here are some of the most egregious examples of his complete lack of logic/intellectual honesty:

$431,322,997 modification to the previously awarded Lot IX F-35 Lightening II advance acquisition contract () for the procurement of production non-recurring items. These items include special tooling and special test equipment items that are critical to meeting current and future production rates
Just as the recent production improvement contract shows, the JPO contracts with LM to improve production that will save money over the next 30+ years of production. It's not about Lot9 .

$430,878,490 cost-plus-incentive-fee, fixed-price-incentive-firm contract for non-air vehicle spares, support equipment, Autonomic Logistics Information System hardware and software upgrades, supply chain management, full mission simulators and non-recurring engineering services in support of low-rate initial production Lot 9
Again, more stuff that is either support or spares, ie non-flyaway items. Items like the simulators are bought in the beginning of the program but not the middle or end. Lot 10 has 2, 11 has 8, and 12 has none.

$120,555,991 modification to the previously awarded low-rate initial production Lot IX F-35 Lightning II advance acquisition contract () to procure the non-recurring engineering effort necessary to develop build-to-print packages by variant (, , ), to provide Group A and Group A enabler provisions to support future Band 2/5 capabilities of the.
Development

$64,500,000 modification to a previously awarded advanced acquisition contract (N00019-15-C-0003) for long lead materials and efforts associated with the production of the low-rate initial production 11 JapaneseF-35 air systems for the government of Japan under the Foreign Military Sales program.
This is Lot 11 LL Items FFS

$26,450,000 modification to firm-fixed-price delivery order 0031 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This modification provides for low-rate initial production Lot 9 air vehicle initial spares to include F-35 aloft spares packages required to support the air vehicle delivery schedule for the Marine Corps.

$16,497,297 modification to delivery order 0031 previously placed against basic ordering agreement N00019-14-G-0020. This modification provides for deployable spares packages in support of the low-rate initial production Lot 9aircraft for the Marine Corps.
Initial & deployable Spares

$743,169,377 fixed-price-incentive, firm target and cost-plus-fixed-fee modification to the previously awarded low-rate initial production Lot 9 F-35 Lightening II advance acquisition contract (). This modification provides additional funding and will establish not-to-exceed (NTE) prices for diminishing manufacturing and material shortages redesign and development, estimated post production concurrency changes and country unique requirements. In addition, this modification will establish NTE prices for one F-35A aircraft and one F-35B aircraft for a non-U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) participant in the F-35 program.
non-recurring updates & redev.

$9,533,512 not-to-exceed, undefinitized modification to a previously awarded low-rate initial production Lot 9 F-35Lightening II advanced acquisition contract (). This modification provides for the delivery of hardware and engineering services for the government of Japan.
$9 million for Japan for setting up their FACO.

$137,834,819 modification to a previously awarded cost-plus-incentive-fee contract () to provide additional funding for affordability-based cost reduction initiatives in support of low-rate initial production Lot 9Lightening II .
More cost reduction initiatives that will benefit the program for 30+ years.

$110,515,999 cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020) for the procurement and installation of 281 retrofit modification kits to incorporate into designated aircraft and supporting subsystems that are critical to meeting F-35 requirements.

$28,842,000 not-to-exceed, cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This delivery order provides for air vehicle retrofit modifications associated with the F-35 fuel tank overpressure engineering change proposal in support of the Air Force, and the governments of Australia, Italy, the Netherlands, and Norway.
Here's a big one. He included concurrency costs that cover the first 281and applied all that cost to just the Lot9 . Note that Concurrency costs are covered under O&M, not procurement.

$311,399,980 contract for undefinitized delivery order 5503 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020) for the F-35Lighting II Block 3F upgrade for the Air Force, Marine Corps, Navy, and the government of the United Kingdom.

$17,599,996 not-to-exceed delivery order (550302) against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This order provides for the procurement of retrofit modification kits and associated engineering installation services in support of the Block 3F upgrade of two F-35 aircraft for non-Department of Defense (DoD) participants.

$47,000,000 for undefinitized delivery order 0026 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This order provides for non-recurring effort and integration tasks required to operate a hardware-in-the-loop laboratory used to build, modify, verify and validate, and distribute mission data file sets for the .
Block upgrades are O&M, not procurement.

$101,970,569 for cost-plus-incentive-fee delivery order 0026 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This order definitizes a previously awarded undefinitized contract action and provides for additional non-recurring effort and integration efforts required in support of the F-35 Reprogramming Center West. Efforts will include the production of software data loads for laboratory testing, planning for verification and validation (V&V) test, conduct technical support of the test, design, build, and delivery of V&V modification kits and mission data file generation tools for the Foreign Military Sales customers.
This is the reprogramming center, not the F-35 itself.

$136,588,895 for firm-fixed-price delivery order 0001 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This modification provides for low-rate initial production Lot 10 air vehicle initial spares to include F-35 common spares; ,and F-35 unique spares; and aloft spares packages/deployment spares
Really, Lot 10 spares???

$64,686,522 for firm-fixed-priced delivery order N0001917F0108 against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This order procures work on the integrated core processor in order to alleviate diminishing manufacturing sources constraints projected underproduction Lot 15 for the Air Force
FFS, Lot 15!!!

$581,798,359 firm-fixed-price delivery order (0132) against a previously issued basic ordering agreement (N00019-14-G-0020). This modification provides for air vehicle initial spares to include F-35 common spares; ,and F-35 unique spares,
More spares.. At least he got the Lot right.

$109,563,735 modification to cost-plus-fixed-fee delivery order 5503 issued previously against basic ordering agreement N00019-14-G-0020. This modification provides for the procurement of 567 modification kits for offboard system hardware and turnaround assets, and also recurring labor for the completion of hardware and software upgrades in support of the F-35 Lighting III Block 3F upgrade
Last but not least... More Block upgrades which are O&M related, not procurement.


My point is that the JPO has always appropriately used Flyway cost when comparing manufacturing efficiency. DA knows this but chooses to purposefully lie about the annual F-35 cost. I am beginning to seriously think this guy works for Airbus or Boeing. Either that or has too much homework from his Kindergarten class to do any proper research.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2017, 18:38
by SpudmanWP
herciv wrote:I've found this line. Very nice to read.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 4206m.html

In fact the price of LRIP9 F-35 could be 206 millions$.

Compare to it rafale is one third of this price.


lol... The Indian quote puts the "bare fighter" cost at over $100 mil for a Rafale.. And that's before the $50 mil per "customization" fee.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2017, 20:15
by ricnunes
loke wrote:Can you please list some of the many sources that put Rafale's RCS "lower" than the SH?


For starters here (at globalsecurity):
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... ft-rcs.htm

It mention/claims that the Super Hornet and Rafale RCS are equal (1 square meter) which again I doubt.

Regarding the Rafale RCS being lower than the Super Hornet, like I preciously said this was mostly argumentations/discussions that I've seen around the web. I also remember to have read somewhere (although I don't remember where) claims about the Rafale's RCS being around 0.1-0.3 Square Meters in its frontal arc which is lower than what is claimed on the Super Hornet. Which again I don't believe but again they seem to be only "claims".


loke wrote:Also while you're at it, where are the sources stating that Rafale's RCS is "lower than 1m2"? What does that even mean? In which band? from which angle? You do realize that "RCS" is not really a single number, do you ?


Yes, I do realise that "RCS is not a single number" and I realise this likely better than yourself so please don't try to be a "smart a$$" on me and please don't insult my intelligence!

To satisfy your curiosity the 1 square meter is most likely an average of "all around aspects/angles" from the aircraft while the Radar band is uncertain (but most likely X-Band). Satisfied??

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2017, 23:10
by XanderCrews
herciv wrote:I've found this line. Very nice to read.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 4206m.html

In fact the price of LRIP9 F-35 could be 206 millions$.

Compare to it rafale is one third of this price.


Someone needs to share this amazing info with the US and Indian governments.

Lol their numbers are clearly false

Herciv, do you even realize how embarrassed you should feel for reading this, let alone sharing it? Honest question

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2017, 23:14
by XanderCrews
SpudmanWP wrote:
herciv wrote:I've found this line. Very nice to read.
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... 4206m.html

In fact the price of LRIP9 F-35 could be 206 millions$.

Compare to it rafale is one third of this price.


lol... The Indian quote puts the "bare fighter" cost at over $100 mil for a Rafale.. And that's before the $50 mil per "customization" fee.



Lol that was my thought. Why are the Indians being ripped off?

Let's pretend the article is 100 percent true, and herciv has is right... Why would people rather pay 3 times as much for an F-35 than a Rafale? :mrgreen: rafale sales don't seem to reflect it's cost. How odd...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 31 May 2017, 23:28
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
ricnunes wrote:- I never said that the Rafale didn't have measures to reduce its RCS. However some (or even I dare to say many) sources seem to put the RCS at even lower values compared to the Super Hornet and there's not a snowball's chance in hell for this to be true.
I agree that with hornetfinn that the difference between a Rafale and a Super Hornet in terms of RCS is not that big and for example I believe that the Rafale RCS may be lower than for example the RCS of the F-16 but at the same time that I believe this, I have some hard time believing that the Rafale's RCS (CLEAN) is actually lower than 1 Square Meter which is the info (albeit not official it seems) that is often referred to in terms of the Rafale's RCS.


Can you please list some of the many sources that put Rafale's RCS "lower" than the SH?

Also while you're at it, where are the sources stating that Rafale's RCS is "lower than 1m2"? What does that even mean? In which band? from which angle? You do realize that "RCS" is not really a single number, do you ?

Someone said something about an echocamber recently -- probably the wisest post written on this forum for quite some time...


Super hornet has planform alignment, no canards, and a refueling probe that actually retracts. I would give it the edge against the rafales RCS.

But for the rafale crowd just cover your ears and shout "active cancellation" until the headache subsides

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2017, 09:31
by hornetfinn
RCS depends somewhat on what version of Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale (or Eurofighter Typhoon) we are comparing here. If we compare AN/APG-73 MSA equipped Block 1 Super Hornet, then it definitely has noticeably larger RCS than AN/APG-79 equipped Block 2 SH. Rafale F1 with PESA radar likely has larger RCS than AESA equipped F3+ version. Radar dish is one of the main component of RCS for fighters with some LO built in. APG-79 is tilted back because of this while Rafale RBE2 is not (as there is not. This is main reason why I think SH has the edge in RCS against Rafale or EF Typhoon.

Refueling probe in Rafale is not that big deal from RCS PoV. It's a thin structure which is tilted in its vertical portion. It also doesn't have clear reflecting edges or corners. I doubt it affects RCS much more than carrying regular AAM. I'm also not convinced that intakes of Rafale affect RCS much more than the intakes in SH especially in the frontal sector. I think the radar is bigger issue. However we are likely comparing pretty small differences between these two.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2017, 13:42
by playloud
hornetfinn wrote:RCS depends somewhat on what version of Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale (or Eurofighter Typhoon) we are comparing here. If we compare AN/APG-73 MSA equipped Block 1 Super Hornet, then it definitely has noticeably larger RCS than AN/APG-79 equipped Block 2 SH. Rafale F1 with PESA radar likely has larger RCS than AESA equipped F3+ version. Radar dish is one of the main component of RCS for fighters with some LO built in. APG-79 is tilted back because of this while Rafale RBE2 is not (as there is not. This is main reason why I think SH has the edge in RCS against Rafale or EF Typhoon.

Refueling probe in Rafale is not that big deal from RCS PoV. It's a thin structure which is tilted in its vertical portion. It also doesn't have clear reflecting edges or corners. I doubt it affects RCS much more than carrying regular AAM. I'm also not convinced that intakes of Rafale affect RCS much more than the intakes in SH especially in the frontal sector. I think the radar is bigger issue. However we are likely comparing pretty small differences between these two.

Is there a reason they wouldn't have tilted back the APG-81 on the F-35, especially since it is more stealth optimized?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2017, 16:00
by SpudmanWP
The nosecone of the F-35 is for obvious reasons radar-transparent. For this reason the APG-81 underneath (and it's surrounding structures) has to maintain the VLO signature. They do this by presenting the dish as a single, angled surface.

The APG-81 is surrounded by what is most likely a RAM foam spacer as you can see below. Note the foam "fingers" that mesh perfectly with the T&R modules around the edge of the array.

Image

Image

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2017, 20:27
by botsing
SpudmanWP wrote:The APG-81 is surrounded by what is most likely a RAM foam spacer as you can see below.

It also looks like a vibration dampener. Maybe it is both?

Nice pictures btw!

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2017, 20:56
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:RCS depends somewhat on what version of Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale (or Eurofighter Typhoon) we are comparing here. If we compare AN/APG-73 MSA equipped Block 1 Super Hornet, then it definitely has noticeably larger RCS than AN/APG-79 equipped Block 2 SH. Rafale F1 with PESA radar likely has larger RCS than AESA equipped F3+ version. Radar dish is one of the main component of RCS for fighters with some LO built in. APG-79 is tilted back because of this while Rafale RBE2 is not (as there is not. This is main reason why I think SH has the edge in RCS against Rafale or EF Typhoon.


I always had the impression that RCS is a passive (only) feature. A "better radar" or more precisely a low probability interception (LPI) radar also shouldn't reduce an aircraft's RCS but it should only make it harder to be detected by the enemy's passive sensors.
As opposed Stealth (or passive Stealth) makes the aircraft harder to be detected by the enemy's active sensors (radar).

By the way, shouldn't the nose radome shield the aircraft's own radar antenna from incoming radar/radio waves?


hornetfinn wrote:Refueling probe in Rafale is not that big deal from RCS PoV. It's a thin structure which is tilted in its vertical portion. It also doesn't have clear reflecting edges or corners. I doubt it affects RCS much more than carrying regular AAM. I'm also not convinced that intakes of Rafale affect RCS much more than the intakes in SH especially in the frontal sector. I think the radar is bigger issue. However we are likely comparing pretty small differences between these two.


Well if the refueling probe has a same/similar RCS as a "regular" AAM I would say that there is already some noticeable increase in RCS.
I also wouldn't discount the air intakes and its role in RCS. For example aren't many radar NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) techniques based on the scanning of the target's air intakes? And as such isn't this some considerable evidence that air intakes have a heavy role in the aircrafts RCS?

Moreover, if we look at almost all "Stealth" or VLO aircraft like the F-117, F-22 and F-35 all of them have square-ish air intakes. This leaves the B-2, which while having a slightly rounded shape in a couple of the air intakes edges, the B-2 air intakes are more "square-ish" than "round-ish". Moreover the B-2 air intakes are located in the upper (and thus less exposed to enemy radars) part of the B-2.
Again the most noticeable difference between the legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet is the air intakes ("square-ish" in the SH against "round-ish" in the Hornet) and again one of the most important improvements of the Super Hornet over the Hornet is the exactly a reduced RCS.
I believe that all of this is not a mere "random chance" case. :wink:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 01 Jun 2017, 22:04
by magitsu
ricnunes wrote:I always had the impression that RCS is a passive (only) feature. A "better radar" or more precisely a low probability interception (LPI) radar also shouldn't reduce an aircraft's RCS but it should only make it harder to be detected by the enemy's passive sensors.

He's talking about the dish alignment and construction, not active features like LPI.

ricnunes wrote:By the way, shouldn't the nose radome shield the aircraft's own radar antenna from incoming radar/radio waves?

Read the chapter starting The antenna inside.
http://www.f-16.net/f-16-news-article1133.html

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 06:29
by linkomart
SpudmanWP wrote:The nosecone of the F-35 is for obvious reasons radar-transparent. For this reason the APG-81 underneath (and it's surrounding structures) has to maintain the VLO signature. They do this by presenting the dish as a single, angled surface.

The APG-81 is surrounded by what is most likely a RAM foam spacer as you can see below. Note the foam "fingers" that mesh perfectly with the T&R modules around the edge of the array.

Image

Image


Nice picture.
The nosecone, or radome, is most likely a FSS, frequency selective surface, witch is transparent to the wavelengths of the radar, and reflective to other frequency. The foam around the radar is also most likely a RAM, but I believe the "fingers" are there to minimize the edge return from the circular hole in the RAM. (Radar absorbent materials do not absorb all incoming energy, it reflects some as well) See it as an analog to the saw tooth edges at the structure end around the nozzle.

regards

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 06:59
by linkomart
hornetfinn wrote:RCS depends somewhat on what version of Super Hornet and Dassault Rafale (or Eurofighter Typhoon) we are comparing here. If we compare AN/APG-73 MSA equipped Block 1 Super Hornet, then it definitely has noticeably larger RCS than AN/APG-79 equipped Block 2 SH. Rafale F1 with PESA radar likely has larger RCS than AESA equipped F3+ version. Radar dish is one of the main component of RCS for fighters with some LO built in. APG-79 is tilted back because of this while Rafale RBE2 is not (as there is not. This is main reason why I think SH has the edge in RCS against Rafale or EF Typhoon.

Refueling probe in Rafale is not that big deal from RCS PoV. It's a thin structure which is tilted in its vertical portion. It also doesn't have clear reflecting edges or corners. I doubt it affects RCS much more than carrying regular AAM. I'm also not convinced that intakes of Rafale affect RCS much more than the intakes in SH especially in the frontal sector. I think the radar is bigger issue. However we are likely comparing pretty small differences between these two.


Agree, the sphere on the AAR probe is the biggest contributor to the rcs from the probe, and I don't have the radius of it from the top of my head, but its slightly bigger than a golf ball I think, (but I don't play golf.....) There is a lot of (or some) contribution from the circular tracks surrounding the probe as well, but it's smaller than the contribution from the external stores.

Then if we compare the air intakes:
Image
Image
The Air intakes on the Rafale are treated with RAM for lowering the RCS, and most likely the intake duct as well. I believe I've seen pictures of the lips were you can see the edges of the RAM-coating. The intake duct is also slightly curved, witch means that the energy entering the duct will bounce a lot, increasing the effectiveness of the RAM.
Image
Super Hornet have edge alignment on the air intake lips, this is good in a way that you channel the spikes in one direction, on the other hand the intake duct is straight, meaning that the RAM in there needs to be much better to give the same RCS reduction as in the Rafale. Since the engine face is visible from the front it also needs a good absorbent on the vanes in front of the fan.
Boeing probably have better materials at hand than Dassault (note, probably, the Frenchmen are better at this than you think) but the curved duct gives Rafale a slightly better hand overall, in my assessment. The lips are better aligned on the Super Hornet but the radius on the Rafale lip is smaller, so maybe it's a toss up. I think that the contribution from the duct is bigger than the contribution from the lips anyway, therefore my guess is that the Rafale have less contribution from the intakes than the SH.

But intakes are not all, and for these aircraft with the weapons external, I'd say that the RCS is dictated by the external load, basically you can add up the RCS from the load and get the aircrafts total RCS. That will be close enough.

my 5 cent

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 09:34
by hornetfinn
ricnunes wrote:By the way, shouldn't the nose radome shield the aircraft's own radar antenna from incoming radar/radio waves?


Yes it does, but it has to be transparent in the wavelengths used by the radar itself. It helps a lot for sure, but if enemy radar uses similar frequencies, it sees through the radome. That's why the antennas of F-35, F/A-18 and F-22 are tilted back.

ricnunes wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:Refueling probe in Rafale is not that big deal from RCS PoV. It's a thin structure which is tilted in its vertical portion. It also doesn't have clear reflecting edges or corners. I doubt it affects RCS much more than carrying regular AAM. I'm also not convinced that intakes of Rafale affect RCS much more than the intakes in SH especially in the frontal sector. I think the radar is bigger issue. However we are likely comparing pretty small differences between these two.


Well if the refueling probe has a same/similar RCS as a "regular" AAM I would say that there is already some noticeable increase in RCS.
I also wouldn't discount the air intakes and its role in RCS. For example aren't many radar NCTR (Non-Cooperative Target Recognition) techniques based on the scanning of the target's air intakes? And as such isn't this some considerable evidence that air intakes have a heavy role in the aircrafts RCS?

Moreover, if we look at almost all "Stealth" or VLO aircraft like the F-117, F-22 and F-35 all of them have square-ish air intakes. This leaves the B-2, which while having a slightly rounded shape in a couple of the air intakes edges, the B-2 air intakes are more "square-ish" than "round-ish". Moreover the B-2 air intakes are located in the upper (and thus less exposed to enemy radars) part of the B-2.
Again the most noticeable difference between the legacy Hornet and the Super Hornet is the air intakes ("square-ish" in the SH against "round-ish" in the Hornet) and again one of the most important improvements of the Super Hornet over the Hornet is the exactly a reduced RCS.
I believe that all of this is not a mere "random chance" case. :wink:


AAMs actually have rather low RCS from most directions. Even older IR seeking missiles with big fins and wings have RCS in the region of 0.001 to 0.01 square meters from all other directions besides directly from sides (wings and fins are the reason for this) and directly from behind (because of the rocket engine nozzle is good reflector). Modern missiles likely have significantly lower RCS due to much smaller wings and fins and because their shaping is better especially from front sector (due to much smaller seeker window). They also use more RCS-friendly materials. That's not going to affect RCS of SH or Rafale that much. Even F-35 is said to be affected quite little by external ASRAAM.

NCTR uses mostly the reflections from engine turbine blades which give very unique radar signature (JEM). If turbine blades are not visible to radar, then NCTR gets much more difficult as there is much less to work with. Of course both SH and Rafale hide the blades with different techniques. Of course it can be done since every aircraft has unique radar signature with different reflecting surfaces. By doing ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar) imaging, radar can create a recognizable image from the target. What makes aircraft recognizable depends on what parts of the aircraft give the strongest return. F-35 and F-22 would be very difficult to recognize (even if radar was capable of detecting and tracking them) as they have so little clear reflectors that could be used to do NCTR.

True that VLO aircraft have square-ish intakes and it might well be that this gives SH an edge. VLO aircraft also have curved intake ducts. Rafale has that and Super Hornet does not (at least to same degree). I think it's difficult to say if one is better than the other. I'd bet on SH if I had to, but the differences are likely pretty small.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 09:44
by linkomart
hornetfinn wrote:
AAMs actually have rather low RCS from most directions. Even older IR seeking missiles with big fins and wings have RCS in the region of 0.001 to 0.01 square meters from all other directions besides directly from sides


With the caveat that A: these things are not public, B: It depends on frequency, C: We don't specify exactly which missile we are talking about.

I'd say that your estimation of the missiles RCS is very optimistic.

my 5 cent.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 11:01
by hornetfinn
linkomart wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
AAMs actually have rather low RCS from most directions. Even older IR seeking missiles with big fins and wings have RCS in the region of 0.001 to 0.01 square meters from all other directions besides directly from sides


With the caveat that A: these things are not public, B: It depends on frequency, C: We don't specify exactly which missile we are talking about.

I'd say that your estimation of the missiles RCS is very optimistic.

my 5 cent.


Sure and I was just giving order of magnitude here. I'm basing this on the tests and calculations done in Brazil using retired (old) IR seeking missile:
http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol3_n1/J ... 10_GHz.pdf

http://www.jatm.com.br/ojs/index.php/ja ... ew/118/599

It seems they were probably using AIM-9B for this as those missiles were used by Brazilian AF at some point. It's very probable that other IR seeking missiles of the last millenium have similar RCS as they are all fairly similar in shape and features. Still, that RCS level will not increase 4th gen fighter RCS much from most angles, even the latest ones. It will raise it for 5th gen fighters as they have so low RCS to begin with. Of course missiles will create significant spikes from certain directions and that's not wanted.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 16:14
by ricnunes
hornetfinn wrote:Yes it does, but it has to be transparent in the wavelengths used by the radar itself. It helps a lot for sure, but if enemy radar uses similar frequencies, it sees through the radome. That's why the antennas of F-35, F/A-18 and F-22 are tilted back.


Ok, that makes perfect sense, thanks for the heads up hornetfinn!

That's why this site (f-16.net) is so great. Lots of new things to learn.
In this case personally or for me it was like a variable missing in a bigger equation.


hornetfinn wrote:NCTR uses mostly the reflections from engine turbine blades which give very unique radar signature (JEM). If turbine blades are not visible to radar, then NCTR gets much more difficult as there is much less to work with. Of course both SH and Rafale hide the blades with different techniques. Of course it can be done since every aircraft has unique radar signature with different reflecting surfaces. By doing ISAR (Inverse Synthetic Aperture Radar) imaging, radar can create a recognizable image from the target. What makes aircraft recognizable depends on what parts of the aircraft give the strongest return. F-35 and F-22 would be very difficult to recognize (even if radar was capable of detecting and tracking them) as they have so little clear reflectors that could be used to do NCTR.


Thanks for the throughout explanation of how "older" (or non-ISAR) NCTR techniques work.




hornetfinn wrote:True that VLO aircraft have square-ish intakes and it might well be that this gives SH an edge. VLO aircraft also have curved intake ducts. Rafale has that and Super Hornet does not (at least to same degree). I think it's difficult to say if one is better than the other. I'd bet on SH if I had to, but the differences are likely pretty small.


From all this great post of your (thanks again) I believe here is the only part where I don't agree much or more precisely I don't agree that either Super Hornet or the Rafale (or Typhoon) can or should be considered VLO aircraft. Yes, these 4.5th aircraft have lower RCS than previous 4th gen fighter aircraft like the F-16 or legacy Hornet but calling them VLO is a bit of an "exaggeration", won't you agree? :wink:
Being said, I would said that among all "true" VLO aircraft that ever entered in service or are in service today: The F-117, B-2, F-22 and F-35 all have "square-ish" air intakes with a bit of an exception of the B-2 but even the air intakes of the B-2 are more "square-ish" than "round-ish".
Besides even all other VLO aircraft in development today (lets see if they will really be VLO) like the T-50, J-20 and J-31, all have "square-ish" air intakes.

But again and for the rest I fully agree with you (I also agree with your "bet").

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 16:18
by loke
hornetfinn wrote:
linkomart wrote:
hornetfinn wrote:
AAMs actually have rather low RCS from most directions. Even older IR seeking missiles with big fins and wings have RCS in the region of 0.001 to 0.01 square meters from all other directions besides directly from sides


With the caveat that A: these things are not public, B: It depends on frequency, C: We don't specify exactly which missile we are talking about.

I'd say that your estimation of the missiles RCS is very optimistic.

my 5 cent.


Sure and I was just giving order of magnitude here. I'm basing this on the tests and calculations done in Brazil using retired (old) IR seeking missile:
http://www.jatm.com.br/papers/vol3_n1/J ... 10_GHz.pdf

http://www.jatm.com.br/ojs/index.php/ja ... ew/118/599

It seems they were probably using AIM-9B for this as those missiles were used by Brazilian AF at some point. It's very probable that other IR seeking missiles of the last millenium have similar RCS as they are all fairly similar in shape and features. Still, that RCS level will not increase 4th gen fighter RCS much from most angles, even the latest ones. It will raise it for 5th gen fighters as they have so low RCS to begin with. Of course missiles will create significant spikes from certain directions and that's not wanted.

I am not expert on this but looking at the first paper you linked to (figure 11) it seems to me that we are more around
-10dB (without RAM) to -20dB (with RAM); I thought that would correspond to around 0.1 -- 0.01 m2 ?

Also, I thought BVR missiles like AIM-120 would have higher RCS than the IR missiles?

In addition to the missile there is also the pylon... Anyhow I believe modern a/c will have "stealth pylons" so perhaps not adding that much to the RCS?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 16:30
by ricnunes
@linkomart,

First of all thanks for your photos from the SH and Rafale air intakes! They have an excellent quality and indeed it can be seen that there's some work done by Dassault in trying to reduce RCS and/or mask radar signature in the Rafale's air intakes.
However I don't agree with your assertion that the Rafale's engine turbine blades are "mostly hidden" while the Super Hornet's are "fully exposed" and the reason is the angle where the photos were taken:
- It can clearly be seen (at least in my opinion) that in both the Rafale's air intake photos the angle was either lower (in the 1st photo) and higher (2nd photo) compared to the air intake straight level.
- In the case of the Super Hornet the photo was taken directly or at straight level of the aircraft's air intake.

Resuming the Rafale's engine turbine blades are also (and I would even dare to say equality) exposed when compared to the Super Hornet's engine turbine blades. This can partially be seen in the 1st air intake photo (lower angle) of the Rafale.
For example if the photograph from the Super Hornet's air intake was also taken at lower level I'm sure that we would see the same level of engine turbine blades exposure as we see in the Rafale's 1st air intake picture.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 17:08
by loke
ricnunes wrote:@linkomart,

First of all thanks for your photos from the SH and Rafale air intakes! They have an excellent quality and indeed it can be seen that there's some work done by Dassault in trying to reduce RCS and/or mask radar signature in the Rafale's air intakes.
However I don't agree with your assertion that the Rafale's engine turbine blades are "mostly hidden" while the Super Hornet's are "fully exposed" and the reason is the angle where the photos were taken:
- It can clearly be seen (at least in my opinion) that in both the Rafale's air intake photos the angle was either lower (in the 1st photo) and higher (2nd photo) compared to the air intake straight level.
- In the case of the Super Hornet the photo was taken directly or at straight level of the aircraft's air intake.

Resuming the Rafale's engine turbine blades are also (and I would even dare to say equality) exposed when compared to the Super Hornet's engine turbine blades. This can partially be seen in the 1st air intake photo (lower angle) of the Rafale.
For example if the photograph from the Super Hornet's air intake was also taken at lower level I'm sure that we would see the same level of engine turbine blades exposure as we see in the Rafale's 1st air intake picture.

The Rafale air intakes have a "double S" shape, making it difficult for the radar waves to go straight in, without bouncing around first.

It seems it's much simpler to "see" further into the SH air intake from various angles, however AFAIK the SH is still having a low RCS due to using radar blockers -- I believe what we see in the SH picture is not the engine blades but radar blockers?

And (somebody with knowledge) please correct me if I am wrong.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-con ... e_nr_4.pdf

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 20:49
by ricnunes
loke wrote:The Rafale air intakes have a "double S" shape, making it difficult for the radar waves to go straight in, without bouncing around first.

It seems it's much simpler to "see" further into the SH air intake from various angles, however AFAIK the SH is still having a low RCS due to using radar blockers -- I believe what we see in the SH picture is not the engine blades but radar blockers?

And (somebody with knowledge) please correct me if I am wrong.

http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-con ... e_nr_4.pdf


Both aircraft (Super Hornet and Rafale) have similar curved ducts in the air intakes in order to shield the engine/turbine blades. The only difference is that photo of the Rafale shows this better due to a combination of angle (like I mentioned before) and the distance at which the photo was taken.

Here:
Image

and here:
Image

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 22:07
by linkomart
ricnunes wrote:@linkomart,

First of all thanks for your photos from the SH and Rafale air intakes! They have an excellent quality and indeed it can be seen that there's some work done by Dassault in trying to reduce RCS and/or mask radar signature in the Rafale's air intakes.
However I don't agree with your assertion that the Rafale's engine turbine blades are "mostly hidden" while the Super Hornet's are "fully exposed" and the reason is the angle where the photos were taken:
- It can clearly be seen (at least in my opinion) that in both the Rafale's air intake photos the angle was either lower (in the 1st photo) and higher (2nd photo) compared to the air intake straight level.
- In the case of the Super Hornet the photo was taken directly or at straight level of the aircraft's air intake.

Resuming the Rafale's engine turbine blades are also (and I would even dare to say equality) exposed when compared to the Super Hornet's engine turbine blades. This can partially be seen in the 1st air intake photo (lower angle) of the Rafale.
For example if the photograph from the Super Hornet's air intake was also taken at lower level I'm sure that we would see the same level of engine turbine blades exposure as we see in the Rafale's 1st air intake picture.


Hi
The reason I assess (guess) the RCS of the Rafale duct to be lower than the SH duct is:
The engine face (or blocker) can be seen from 0/0 azimut/elevation. This means (simplified) that the energy going in to the duct can have as little as one bounce before going back to the radar.
The Rafale engine face is not visible from 0/0 but rather -5/15 or so. This means that the energy going in will have several bounces.
Why does this matter?
Suppose The Fenchmen have a RAM that dampens 3dB, and that the energy bounces six times. Now, without a calculator, this means that 1-2% of the energy returns.
The RAM of the SH needs to be a lot better to absorb 99%.

If I don't make myself clear, let me get back after the weekend (we have 4 Days off here)

regards

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 02 Jun 2017, 23:54
by ricnunes
linkomart wrote:Hi
The reason I assess (guess) the RCS of the Rafale duct to be lower than the SH duct is:
The engine face (or blocker) can be seen from 0/0 azimut/elevation. This means (simplified) that the energy going in to the duct can have as little as one bounce before going back to the radar.
The Rafale engine face is not visible from 0/0 but rather -5/15 or so. This means that the energy going in will have several bounces.


Don't get me wrong but that's exactly what I don't buy.
I don't buy that the Rafale's engine/turbine blades (or "engine face" as you call it) cannot be see from a "0/0 azimut/elevation" as you say.
For sure that your photos (which again have a good quality) don't prove this and in my opinion they seem to even "prove" otherwise.
The picture that shows the Rafale's engine/turbine blades (which I reposted and edited with text) was clearly taken from a lower elevation/angle (lower than 0 degrees). If this photo was taken from a "0/0 azimut/elevation" I strongly believe that we would see the Rafale's engine/turbine blades even better (they would be "more exposed") and the engine/turbine blades "level of exposure" would very similar to what we can see in the Super Hornet photo.

Or more to the point, the Super Hornet air intake photo was taken from a "0/0 azimut/elevation" while both Rafale's air intake photos were clearly not.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 07:12
by linkomart
ricnunes wrote:
Don't get me wrong but that's exactly what I don't buy.
I don't buy that the Rafale's engine/turbine blades (or "engine face" as you call it) cannot be see from a "0/0 azimut/elevation" as you say.
For sure that your photos (which again have a good quality) don't prove this and in my opinion they seem to even "prove" otherwise.
The picture that shows the Rafale's engine/turbine blades (which I reposted and edited with text) was clearly taken from a lower elevation/angle (lower than 0 degrees). If this photo was taken from a "0/0 azimut/elevation" I strongly believe that we would see the Rafale's engine/turbine blades even better (they would be "more exposed") and the engine/turbine blades "level of exposure" would very similar to what we can see in the Super Hornet photo.

Or more to the point, the Super Hornet air intake photo was taken from a "0/0 azimut/elevation" while both Rafale's air intake photos were clearly not.


I don't get you wrong, your guess is as good as mine. IF the Rafale engine is visible in 0/0 a/e the number of bounces will go down and then the duct will probably not be better than the SH duct.
As I said, I base my guess on the assumption that the Rafale duct is more curved and that the Engine face is not visible 0/0.
I base my guess of return from the lips to be smaller due to the impression that the raddi of the lips is much less on the Rafale. (And that there probably is some sort of (magnetic?) absorbant there.) SH lips are of greater raadi, and even though the absorbant probably is better, the larger raddi cancels that out. Planform alingnment is good in the sence that it angles the retun in to one dangerous angle, but on a conventional aircraft that is not as helpful as on a real LO Aircraft.

I've worked with both engineers from Dassault and Boeing and, even if these things are the things that you really have to be on your toes when talking about, I got the impression that the French engineers were really knowledgeable about the subject. This is not a comparision with the Boeing engineers, since the aircraft we were designing had nothing to do with low RCS.

my 5 cent

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 12:43
by halloweene
All we got (official quotes) are the clean RCS of rafale to be 1/10th or 1/20th of Mirage 2000. If one compares Rafale A (tech demonstrator) to rafale B/C, the general layout is similar, but there is no real identity. Wing/body junction etc. were blended as an example. In fact, it is clearly stated that the Rafale shape were completely redesigned in order to minimize RCS.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 13:05
by ricnunes
linkomart wrote:
I don't get you wrong, your guess is as good as mine. IF the Rafale engine is visible in 0/0 a/e the number of bounces will go down and then the duct will probably not be better than the SH duct.
As I said, I base my guess on the assumption that the Rafale duct is more curved and that the Engine face is not visible 0/0.


Yup, indeed our assessments are on the guess side even because all pictures (that I've seen) from the Rafale's air intakes taken from a "0/0 azimut/elevation" the engine/turbine blades cannot be seen since these pictures are too dark (inside the air intakes), like for example:

Image

Image


linkomart wrote:I've worked with both engineers from Dassault and Boeing and, even if these things are the things that you really have to be on your toes when talking about, I got the impression that the French engineers were really knowledgeable about the subject. This is not a comparision with the Boeing engineers, since the aircraft we were designing had nothing to do with low RCS.

my 5 cent


This may look at bit of a nitpicking on my side but in terms of the Super Hornet development and its engineers we should probably refer them as "McDonnell Douglas engineers" instead of "Boeing engineers".
The fact is that the Super Hornet was developed by the now-defunct (purchased by Boeing) McDonnell Douglas instead of being developed by Boeing.
And why am I saying/posting this? Because McDonnell Douglas seem to have had an extensive experience with VLO/Stealth aircraft, namely thru the YF-23 Black Window II project which by the way was said to be Stealthier than its competitor the YF-22 which later became the F-22 Raptor.
My point is that personally I don't have any doubts that Boeing (thru the purchased McDonnell Douglas) has a far higher experience and knowledge with VLO/Stealth aircraft/technology than Dassault or any other European aerospace company for that matter.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 13:14
by halloweene
My point is that personally I don't have any doubts that Boeing (thru the purchased McDonnell Douglas) has a far higher experience and knowledge with VLO/Stealth aircraft/technology than Dassault or any other European aerospace company for that matter.


That is pure supposition. One correct point : loading is impairing RCS.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 20:15
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:
My point is that personally I don't have any doubts that Boeing (thru the purchased McDonnell Douglas) has a far higher experience and knowledge with VLO/Stealth aircraft/technology than Dassault or any other European aerospace company for that matter.


That is pure supposition. One correct point : loading is impairing RCS.


At least I try my best that "my suppositions" be soundly based/well grounded, now about your suppositions you just limit to post them without anything to back them up... :roll:

Tell me, did Dassault ever build an aircraft like the YF-23 or along these lines?? No they didn't!

Their (Dassault) lowest RCS design is based on a design (Rafale A) that flew for the first time in 1984 (the same year the Olympic Games were held in Los Angeles) and there's only so much you can do in terms of reducing the RCS of a conventional design such as the Rafale A.
So yes, it's more than safe to assume that Boeing has more experience and knowledge about VLO/Stealth aircraft than your "beloved Dassault". Oh, on top of the YF-23 (thru McDonnell Douglas) there was also the X-32 from Boeing (ugly as hell but Stealth/VLO nonetheless!).
Stealth/VLO is mostly achived thru design and if stealth wasn't though before the aircraft's design stage than there's isn't much someone can do apart from reducing the RCS a bit. And the rest are suppositions such as the ones you often "ventilate" around here...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jun 2017, 23:18
by bring_it_on
Plenty of flying prototypes and US Government funded non prototyped programs have helped the Phantom works in developing an understanding of Low Observable configurations and materials. Bird of Prey, X-45 A and B, their work on the YF23, design work along with Lockheed for Boeing on the YF-22, (read the book on it, design teams worked closely with each other setting aside proprietary concerns) X-32, and other older programs and classified work. So much so, that Lockheed, which has built more stealth aircraft than any other aerospace company on the planet was willing to let Boeing be a prime on an $80 Billion + program where survivability was one of the most, if not the most important design factors. But of course in terms of expereince of operational aircraft, they are behind both lockheed and Northrop Grumman that have fielded VLO designs decades earlier.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2017, 03:17
by lbk000
i understand what you're trying to get at ricnunes, that perhaps the rafale also has a certain angle that exposes as much of the turbine face as the super bug, but from the photos available on the internet it's pretty impressive how serpentine the duct is.
Image from this angle you can see the engine sits significantly higher above the intake than in the bug. perhaps the magic angle you're looking for exists in between this viewpoint and the earlier one posted.

i recall quite clearly reading aviation week mags back in the early 2000s were were notable articles regarding serpentine ducts in the jsf and super bug programs -- i don't think anyone's guilty of not knowing how serpentine duct works. more likely with the bug they couldn't do much more than this without significantly altering the aerodynamic design, which would be incur costs counterproductive to the goal of the program.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2017, 10:27
by Tiger05
ricnunes wrote:
halloweene wrote:
My point is that personally I don't have any doubts that Boeing (thru the purchased McDonnell Douglas) has a far higher experience and knowledge with VLO/Stealth aircraft/technology than Dassault or any other European aerospace company for that matter.


That is pure supposition. One correct point : loading is impairing RCS.


At least I try my best that "my suppositions" be soundly based/well grounded, now about your suppositions you just limit to post them without anything to back them up... :roll:

Tell me, did Dassault ever build an aircraft like the YF-23 or along these lines?? No they didn't!

Their (Dassault) lowest RCS design is based on a design (Rafale A) that flew for the first time in 1984 (the same year the Olympic Games were held in Los Angeles) and there's only so much you can do in terms of reducing the RCS of a conventional design such as the Rafale A. It had been slightly redesigned and made smaller, had gold-plated canopy and some RAM coating applied.
So yes, it's more than safe to assume that Boeing has more experience and knowledge about VLO/Stealth aircraft than your "beloved Dassault". Oh, on top of the YF-23 (thru McDonnell Douglas) there was also the X-32 from Boeing (ugly as hell but Stealth/VLO nonetheless!).
Stealth/VLO is mostly achived thru design and if stealth wasn't though before the aircraft's design stage than there's isn't much someone can do apart from reducing the RCS a bit. And the rest are suppositions such as the ones you often "ventilate" around here...


Agreed that MDD/Boeing has more experience than Dassault in VLO/stealth designs, however stating that the Rafale is their "lowest RCS design" is incorrect. For example, they developed and build the LOGIDUC and Neuron experimental stealth UCAVs so they have at least acquired some experience in that field.

Just my 2 cents.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2017, 15:58
by ricnunes
Tiger05 wrote:Agreed that MDD/Boeing has more experience than Dassault in VLO/stealth designs, however stating that the Rafale is their "lowest RCS design" is incorrect. For example, they developed and build the LOGIDUC and Neuron experimental stealth UCAVs so they have at least acquired some experience in that field.

Just my 2 cents.


Ok, agree with you on the Neuron and you certainly have a point here.
Perhaps I should have said (at least that was my intention):
- Rafale is their "lowest RCS MANNED design"

But thanks for reminding me of the Neuron :wink:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 04 Jun 2017, 16:27
by ricnunes
lbk000 wrote:i understand what you're trying to get at ricnunes, that perhaps the rafale also has a certain angle that exposes as much of the turbine face as the super bug, but from the photos available on the internet it's pretty impressive how serpentine the duct is...
... perhaps the magic angle you're looking for exists in between this viewpoint and the earlier one posted.



I'm not looking for any "magical angle". What I'm looking for is the exact same angle in the Rafale air intakes as we see in the Super Hornet's air intakes photo, or resuming a direct and frontal angle shot/photo of the Rafale's air intakes where the engine/turbine blades can be seen.

For example in the photo that you shared (great photo by the way, thanks for sharing) the angle seems in my opinion to have been clearly taken from a left to right angle and smaller differences in angles can change how we (Human beings) perceive (or see) things.

By looking at several Rafale's air intake photos I'm even willing to accept that a larger percentage/part of the engine/turbine blades in the Rafale is hidden by the duct compared to the Super Hornet.
However what I don't agree (specially by looking at all the photos) is that the engine/turbine blades in the Rafale are "completely" or "totally" hidden from frontal radar emissions (as some seem to have suggested here).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Jun 2017, 18:32
by halloweene
ricnunes wrote:
lbk000 wrote:i understand what you're trying to get at ricnunes, that perhaps the rafale also has a certain angle that exposes as much of the turbine face as the super bug, but from the photos available on the internet it's pretty impressive how serpentine the duct is...
... perhaps the magic angle you're looking for exists in between this viewpoint and the earlier one posted.



I'm not looking for any "magical angle". What I'm looking for is the exact same angle in the Rafale air intakes as we see in the Super Hornet's air intakes photo, or resuming a direct and frontal angle shot/photo of the Rafale's air intakes where the engine/turbine blades can be seen.

For example in the photo that you shared (great photo by the way, thanks for sharing) the angle seems in my opinion to have been clearly taken from a left to right angle and smaller differences in angles can change how we (Human beings) perceive (or see) things.

By looking at several Rafale's air intake photos I'm even willing to accept that a larger percentage/part of the engine/turbine blades in the Rafale is hidden by the duct compared to the Super Hornet.
However what I don't agree (specially by looking at all the photos) is that the engine/turbine blades in the Rafale are "completely" or "totally" hidden from frontal radar emissions (as some seem to have suggested here).


Havin looked inside, i'd say 80% are hidden.one would need really unlucky radar beam angle to see it.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 03 Jul 2017, 08:52
by talkitron
This is a great article on a leading Indian military blog about the Rafale ecosystem. You learn a lot about training systems and mission planning systems, among other fun details.

https://www.livefistdefence.com/2017/07/14696.html

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 00:20
by jetblast16


In its airshow configuration, the Rafale has an unbelievable instantaneous turn and roll rate, but the F-35 is next league 8)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 10:45
by halloweene
Future SDB like armaments of Rafale.... In french (google is your friend)

http://www.portail-aviation.com/2017/07 ... -mbda.html

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 11:28
by bring_it_on
What seeker options are they exploring for this weapon? The linked article and others I have read lack specifics about various configurations but reading I do get the sense that it will have multiple versions one with the IR/Visual sensor and another with the radar.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 12:32
by halloweene
bring_it_on wrote:What seeker options are they exploring for this weapon? The linked article and others I have read lack specifics about various configurations but reading I do get the sense that it will have multiple versions one with the IR/Visual sensor and another with the radar.


INS/GPS or , EO, laser, RDR, combinations depending on customer requirements.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 12:56
by bring_it_on
That is vague. Of course they can fit in a rocket on it if the customer wants it but which versions are going to be developed and fielded? Will it have a single mode, dual mode or tri mode seeker and which combination is referred to in the specifications shared by the company? Are we to believe that they can have a GPS version, an IIR version, and an RF version or a version that combines all of the above within at the same weight class as one or two mode options? These are some of the things unanswered at launch at least from what I have been able to read up. One smart thing they have done is retained the guidance for a 2000 lb weapon. This could allow some economies of scale for cost reasons since SDBI and II are high volume production programs.

EDIT: Here is what Jane's Missiles and Rockets wrote for their detailed piece on the weapon family. A bit vague but as I read things, I see the configruation evolving if more capability is added above the baseline but as things stand this is more of an SDB analogous rather than an SDB II or Spear analogous that will at a higher price point assume some SDB II capability.

MBDA is offering a basic option of SmartGlider featuring GPS/GNSS/ INS navigation with a semi-active laser (SAL) sensor for terminal guidance. An enhanced version (available as a higher-cost option) adds to the basic guidance option a combined, low-band visible electro-optic (EO)/ uncooled infrared (IR) seeker (leveraged from MBDA's Missile Moyenne Portée) with automatic target recognition. In the future, navigation could be enhanced with a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) capability.

The warhead on both variants - SmartGlider Light and SmartGlider Heavy - is integral to the body of the missile, and effectively comprises a minimum two-thirds of the munition, said Moussez. The design of the 80 kg warhead for SmartGlider Light has yet to be finalised, although Moussez said that a scalable-effects warhead - potentially designed by MBDA's subsidiary, TDW - is a potential option, if required.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 14:18
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:Future SDB like armaments of Rafale.... In french (google is your friend)

http://www.portail-aviation.com/2017/07 ... -mbda.html


The French equivalent of the JDAM costs about 10 times what the US variant does. No thanks. Anyone that buys this this airplane has money to burn on a small fleet , loaded with proprietary parts.

This is what India discovered themselves the hard way

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 15:27
by SpudmanWP
I wonder how well France is going to support the NUAI (NATO UAI) standard? This will put a tight squeeze on these types of "our planes require our munitions) types of deals.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 17:13
by halloweene
XanderCrews wrote:
halloweene wrote:Future SDB like armaments of Rafale.... In french (google is your friend)

http://www.portail-aviation.com/2017/07 ... -mbda.html


The French equivalent of the JDAM costs about 10 times what the US variant does. No thanks. Anyone that buys this this airplane has money to burn on a small fleet , loaded with proprietary parts.

This is what India discovered themselves the hard way


Completely false, nevermind (costs of JDAM equivaent), which equivalent there isn't any. The only "near equivalent" would be the incoming AASM block iv "evolution" without engine... And we do not k now their price depending on configurations.
About that "with my weapons only", Spice bmobs are integrated for indian Rafale, aswell as Astra missile will be. For the sake of information, Rafale isfully stanag compatible.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 17:21
by halloweene
bring_it_on wrote:That is vague. Of course they can fit in a rocket on it if the customer wants it but which versions are going to be developed and fielded? Will it have a single mode, dual mode or tri mode seeker and which combination is referred to in the specifications shared by the company? Are we to believe that they can have a GPS version, an IIR version, and an RF version or a version that combines all of the above within at the same weight class as one or two mode options? These are some of the things unanswered at launch at least from what I have been able to read up. One smart thing they have done is retained the guidance for a 2000 lb weapon. This could allow some economies of scale for cost reasons since SDBI and II are high volume production programs.

EDIT: Here is what Jane's Missiles and Rockets wrote for their detailed piece on the weapon family. A bit vague but as I read things, I see the configruation evolving if more capability is added above the baseline but as things stand this is more of an SDB analogous rather than an SDB II or Spear analogous that will at a higher price point assume some SDB II capability.

MBDA is offering a basic option of SmartGlider featuring GPS/GNSS/ INS navigation with a semi-active laser (SAL) sensor for terminal guidance. An enhanced version (available as a higher-cost option) adds to the basic guidance option a combined, low-band visible electro-optic (EO)/ uncooled infrared (IR) seeker (leveraged from MBDA's Missile Moyenne Portée) with automatic target recognition. In the future, navigation could be enhanced with a synthetic aperture radar (SAR) capability.

The warhead on both variants - SmartGlider Light and SmartGlider Heavy - is integral to the body of the missile, and effectively comprises a minimum two-thirds of the munition, said Moussez. The design of the 80 kg warhead for SmartGlider Light has yet to be finalised, although Moussez said that a scalable-effects warhead - potentially designed by MBDA's subsidiary, TDW - is a potential option, if required.


Point is it will have SDBII precision and SDBI power.+ scalable effects + ITAR free. And MBDA do claim they wll be competitive.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 17:38
by SpudmanWP
halloweene wrote:Completely false, nevermind (costs of JDAM equivaent),


JDAM is a very modular system that includes GPS, LGB, and HOBS for the sensors and even a wing kit for extended range. There is even a jet engine in the works.

Image

On the cost issue.. Yeah, good luck finding actual production costs for each version. Too bad other countries don't follow the US model and make non-black project costs public every year.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 18:02
by bring_it_on
Point is it will have SDBII precision and SDBI power.+ scalable effects + ITAR free. And MBDA do claim they wll be competitive.


SDBII is a more flexibility weapon thanks to a tri mode seeker that combines IIR SAL and MMW features. It gives options of all weather attack for all sorts of different target sets. If you show up with a SAL+GPS/INS or an alternate configuration with GPS/INS+IIR front end you may get an accurate weapon but you will not get one as flexible as it. This is simple common sense..multi-mode options doesn't exist just for the kicks of it, it is there to provide flexibility in employing the weapon from various manned, unmanned, penetrating and stand off platforms.

And MBDA do claim they wll be competitive.


Unless you subsidize something the only way to be price competitive with something that has a 5 digit production assurance is to either produce at equal economies of scale, produce in cheaper economies where technology access is not a barrier but cost of labor is much less, or incorporate simpler lower cost technology. SDBI+SDBII is a 45-50K munition assured production program (min) and likely well over 60K once you factor in exports and follow-on orders. For context the current SDB buy is being increased by 7000+ weapons in FY18 alone..more in 19 and 20.

Boeing would have delivered well over 20,000 SDB Is by the time the first weapon configuration of this is handed over to its first customer, and Raytheon is likely to be well into the 3000s in terms of SDBII delivery as well. These are high volume (relatively) programs and ITAR does not play a significant role here. No SDB I or II customer is likely to be denied the weapon and the former is alreday exported to many nations around the world.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 18:23
by halloweene
SpudmanWP wrote:
halloweene wrote:Completely false, nevermind (costs of JDAM equivaent),


JDAM is a very modular system that includes GPS, LGB, and HOBS for the sensors and even a wing kit for extended range. There is even a jet engine in the works.

Image

On the cost issue.. Yeah, good luck finding actual production costs for each version. Too bad other countries don't follow the US model and make non-black project costs public every year.


There is NO french equivalent armament. Therefore nstating it is 3 times moren expensive is well... To stay polite unsubstanciated.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 18:33
by halloweene
What MBDA guy told us precisely at PAS 17 was INS/GNSS/EOIR (multichannel) + an option for RF seeker.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 18:56
by bring_it_on
halloweene wrote:What MBDA guy told us precisely at PAS 17 was INS/GNSS/EOIR (multichannel) + an option for RF seeker.


Yes and is there one configuration, multiple configurations, baseline variant, future varient etc etc etc.? Few details are available but it seems that a full up tri-mode weapon is an inspirational out years option and not something that is initially fielded. Meanwhile, More than 15,000 SDB's and Laser SDB's are operational, thousands on backorder, and a minimum 17,000 SDBII program for the USDOD alone which is expected to enter IOTE in the next few months.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good weapon particularly in the 2000lb class where it may well be the first such system. But it is going to be competing against systems that have delivered thousands of weapons and/or have an assured production of tens of thousands ahead of them - Economies of Scale that come with the buy rate of USDOD. What does that get you? Lower cost and the ability to deliver weapons quickly as production rate is at or near maximum. Plus it is many years behind these two weapons in terms of maturity and that does not help either. Of course it will sell for programs that have stovepiped systems where there is an integration cost associated with choosing SDBI/II, but that doesn't apply to hundreds of aircraft that are going to be sold over the next decade both in the 5th generation and advanced 4th generation side of things.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 19:27
by SpudmanWP
halloweene wrote:There is NO french equivalent armament. Therefore nstating it is 3 times moren expensive is well... To stay polite unsubstanciated.


I never said it was 3x as expensive. I just pointed out that since the French gov does not make actual costs public annually, that it's impossible to say what the AASM costs.

As others have pointed out, based on economies of scale, an AASM has virtually no chance of being anywhere near the cost of a equivalent JDAM, even when you restrict it to the GPS or LGB version w/o a motor.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 19:47
by gta4
Can rafale do this?

Look at how it loops near 270 deg in 9 seconds.
Look at the initial pitch rate at the first second.
9s 270 deg.png


https://youtu.be/S85cyE-BIJQ

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 20:17
by ricnunes
viper12 wrote:Well, the Rafale demonstrator did reach Mach 2, so I dunno why the production versions are slower.



Well, for once I'm pretty sure that production versions are quite heavier than demonstrator versions. For example demonstrator versions usually don't have or carry weapons systems or defensive systems (such as ECM) and other combat/aircraft systems (Radar, etc...) and I strongly believe that the production versions also have its structure reinforced (compared to demonstrators) in order to carry heavy loads/stores/weaponry something that a demonstrator usually doesn't carry.
This alone I believe is a good and plausible reason why the demonstrator is "faster" than the production version in the case of the Rafale but not only.
And again, this is not exclusive to the Rafale. Again, take the example of the F/A-18 (legacy) which its demonstrator was the YF-17. The YF-17 reached a top speed of Mach 2 while the production F/A-18 reaches Mach 1.8+

On top of this there could also be other modifications from the demonstrator to the production version such as changes on the aircraft's aerodynamics which while will improve things such as the aircraft's "handling" and even agility it may have a slight negative effect on top speed but despite this slight negative effect, the positive side more than overweighs the negative (look again at the YF-17 to F/A-18 example).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 20:36
by halloweene
gta4 wrote:Can rafale do this?

Look at how it loops near 270 deg in 9 seconds.
Look at the initial pitch rate at the first second.
9s 270 deg.png


https://youtu.be/S85cyE-BIJQ


No it cannot. And?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 21:02
by halloweene
ricnunes wrote:
viper12 wrote:Well, the Rafale demonstrator did reach Mach 2, so I dunno why the production versions are slower.



Well, for once I'm pretty sure that production versions are quite heavier than demonstrator versions. For example demonstrator versions usually don't have or carry weapons systems or defensive systems (such as ECM) and other combat/aircraft systems (Radar, etc...) and I strongly believe that the production versions also have its structure reinforced (compared to demonstrators) in order to carry heavy loads/stores/weaponry something that a demonstrator usually doesn't carry.
This alone I believe is a good and plausible reason why the demonstrator is "faster" than the production version in the case of the Rafale but not only.
And again, this is not exclusive to the Rafale. Again, take the example of the F/A-18 (legacy) which its demonstrator was the YF-17. The YF-17 reached a top speed of Mach 2 while the production F/A-18 reaches Mach 1.8+


On top of this there could also be other modifications from the demonstrator to the production version such as changes on the aircraft's aerodynamics which while will improve things such as the aircraft's "handling" and even agility it may have a slight negative effect on top speed but despite this slight negative effect, the positive side more than overweighs the negative (look again at the YF-17 to F/A-18 example).


It is not a problem of weight,but yes production Rafale have an operationla max speed of 1.8. There are profound redesigns between Rafale A (tech demonstrator) and C , albeit general shape could make people blieve they are very close. Check the wing roots for example. IN fact, the first denomination of Rafale C was Rafale "D " (for Discreet). Materials aren't the same either.

Finally, what is so surprising to see a Rafale with 3 fuel tanks fly at mach 1.7 when one knows it can supercruise with one tank and four missiles?

Image

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 05 Jul 2017, 23:39
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:It is not a problem of weight,

...but yes production Rafale have an operationla max speed of 1.8. There are profound redesigns between Rafale A (tech demonstrator) and C , albeit general shape could make people blieve they are very close. Check the wing roots for example. IN fact, the first denomination of Rafale C was Rafale "D " (for Discreet). Materials aren't the same either.


That's what I also mentioned in my previous post! With "other words" but still mentioned by me. Here:
On top of this there could also be other modifications from the demonstrator to the production version such as changes on the aircraft's aerodynamics


And yes there's also the problem of weight or more precisely weight increase.
How can you say that this isn't a problem? :roll:
Like it or not, weight will always reduce performance.

halloweene wrote:Finally, what is so surprising to see a Rafale with 3 fuel tanks fly at mach 1.7 when one knows it can supercruise with one tank and four missiles?


Well, if you can't understand (or refuse to understand) what has been told you by several people here, well that's not my problem anymore.

But I'll continue to "bite" this one (at least for now):
According to your data/sources what is the Supercruise speed with 4 Micas (I imagine 4 semi-recessed in the fuselage?) and a centerline (supersonic) fuel tank? Mach 1.1? Mach 1.2? It doesn't say.
What your data says is that with 6 Micas (I imagine 4 semi-recessed in the fuselage plus two in the wingtips) which means without any external fuel tanks and without any wing and centerline pylons and without any stores hanging these pylons, that the Rafale can reach Mach 1.4
Ok I admit that this is impressive but again note that in this Mach 1.4 supercruise capable configuration there's NO external fuel tanks, no air-to-ground stores and NO pylons hanging on the aircraft or resuming nothing that induces drag by much.

With this said, 3 external fuel tanks (even being the "Supersonic" brand) plus its associated pylons means too much drag! As you increase speed at high Mach numbers, the drag induced by external stores will only get worse! No way, that with this configuration the Rafale reaches Mach 1.7 (even with Afterburners) specially flying straight and level.
At least I don't believe it and many others (as myself) have posted information that somehow contradicts your claim!
But yet you still prefer to believe in an edited video which is far from being "official information", so and again that's not my problem... :roll:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 01:32
by viper12
ricnunes wrote:And yes there's also the problem of weight or more precisely weight increase.
How can you say that this isn't a problem? :roll:
Like it or not, weight will always reduce performance.


Just a tidbit here ; although I don't have primary sources at hand, both French and English Wikipedia articles on the Rafale state that C01, the prototype of the C model, i.e. the single-seat Air Force version, is lighter and smaller than the Rafale A demonstrator. So unless the production models are a fair bit heavier than C01, that would rule out weight as a factor reducing the top speed.

C01 introduced different materials compared to the Rafale A such as composites and RAM, so these may better explain the top speed reduction.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 11:47
by halloweene
ricnunes wrote:
halloweene wrote:It is not a problem of weight,

...but yes production Rafale have an operationla max speed of 1.8. There are profound redesigns between Rafale A (tech demonstrator) and C , albeit general shape could make people blieve they are very close. Check the wing roots for example. IN fact, the first denomination of Rafale C was Rafale "D " (for Discreet). Materials aren't the same either.


That's what I also mentioned in my previous post! With "other words" but still mentioned by me. Here:
On top of this there could also be other modifications from the demonstrator to the production version such as changes on the aircraft's aerodynamics


And yes there's also the problem of weight or more precisely weight increase.
How can you say that this isn't a problem? :roll:
Like it or not, weight will always reduce performance.

halloweene wrote:Finally, what is so surprising to see a Rafale with 3 fuel tanks fly at mach 1.7 when one knows it can supercruise with one tank and four missiles?


Well, if you can't understand (or refuse to understand) what has been told you by several people here, well that's not my problem anymore.

But I'll continue to "bite" this one (at least for now):
According to your data/sources what is the Supercruise speed with 4 Micas (I imagine 4 semi-recessed in the fuselage?) and a centerline (supersonic) fuel tank? Mach 1.1? Mach 1.2? It doesn't say.
What your data says is that with 6 Micas (I imagine 4 semi-recessed in the fuselage plus two in the wingtips) which means without any external fuel tanks and without any wing and centerline pylons and without any stores hanging these pylons, that the Rafale can reach Mach 1.4
Ok I admit that this is impressive but again note that in this Mach 1.4 supercruise capable configuration there's NO external fuel tanks, no air-to-ground stores and NO pylons hanging on the aircraft or resuming nothing that induces drag by much.

With this said, 3 external fuel tanks (even being the "Supersonic" brand) plus its associated pylons means too much drag! As you increase speed at high Mach numbers, the drag induced by external stores will only get worse! No way, that with this configuration the Rafale reaches Mach 1.7 (even with Afterburners) specially flying straight and level.
At least I don't believe it and many others (as myself) have posted information that somehow contradicts your claim!
But yet you still prefer to believe in an edited video which is far from being "official information", so and again that's not my problem... :roll:


Ric, there is or such thing as "semi recessedé stations on Rafale. And you nhave posted nothing contradicting the fact it flies at 1.7 mach in the movie, with 3 tanks. The onlynthin you posted showed your lack of u nderstanding on how the reporting was done, maybe due to french language? Which is definitely not my problem.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 13:12
by basher54321
ricnunes wrote:
Well, for once I'm pretty sure that production versions are quite heavier than demonstrator versions. For example demonstrator versions usually don't have or carry weapons systems or defensive systems (such as ECM) and other combat/aircraft systems (Radar, etc...) and I strongly believe that the production versions also have its structure reinforced (compared to demonstrators) in order to carry heavy loads/stores/weaponry something that a demonstrator usually doesn't carry.
This alone I believe is a good and plausible reason why the demonstrator is "faster" than the production version in the case of the Rafale but not only.
And again, this is not exclusive to the Rafale. Again, take the example of the F/A-18 (legacy) which its demonstrator was the YF-17. The YF-17 reached a top speed of Mach 2 while the production F/A-18 reaches Mach 1.8+

On top of this there could also be other modifications from the demonstrator to the production version such as changes on the aircraft's aerodynamics which while will improve things such as the aircraft's "handling" and even agility it may have a slight negative effect on top speed but despite this slight negative effect, the positive side more than overweighs the negative (look again at the YF-17 to F/A-18 example).



Only thing I have on the transition from YF-17 to FA-18 tells me the variable intake ramp was dropped on the 18 - that to me would be a bigger reason for the drop in speed.

Moreover, Dassault opted to reject variable engine inlets and a dedicated air brake, which lessens maintenance loads and saves weigh
Wiki gives from this source:
Williams, Mel, ed. (2002). "Dassault Rafale". Superfighters, The Next Generation of Combat Aircraft. London: AIRtime Publishing. ISBN 978-1-880588-53-6.

Unfortunately we probably need a good French source to verify this but that would probably be the reason for M1.8 - but even with a lower T/W it should still have the same M2.0 speed with a variable ramp you might expect.


Same for the F-16 - at high altitude it is speed limited to M2.0 because of the fixed inlet and RAM effect (been discussed on here n times)
GD went for a fixed inlet to reduce cost, complexity and weight over going to M2.2+ or whatever because that top end speed is virtually useless.
Now a Block 40 might have a similar or less T/W on paper to a Block 25, but with ~4000 lbs more sea level static thrust it will get to M2 a lot quicker at high altitude and the thrust will allow it to go faster Mach with stores simply due to having more Thrust to overcome the similar Drag. Block 60 should be even better (~7000 lbs more) but will still stop at M2.0 due to the inlet design choice.
(Disclaimer: fixed inlets are not the only reason for top end speed limits)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 13:16
by bring_it_on
How far can the Rafale go flying supersonic (M1.7) with such heavy payloads and bags? Probably not much, but then the F-35A too can reach its top speed (M 1.6) with full internal bay capacity and close to 18,000 lb of fuel but much like it it will take a range penalty by doing so.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 13:32
by basher54321
bring_it_on wrote: and close to 18,000 lb of fuel but much like it it will take a range penalty by doing so.


Define "close to" - you may have seen J Wills comment on this.
Sure it can do M1.6 with 18K lbs fuel if it could warp to M1.6 but unless supersonic A-A refueling is suddenly reality the time it takes to climb to altitude and M1.6 from dropping off a tanker at that T/W in full burner you should still be talking thousands of lbs of fuel :D

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 15:23
by bring_it_on
Define "close to" - you may have seen J Wills comment on this.
Sure it can do M1.6 with 18K lbs fuel if it could warp to M1.6 but unless supersonic A-A refueling is suddenly reality the time it takes to climb to altitude and M1.6 from dropping off a tanker at that T/W in full burner you should still be talking thousands of lbs of fuel


Same with the Rafale. If it tanks up and is carrying three EFTs on top of that, it too would have exhausted plenty of fuel by the time it reaches Mach 1.7. The point was that they have taken a fully armed and fueled jet and taken it to Mach 1.6, of course @ Mach 1.6 it does not remain fully fueled but that applies to literally all aircraft. The point being, much like the Rafale claim it can go supersonic and even to its max when configured with a full load of fuel and weapons. It doesn't need to carry a lighter payload or less fuel etc. While both are likely to have a severe impact on combat radius if they do attempt this, but the F-35 will have an advantage in that with a full internal fuel and payload it retains it low signature while the Rafale with three large tanks, plus bombs and missiles will be one big RF target.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 16:21
by lbk000
im really not sure how relevant this whole discussion is in actual operations.

if you're aiming for low observability penetration then dashing m1.6 is pretty counterproductive.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 16:34
by basher54321
bring_it_on wrote:
Same with the Rafale. If it tanks up and is carrying three EFTs on top of that, it too would have exhausted plenty of fuel by the time it reaches Mach 1.7. The point was that they have taken a fully armed and fueled jet and taken it to Mach 1.6, of course @ Mach 1.6 it does not remain fully fueled but that applies to literally all aircraft. The point being, much like the Rafale claim it can go supersonic and even to its max when configured with a full load of fuel and weapons. It doesn't need to carry a lighter payload or less fuel etc. While both are likely to have a severe impact on combat radius if they do attempt this, but the F-35 will have an advantage in that with a full internal fuel and payload it retains it low signature while the Rafale with three large tanks, plus bombs and missiles will be one big RF target.



Well we know all that mate - but the general jist of the argument was whether the Rafale could reach M1.7 with 3 drop tanks, which for discussion by itself is totally fine - I have not seen any claim this was with full fuel/ weapons or it turns it into a Stealth Fighter.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 20:40
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:Ric, there is or such thing as "semi recessedé stations on Rafale. And you nhave posted nothing contradicting the fact it flies at 1.7 mach in the movie, with 3 tanks. The onlynthin you posted showed your lack of u nderstanding on how the reporting was done, maybe due to french language? Which is definitely not my problem.


LoL, it's not me that has to prove anything!
It's you that need to prove your own claims the the Rafale can fly with 3 ETFs at Mach 1.7 afterall the claim came from you, not me.
And so far your only source/proof is a dubious video, that's it. How's that in proper and plain English?

And yes, despite my lack of French knowledge I noticed that someone says something like "Flying at Mach 1.7" in French.
- However was this a video edit (like many that your video has)?
- Was this attained in a (shallow) dive?
- and so on...

And end this post, the only actual with "high confidence" claim that I made during this discussion was that the F-35 can fly at Mach 1.6 with full internal weapons and I proved this to you with official documents. Your claim/source is very far from having such or nearly such a level of credibility, sorry...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 20:53
by ricnunes
viper12 wrote:Just a tidbit here ; although I don't have primary sources at hand, both French and English Wikipedia articles on the Rafale state that C01, the prototype of the C model, i.e. the single-seat Air Force version, is lighter and smaller than the Rafale A demonstrator. So unless the production models are a fair bit heavier than C01, that would rule out weight as a factor reducing the top speed.

C01 introduced different materials compared to the Rafale A such as composites and RAM, so these may better explain the top speed reduction.


Well without any actual sources that's hard to confirm but that I believe you imply and agree with this in your post.

However and assuming you're right regarding the prototype of the C model (and what you say makes sense) I would say that such prototype would still be considerably lighter than a full production Rafale C.
For example, does the Rafale C prototype carries SPECTRA and other "combat systems"? I doubt that.
Radar? Who knows but honestly I doubt it.
Reinforced Airframe?

Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if the full version still ended up being heavier than the prototype.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 22:35
by viper12
ricnunes wrote:However and assuming you're right regarding the prototype of the C model (and what you say makes sense) I would say that such prototype would still be considerably lighter than a full production Rafale C.
For example, does the Rafale C prototype carries SPECTRA and other "combat systems"? I doubt that.
Radar? Who knows but honestly I doubt it.
Reinforced Airframe?

Therefore I wouldn't be surprised if the full version still ended up being heavier than the prototype.


It's not impossible C01 carried ballast weights to compensate for the lack of certain sub-systems ; after all, when testing a plane, you want flight performance to be as close as possible to a production one.

Another factor is the flight test instrumentation equipment included in prototype aircraft, which is probably not that light. At the very least, it's time-consuming to install all that instrumentation : http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... item_id=29

Traditionally, we build the airplane first and then put it in a modification hangar for six months where we install the instrumentation. The schedule on the F-35 demands that we install the instrumentation as the aircraft are being manufactured. Airplanes coming off the assembly line now are almost completely instrumented and ready to perform flight tests.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 06 Jul 2017, 23:46
by XanderCrews
Double

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 00:19
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:Completely false, nevermind (costs of JDAM equivaent), which equivalent there isn't any. The only "near equivalent" would be the incoming AASM block iv "evolution" without engine... And we do not k now their price depending on configurations.
About that "with my weapons only", Spice bmobs are integrated for indian Rafale, aswell as Astra missile will be. For the sake of information, Rafale isfully stanag compatible.


halloweene wrote:
There is NO french equivalent armament. Therefore nstating it is 3 times moren expensive is well... To stay polite unsubstanciated.


Rafale is only cleared for a limited selection of American weapons, primarily the Raytheon Paveway II laser-guided bomb. It has not integrated any weapons from the GPS-guided joint direct attack munitions (JDAM) family or the new small diameter bomb. While the French have developed a similar, more capable weapon (Safran AASM), at $300,000 per unit it is 12 times the cost of the JDAM, which is $25,000 per unit. While the AASM’s costs will decline as more units are produced, it will only slightly narrow the wide disparity between the two systems.


Source:

https://www.skiesmag.com/news/19534-raf ... f-35-html/

and hey protip everyone, just because knowledge isn't readily available on google doesn't mean there aren't people who don't know this stuff and actually do it for a living. In the long ago era before google made everyone a surface-level "expert" you had to know your stuff, and/or know people who knew and you understood context and complexity.

Just because it aint on wiki doesn't mean people in certain circles don't know the reality :wink: in other words it's not "unsubstanciated" there are obviously costs, and those costs are known though not to all. That doesn't make the claim a wild guess if one has expertise. And lastly isn't that what these forums are about? People in the know conversing and sharing? Some people actually have knowledge of these subjects, and in that way a little latitude would be nice when someone makes an "unsubstantiated" claim-- that turns out to be completely accurate BTW.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 15:52
by loke
More than 1,700 AASM kits have been delivered so far.


With a unit cost of 300,000 USD it means France has spent 510,000,000 USD and obtained only about 1,700 AASM?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 16:15
by SpudmanWP
You cannot add the Development cost to the Production cost and state that as the per item cost going forward.

Like I said before, things would be a lot simpler if governments would just produce annual budget docs that are publicly available. Unfortunately, all they seem to come up with is vague numbers in unknown year $ that may or may not cover multiple items (ie dev, production, etc).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 16:21
by ricnunes
viper12 wrote:It's not impossible C01 carried ballast weights to compensate for the lack of certain sub-systems ; after all, when testing a plane, you want flight performance to be as close as possible to a production one.

Another factor is the flight test instrumentation equipment included in prototype aircraft, which is probably not that light. At the very least, it's time-consuming to install all that instrumentation : http://www.codeonemagazine.com/f35_arti ... item_id=29

Traditionally, we build the airplane first and then put it in a modification hangar for six months where we install the instrumentation. The schedule on the F-35 demands that we install the instrumentation as the aircraft are being manufactured. Airplanes coming off the assembly line now are almost completely instrumented and ready to perform flight tests.


Yes, I also believe that ballast weights may have been used in some places such as in place of the radar.
However if there's something that experience/real life usually tells us is that the predicted weight is almost never achieved and almost always exceeded (The avionics/systems/sensors usually ends up weighting more than predicted).

Moreover it seems to me that you're probably confusing the concept of prototype (which is what the Rafale C01 is) with the concept of pre-production aircraft (which is what the Rafale C01 is not).
The aircraft which are closer in terms of specs (such as weight, etc...) to the full production aircraft are the pre-production aircraft while the prototypes usually are not so close (or not that close) to the full production aircraft (in terms of specs).

The F-35 (program) is hardly a comparison since this program (for the good or bad) went a very different route with its well known "concurrency" - Basically the F-35's prototype stage was skipped (if we discount the X-35 which isn't quite an F-35) and skipped directly to the "pre-production stage" or LRIP.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 16:37
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
More than 1,700 AASM kits have been delivered so far.


With a unit cost of 300,000 USD it means France has spent 510,000,000 USD and obtained only about 1,700 AASM?



Would you mind posting the entire article there, sport? Especially as the gist of the article is the weapon is expensive and change is needed? How many of those 1700 are to France again?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 17:29
by viper12
ricnunes wrote:Moreover it seems to me that you're probably confusing the concept of prototype (which is what the Rafale C01 is) with the concept of pre-production aircraft (which is what the Rafale C01 is not).
The aircraft which are closer in terms of specs (such as weight, etc...) to the full production aircraft are the pre-production aircraft while the prototypes usually are not so close (or not that close) to the full production aircraft (in terms of specs).


Indeed, C01 was a prototype ; since the Rafale didn't have a test program as publicized as for the F-35, it's kinda hard to know the differences between the prototype, pre-production aircraft and production ones.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 18:21
by halloweene
viper12 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Moreover it seems to me that you're probably confusing the concept of prototype (which is what the Rafale C01 is) with the concept of pre-production aircraft (which is what the Rafale C01 is not).
The aircraft which are closer in terms of specs (such as weight, etc...) to the full production aircraft are the pre-production aircraft while the prototypes usually are not so close (or not that close) to the full production aircraft (in terms of specs).


Indeed, C01 was a prototype ; since the Rafale didn't have a test program as publicized as for the F-35, it's kinda hard to know the differences between the prototype, pre-production aircraft and production ones.


C01 was first production aircraft. Prototype was Rafale A.

JDAM do not cost an average 25000 dollars

AASM is not a JDAM equivalent at all. it has an engine, can be shot at high offboresignt (even rearwards), at very low altitude and has a much longer range (80Kms or so), has laser and ir versions... Comparing JDAM to AASM is like comparing Cessna to F-35...
Finally AASM cost is far from 300 000$, even development included.

Pro Tip : choose reliable sources instead of that BS (worst Shimooka article ever?)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 18:42
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:
AASM is not a JDAM equivalent at all. it has an engine, can be shot at high offboresignt (even rearwards), at very low altitude and has a much longer range (80Kms or so), has laser and ir versions... Comparing JDAM to AASM is like comparing Cessna to F-35...



I think they are perfectly comprable. Exact matches? No. Equivalent? Yes moreover the article points out there is not much comparability outside laneway. Again proving my original point


Finally AASM cost is far from 300 000$, even development included.


So what do they cost? Number please.


Pro Tip : choose reliable sources instead of that BS (worst Shimooka article ever?)


Ah my favorite! "The old show me proof so I can dismiss it with nothing to show myself maneuver."


Number 1 he has more credibility than you. (Remember that)

Number 2. He has more credentials

Number 3 I have heard such numbers before that's just the only one I could find to cite.

Stay humble. Remember back in May when you were throwing out university research papers about the theory of active cancellation being possible as "proof" the Rafale had it operationally? You're credibility is zilch to me, friend

Sight your own sources I'll wait

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 19:02
by SpudmanWP
halloweene wrote:JDAM do not cost an average 25000 dollars


You're right... Per the Fy2017 budget they were $22k each but that is just the tail kit and some LJDAM seekers thrown in.

A 500lb GP Bomb is $14k, so that's $36k each.

AASM is not a JDAM equivalent at all


Correct. There are things that AASM can do that JDAM cannot and vice versa.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 23:13
by bring_it_on
Different weapons. The JDAM is designed to give accurate low cost PGM capability in massive quantity (>300,000 tail kits delivered at a current production rate of >100 per day) while the other is a very good weapon but really meant for a very small air-force. Even the export sales will be small given the tiny export footprint of the Rafale. Given the small production volume of its primary intended platform, it makes some sense to invest in a more capable though significantly more expensive weapon given the limited capability to deploy it in terms of number of platforms and scale.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 23:17
by halloweene
XanderCrews wrote:
halloweene wrote:
AASM is not a JDAM equivalent at all. it has an engine, can be shot at high offboresignt (even rearwards), at very low altitude and has a much longer range (80Kms or so), has laser and ir versions... Comparing JDAM to AASM is like comparing Cessna to F-35...



I think they are perfectly comprable. Exact matches? No. Equivalent? Yes moreover the article points out there is not much comparability outside laneway. Again proving my original point


Finally AASM cost is far from 300 000$, even development included.


So what do they cost? Number please.


Pro Tip : choose reliable sources instead of that BS (worst Shimooka article ever?)


Ah my favorite! "The old show me proof so I can dismiss it with nothing to show myself maneuver."


Number 1 he has more credibility than you. (Remember that)

Number 2. He has more credentials

Number 3 I have heard such numbers before that's just the only one I could find to cite.

Stay humble. Remember back in May when you were throwing out university research papers about the theory of active cancellation being possible as "proof" the Rafale had it operationally? You're credibility is zilch to me, friend

Sight your own sources I'll wait


he has more credentials... Really? Do you know me? Nvm. Credibility? Certainly among JSF fanboys.

You have heard such numbers? Good! you allways trust nwhat you hear?

i never claimed that Rafale HAD active cancellation. I claimed there were enough research papers on the topic to say it MAY be possible in certain conditions. Because everyone here or so said "physically impossible" i got a bunch of other research papers if you want serious reading (for once). i can also show you in Jane's (much more serious than shimooka "analysis") a paper stating that SAAB claimed its Gripen E EW system could make radars believe there was "nothing there".

I understand it doese not fit the faith of saint F-35 church, but doubt isn't behind your comprehension, is it?

And comparing JDAM and AASM is like comparing dumb bomb and sdb II the only thing they have in common is explosives.



120.000 euros (depending on type of course) ,according to recent paper. http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fin ... 30595.html

Dropping to 80k€ with block iv btw.

i'm wondering what a jdam can do aasm can't ?

So yes, AASM is much more expensive, but definitely not comparable to JDAM. Exactly like a dumb Mark XX is not coparable to JDAM.

Oh forgot. AASM CEP is about 3 to 20 times smaller than JDAM

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 23:43
by halloweene
bring_it_on wrote:
halloweene wrote:What MBDA guy told us precisely at PAS 17 was INS/GNSS/EOIR (multichannel) + an option for RF seeker.


Yes and is there one configuration, multiple configurations, baseline variant, future varient etc etc etc.? Few details are available but it seems that a full up tri-mode weapon is an inspirational out years option and not something that is initially fielded. Meanwhile, More than 15,000 SDB's and Laser SDB's are operational, thousands on backorder, and a minimum 17,000 SDBII program for the USDOD alone which is expected to enter IOTE in the next few months.

Don't get me wrong, this is a good weapon particularly in the 2000lb class where it may well be the first such system. But it is going to be competing against systems that have delivered thousands of weapons and/or have an assured production of tens of thousands ahead of them - Economies of Scale that come with the buy rate of USDOD. What does that get you? Lower cost and the ability to deliver weapons quickly as production rate is at or near maximum. Plus it is many years behind these two weapons in terms of maturity and that does not help either. Of course it will sell for programs that have stovepiped systems where there is an integration cost associated with choosing SDBI/II, but that doesn't apply to hundreds of aircraft that are going to be sold over the next decade both in the 5th generation and advanced 4th generation side of things.


Talked directly to MBDA dircom today. Still some imprecisions about smart glider program because configuration is not definitely fixed yet. For example, programmable explosive could be either BANG or Radius system.
Final trajectory is programmable.
Basic capability will be GNSS/INS/LAS
Enhanced + EOIR (multichannel)
Radar possible if buyer asks for (will probably not be developed originally except on request imho). It is a MBDA project, not french neither Rafale only intended.
lite : 80 Kg for about 120 Kg total weight.
heavy : 1000 kg explosives for 1300 Kg total weight.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 07 Jul 2017, 23:48
by eloise
halloweene wrote:AASM is not a JDAM equivalent at all. it has an engine, can be shot at high offboresignt (even rearwards), at very low altitude and has a much longer range (80Kms or so), has laser and ir versions... Comparing JDAM to AASM is like comparing Cessna to F-35
Oh forgot. AASM CEP is about 3 to 20 times smaller than JDAM

JDAM can also be dropped at high off boresight, version with wing kit for extended range and laser seeker for moving targets are available also. Laser guided Jdam have CEP less than 1 meters. Pretty much the only different between AASM and JDAM is the small rocket engine, it is quite a big exaggeration to say the different between them is the same as the different between F-35 and Cessna. There are dissimilar aspect but it is more or less like the different between JSOW and JSOW-ER
Image
Image
Image

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 02:43
by SpudmanWP
To keep it simple, I'll stick to in-production & operational units.

Keep in mind that there is not 1 version of AASM but 3 (GPS only, GPS & LGB, GPS & EO). In other words, pick one but you never get LGB & EO.

halloweene wrote:i'm wondering what a jdam can do aasm can't ?


1. JDAM comes in 500lb, 1000lb, and 2000lb GP and Penetrating variants while the AASM has only been fielded in a 500lb version, IIRC.

2. I'm not sure of the AASM, but the LJDAM has a Height of Burst mode that is selectable for 10, 20, or 30 feet in height.

3. LJDAM is an add-on to basic JDAM. It's not an either-or like ASSM (entire nose guidance section is replaced when switching from GPS to GPS/LGB).

4. The JDAM Wing Kit is optional while AASM rockets are on every ASSM, needed or not. This likely leads to higher unit costs.

Oh forgot. AASM CEP is about 3 to 20 times smaller than JDAM

JDAM has a proven CEP of INS <6m, GPS <2m, and LGB of 1-2m. DEAGLE.com says the accuracy of the LGB AASM is 1m and the GPS AASM is 10m... so much for having a smaller CEP or even equal CEP (GPS Version). At 1m-ish CEP, I'm not going to quibble about it since that's close enough to hit any vent, door, window, etc.



JDAM Family
https://www.regonline.com/custImages/34 ... ropbox.pdf

ASSM HAMMER Family
https://www.safran-electronics-defense. ... hammer.pdf

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 02:55
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:
he has more credentials... Really? Do you know me? Nvm.

You have heard such numbers? Good! you allways trust nwhat you hear?

i never claimed that Rafale HAD active cancellation. I claimed there were enough research papers on the topic to say it MAY be possible in certain conditions. Because everyone here or so said "physically impossible" i got a bunch of other research papers if you want serious reading (for once). i can also show you in Jane's (much more serious than shimooka "analysis") a paper stating that SAAB claimed its Gripen E EW system could make radars believe there was "nothing there".

I understand it doese not fit the faith of saint F-35 church, but doubt isn't behind your comprehension, is it?

And comparing JDAM and AASM is like comparing dumb bomb and sdb II the only thing they have in common is explosives.


Feel free to share your credentials. Shimooka's are known, what are yours? Your whining about fanboys and churches etc isn't helping you look smart or professional. Seeing as English doesn't seem to be your first language, you seem to have issues with definitions. But as you say that's your problem.

Post Jane's all you want, no one is stopping you and it would save your persecution rant.

Typically professionals don't behave like yourself BTW. Lots of professionals here on F-16.net and you can compare their posts to yours. Me, I'm operating on about 4 hours of sleep and you've never impressed me here with any posts that would demonstrate knowledge or expertise, and frankly I don't have the patience.

Put up or shut up



120.000 euros (depending on type of course) ,according to recent paper. http://www.latribune.fr/entreprises-fin ... 30595.html

Dropping to 80k€ with block iv btw.


Hey look argument with sources. what a pleasant change.

i'm wondering what a jdam can do aasm can't ?


Cost less



Oh forgot. AASM CEP is about 3 to 20 times smaller than JDAM



So you're comparing them even though they are not comparable? Interesting. Napeolen complex alive and well?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 06:57
by halloweene
Post Jane's all you want, no one is stopping you and it would save your persecution rant.


i do not feel persecuted, in fact i have some fun shaking the tree...

About jane's...

DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


http://www.janes.com/article/70320/grip ... capability

:mrgreen:

Abiout aASM, there are stil some differences. Can an aircraft shoot a salvo of 6 jdam on 6 different target? Instantly release a jdam from its "ring" during CAS? Shoot rearwards? more importantly,shoot at 20 kms from very low altitude (e;g; pn a target illuminated by another aircraft staying back and high?)

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 07:14
by eloise
halloweene wrote:Abiout aASM, there are stil some differences. Can an aircraft shoot a salvo of 6 jdam on 6 different target?

How about 80 JDAM against 80 individuals targets in a single pass? http://investor.northropgrumman.com/pho ... &ID=454541

halloweene wrote: Instantly release a jdam from its "ring" during CAS?

what does this mean?

halloweene wrote:Shoot rearwards?

Yes, as shown in photos above

halloweene wrote:more importantly,shoot at 20 kms from very low altitude (e;g; pn a target illuminated by another aircraft staying back and high?)

This is pretty much the only different between JDAM and AASM.JDAM-ER has better high altitudes range while AASM has better low altitude range. Anyway from what i can remember, AASM range at low altitude is 15 km rather than 20 km
Image

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 08:44
by loke
https://www.google.no/url?sa=t&rct=j&q= ... riRl-xjXug

from 70Km+ to 20Km+, depending on release altitude

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 09:05
by loke
XanderCrews wrote: Me, I'm operating on about 4 hours of sleep [...]


I have wondered why you are very often grumpy and sometimes even aggressive in your posts -- perhaps this is part of the reason?

I hope that one day you will calm down and change your posting style to be less aggressive. IMHO that would actually improve the quality of this forum significantly, since you post so much here.


No doubt you have a lot to offer, you seem very knowledgable. A pity that this knowledge sometimes "drowns" in the aggressiveness and negativity.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 08 Jul 2017, 11:55
by bring_it_on
About jane's...

DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


DRFM jamming is employed by virtually all modern aircraft and their self defense suites.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 10:54
by loke
bring_it_on wrote:
About jane's...

DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


DRFM jamming is employed by virtually all modern aircraft and their self defense suites.

Are all DRFM jamming systems equally capable?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 13:49
by bring_it_on
loke wrote:
bring_it_on wrote:
About jane's...

DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


DRFM jamming is employed by virtually all modern aircraft and their self defense suites.

Are all DRFM jamming systems equally capable?


No but neither are radars, or any other avionics components.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 16:47
by halloweene
bring_it_on wrote:
About jane's...

DRFM emulates the signal of the radar that makes contact with the aircraft and then mirrors it back so that it appears to the operator on the other side that the radar has encountered nothing.


DRFM jamming is employed by virtually all modern aircraft and their self defense suites.


Absolutely, but the claim "encountered nothing" is only from SAAB afaik.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 18:59
by XanderCrews
loke wrote:
XanderCrews wrote: Me, I'm operating on about 4 hours of sleep [...]


I have wondered why you are very often grumpy and sometimes even aggressive in your posts -- perhaps this is part of the reason?

I hope that one day you will calm down and change your posting style to be less aggressive. IMHO that would actually improve the quality of this forum significantly, since you post so much here.


No doubt you have a lot to offer, you seem very knowledgable. A pity that this knowledge sometimes "drowns" in the aggressiveness and negativity.



Image


Many many times I have patiently described and explained things. often with very time consuming posts and not just here but in other little corners of the internet. Its often met with scorn as "untrue" from people who have no clue what they are talking about and never served a day in the military let alone aviation, let alone military aviation. Most people have no idea and aren't in much of a hurry to learn or adjust, all while claiming to be just "healthy skeptics" or people who are "concerned" they ask questions, and those question are answered dozens of times over and over. I used to try to add humor too, but the thin skinned just got even more whiny.

I simply don't have as much patience for them that I used to. Combine this with the fact that many of them don't understand the basics of science or government and how they operate and you realize its not a coincidence they are basically "dumb" on many subjects beyond the one at hand. There is also the issue of people likening these aircraft to sports teams or political policy and things get really ugly, and about as logical in what should be a perfectly logical subject. Ask all the "experts" out there on ALIS. They don't know what software and systems are currently used. They have no clue what they do and don't include. They compare a private citizen buying a car for himself with a government funding and building and maintaining a massive fleet of warplanes across a global supply chain.

They are basically kissless virgins dispensing boning advice based on what they read or saw on the internet.

As for Halloweene he is basically an admitted troll "shaking the tree", calling people out by name, while at the same time claiming to have more credentials than those he slanders. He hasn't done anything to earn an ounce of respect from me, and hopefully his days here are numbered.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 19:22
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:i do not feel persecuted, in fact i have some fun shaking the tree...


"shaking the tree" in this case meaning you are naming names and claiming you have more credentials you won't share?

That would be trolling.

Abiout aASM, there are stil some differences. Can an aircraft shoot a salvo of 6 jdam on 6 different target? Instantly release a jdam from its "ring" during CAS? Shoot rearwards? more importantly,shoot at 20 kms from very low altitude (e;g; pn a target illuminated by another aircraft staying back and high?)


I didn't say there were not differences. I feel they are equivalent, as in "close enough" you have your opinion. I have mine... and Rafale still can't carry JDAM. Which was my big over arching point.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 09 Jul 2017, 21:35
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:C01 was first production aircraft. Prototype was Rafale A.


You're real a piece of work, indeed or more precisely, I agree with XanderCrews: you are indeed a Troll (and I also hope that someone from this forum administration deals with you).

So the Rafale C01 is not a prototype but instead a production aircraft?? LoL, I thought that a Rafale fanboy such as yourself would have a little bit more knowledge about your "dear Rafale".
Anyway, amuse yourself here:
https://books.google.pt/books?id=tUdHBg ... 01&f=false

In the book/link above you can also read that the Rafale A was a Technology Demonstrator and not a Prototype!

I can even "draw you" the following "picture" (note the quotes):
Rafale A -------> Is roughly equivalent to: ---------> EAP (Technology Demonstrator for the Typhoon), X-35, etc...
Rafale C01 -----> Is roughly equivalent to: ---------> YF-16, YF-22, etc...

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 12:36
by halloweene
XanderCrews wrote:
halloweene wrote:i do not feel persecuted, in fact i have some fun shaking the tree...


"shaking the tree" in this case meaning you are naming names and claiming you have more credentials you won't share?

That would be trolling.

Abiout aASM, there are stil some differences. Can an aircraft shoot a salvo of 6 jdam on 6 different target? Instantly release a jdam from its "ring" during CAS? Shoot rearwards? more importantly,shoot at 20 kms from very low altitude (e;g; pn a target illuminated by another aircraft staying back and high?)


I didn't say there were not differences. I feel they are equivalent, as in "close enough" you have your opinion. I have mine... and Rafale still can't carry JDAM. Which was my big over arching point.


JDAM weren't integrated because of the original Rafale concept. minimum number of types (B, C and M) with high commonality (around 80%), minimum number of weapons able to perform a maximum number of missions (doese this concept remind you of any recent US plane?), therefore maximum of flexibility (hence AASM). Integration of JDAM was not considered as an AASM can perform anything an equivalent (in size/weight) JDAM can (albeit more expensive, you are right on this very point). However, GBU 49 was further integrated for cost reasons, and "low cost" AASM is "paving the way" (allow me that bad joke). There is no tech nical hurdle if a client want JDAM to be integrated.

I can even "draw you" the following "picture" (note the quotes):
Rafale A -------> Is roughly equivalent to: ---------> EAP (Technology Demonstrator for the Typhoon), X-35, etc...
Rafale C01 -----> Is roughly equivalent to: ---------> YF-16, YF-22, etc...


Please do not try to lecture me on Rafale program. Rafale C was the first production Rafale, in 1991. It was extensively used for tests and is the equivalent of the first F-35. Not at all an equivalent of YF... eg. first F-16 was roughly one foot longer than YF-16. Present Rafale C have exactly the same aerodynamics as Rafale C01.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 12:56
by halloweene
Rafale can't fly at 50¨AoA. But it can fly really slow. (of course perspective help)

https://youtu.be/HtUTCBJ0bJo

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 13:54
by viper12
halloweene wrote:Rafale C was the first production Rafale, in 1991. It was extensively used for tests and is the equivalent of the first F-35. Not at all an equivalent of YF... eg. first F-16 was roughly one foot longer than YF-16. Present Rafale C have exactly the same aerodynamics as Rafale C01.


Source ?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 15:59
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:
JDAM weren't integrated because of the original Rafale concept. minimum number of types (B, C and M) with high commonality (around 80%), minimum number of weapons able to perform a maximum number of missions (doese this concept remind you of any recent US plane?), therefore maximum of flexibility (hence AASM). Integration of JDAM was not considered as an AASM can perform anything an equivalent (in size/weight) JDAM can (albeit more expensive, you are right on this very point). However, GBU 49 was further integrated for cost reasons, and "low cost" AASM is "paving the way" (allow me that bad joke). There is no tech nical hurdle if a client want JDAM to be integrated.



Of course there is no technical hurdle. It just can't unless someone pays to have it done. In the meantime it can't. Which locks everyone on to specific types of ordnance

Which is what I said. Don't much care about the history, but thanks anyway.

You can duck and dodge and explain and subterfuge all you want. My point was then as it is now, that the ordnance is limited in selection and costs more to boot. Instead you went through an awesome attempt at distraction of insulting a respected defense analyst, too g on about the AASM, and now giving us a fine history lesson all to arrive right back to where we started.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 17:32
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:Please do not try to lecture me on Rafale program. Rafale C was the first production Rafale, in 1991. It was extensively used for tests and is the equivalent of the first F-35. Not at all an equivalent of YF... eg. first F-16 was roughly one foot longer than YF-16. Present Rafale C have exactly the same aerodynamics as Rafale C01.


Really Mr. Rafale Expert?? And where's the source of your claim?? Yes, I ask this because I DID POST A SOURCE, which clearly and without any reason of a doubt indicates that the Rafale C01 is a PROTOTYPE and NOT a production aircraft.

But you want some more, here you are Mr. Rafale Expert, READ THE LINK BELOW:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... le-334383/

In the link (above) you can read the following:
The "proof-of-concept" Rafale A first flew in 1986 as an aerodynamic study, leading to the programme's formal launch two years later. The slightly smaller single-seat Rafale C01 and two-seat B01 for the French air force and single-seat M01 and M02 prototypes for the navy flew from 1991.

The first production-standard Rafale flew in 1998, and entered service with the navy's 12F squadron at Landivisiau in 2004 in the F1 (air-to-air) standard.


So as you can read in the link above (in case you understand plain English - something which I'm starting to doubt) you can read that the Rafale C01 flew for the first time in 1991 while the ACTUAL FIRST PRODUCTION Rafale flew in 1998.

Guess, that the Mr. Rafale Expert can learn a couple of things from a "Rafale Rookie" like myself but I have my doubts... :roll:

OH and I almost forgot: The Rafale C01 is "so equal" and "so equal" to the production Rafale C that the Rafale C01 was only used as a testbed (and never as a combat aircraft) and the C01 was already retired back in 2002. If the C01 was "so equal" to production aircraft why wasn't the Rafale C01 brought into service with the French Air Force?? :roll:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 10 Jul 2017, 20:57
by viper12
ricnunes wrote:If the C01 was "so equal" to production aircraft why wasn't the Rafale C01 brought into service with the French Air Force?? :roll:


To be fair, flight testing can be taxing on the airframes, so if C01 were a production aircraft, it wouldn't have much service life left. For comparison, you can check what happened to the 9 EMD airframes of the F-22 program : http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... year/1991/

Sources for the 9 EMD airframes :
http://www.joebaugher.com/usaf_fighters/f22_1.html
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... istory.htm

But clearly, C01 is a prototype as mentioned in multiple sources.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 10:23
by gta4
halloweene wrote:Rafale can't fly at 50¨AoA. But it can fly really slow. (of course perspective help)

https://youtu.be/HtUTCBJ0bJo


75 miles per hour:
https://youtu.be/UQadETF_WeM

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 14:57
by magitsu
If production Rafale had flown in 1991 then it could've easily been offered in the previous Finnish competition. Even the eventual winner F-18 entered the fray only in April 1991. But Rafale wasn't even close.

C01 probably wasn't even anything comparable to Tranche 1 Typhoon since it was scrapped immediately.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 17:39
by halloweene
First of all, thanks for citing a late friend of mine (Pete, who passed last summer). Rafale insustrial production was sanctioned only in 1997 (after years of waiting, everything was ready, but with cost cuts, awaiting for oficial order). Therefore it could not be offered to Finnish competition. France is not US, and cannot afford to compete with paper plane.


C01 was completely similar to Typhoon DA1. Call it prototype or preproduction aircraft as you wish, there is nothing between C01 and industrialized Rafale like the gap there is between YF16 and F-16.

About Shimooka, i said it must be its worst article. As a "defense" analyst (originally a pure economist, he suddenly became a defense analyst when he started talking about F-35 and Canada - which is to my knwoledge its only incursion in defence world- with a clear agenda)
Citing a "Mirage 3000" and saying that a free fall bomb is comparable to a propelled bomb is not imho the best criteria to be cited as a "respectable defense analyst" (albeit, of cours, errors can happen anyone), which he is not, albeit a respectable economist and/or historian.

Finally Rafale C01 being used as testbed till early 2000's for Rafale evolutions clearly shows how close it was to production aircrafts.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 19:00
by viper12
Source ?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 19:14
by halloweene
viper12 wrote:Source ?

Source of what?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 20:08
by viper12
halloweene wrote:
viper12 wrote:Source ?

Source of what?


Every message above where I wrote "Source ?". Because unsubstantiated claims don't sit well here.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 22:13
by halloweene
viper12 wrote:
halloweene wrote:
viper12 wrote:Source ?

Source of what?


Every message above where I wrote "Source ?". Because unsubstantiated claims don't sit well here.


Oh i see... Create a new account and each time ask source?

Tell me about WHICH fact about Rafale you want a source?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 11 Jul 2017, 22:14
by viper12
Create a new account ? What are you smoking ?

Just give a source for everything you say, because each time we checked the details, we've seen it was wrong or dubious.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 01:16
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:
viper12 wrote:Source ?

Source of what?


How about pointing out sources in order to backup all the BS you "ventilate" around here.

Oh sorry there's no source for BS, I'm afraid :roll:

P.S - For example as you can see I backed up my arguments with sources/links while you didn't! That's the source that Viper12 and I (and most others here I believe) are asking from your part.
OH and like Viper12 said, most known sources often directly contradicts your own claims... :roll:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 12:14
by halloweene
ricnunes wrote:
halloweene wrote:
viper12 wrote:Source ?

Source of what?


How about pointing out sources in order to backup all the BS you "ventilate" around here.

Oh sorry there's no source for BS, I'm afraid :roll:

P.S - For example as you can see I backed up my arguments with sources/links while you didn't! That's the source that Viper12 and I (and most others here I believe) are asking from your part.
OH and like Viper12 said, most known sources often directly contradicts your own claims... :roll:


" Sources" backing JDAM bei g comparable to and XX times cheaper than AASM? Well... Check your source to backup. Knows nothing about Defense except the procurement of Canada, cites "Mirage 3000" etc.

When you asked me about Rafale reaching Mach 1.7 with 3 tanks, you asked for source, i gave it to you. The fact that you do not understand the language employed and try to nitpick about the movie (simply because it contradicts your faith) do not make the source (the movie) wrong. When one asked about Jane's quote, i gave it. etc.
Calling an aircraft "prototype" or pre-production has no real importance. Saying that the gap between Rafale C01 (or B01 and M01 and M02 for instance) is similar to the one between YF-16 and F-16 is clearly showing a lack of understanding about the program. Those are the planes on which trials (engines, deck landing, combat system, subsystems as radar or Spectra) were tested and implemented. Exactly like the first F-35 are dedicated to SDD phase.
If you are really interested in Rafale program, please try to find the movie "Rafale confidential" on youtube (dunno if a subtitled version exist) ot the book "La véritable histoire du Rafale" by Germain Chambost. About the early stages of rafale program, "Dassault 50 ans d'aventure aéronautique" by Luc Berger and Claude Carlier (vol 2, the projects) is the best source i know.

For the sake of your information, "June the 13th (1991) for his 17th flight, the plane (C01) was presented at Salon du Bourget, in front of the President de la Republique. Flight tests resume. 42 flights were sufficient to demonstrate the whole of performances and flight qualities of the serial definition of the Rafale."

Dassault, 50ans...... vol 2 p 325.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 15:19
by eloise
halloweene wrote:If you are really interested in Rafale program, please try to find the movie "Rafale confidential" on youtube (dunno if a subtitled version exist) ot the book "La véritable histoire du Rafale" by Germain Chambost. About the early stages of rafale program, "Dassault 50 ans d'aventure aéronautique" by Luc Berger and Claude Carlier (vol 2, the projects) is the best source i know.

For the sake of your information, "June the 13th (1991) for his 17th flight, the plane (C01) was presented at Salon du Bourget, in front of the President de la Republique. Flight tests resume. 42 flights were sufficient to demonstrate the whole of performances and flight qualities of the serial definition of the Rafale."

Dassault, 50ans...... vol 2 p 325.

One thing i never understand, why do you listing the name of the source but doesn't give actual links to them or at least screen shot the page? what the point of that? It is not the first time but you do that all the time as if you don't want people to double check with your source.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 16:16
by SpudmanWP
halloweene wrote:" Sources" backing JDAM bei g comparable to and XX times cheaper than AASM?

(I'll keep the discussion about production stuff and leave off development work)

JDAM & AASM share a similar feature set which includes GPS, LGB, extended range, being a strap-on kit, etc. Each also has unique characteristics like AASM having an EO & rocket option while JDAM has HOB, Datalink, and size options. Even with their differences, they are similar in form, function, and features.

Similar means "comparable". Nobody said they are exactly the same.

On the cost issue. Here is the FY2018 JDAM budget showing 27,320 JDAM & LJDAM kits being bought for $710mil which is $25,992 each (unit cost). Feel free to provide a "comparable" French source for AASM costs.

http://www.saffm.hq.af.mil/Portals/84/d ... 155448-013

Image

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 17:03
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:" Sources" backing JDAM bei g comparable to and XX times cheaper than AASM? Well... Check your source to backup. Knows nothing about Defense except the procurement of Canada, cites "Mirage 3000" etc.


Well I may have a lack of knowledge about the French language but you sure as well seem to have a lack of knowledge about the English language! Since when I participated in your JDAM vs AASM discussion?? :roll:

halloweene wrote:When you asked me about Rafale reaching Mach 1.7 with 3 tanks, you asked for source, i gave it to you. The fact that you do not understand the language employed and try to nitpick about the movie (simply because it contradicts your faith) do not make the source (the movie) wrong. When one asked about Jane's quote, i gave it. etc.


In all your rant and BS you provided ONE DUBIOUS source!
That video is again and at best a dubious source - It was already explained to you by me and many others here in this forum why your source is dubious and yet you keep claiming that video as some reliable source that you posted. Well perhaps it's your lack of knowledge about the English language or perhaps and again you're just a Troll (honestly I'm having a bit of a hard time to understand which reason affects you but it's likely both!).
Lets' just say that video is considerably edited (I would almost say "heavily" edited) and it's not an official info/source.

halloweene wrote:Calling an aircraft "prototype" or pre-production has no real importance. Saying that the gap between Rafale C01 (or B01 and M01 and M02 for instance) is similar to the one between YF-16 and F-16 is clearly showing a lack of understanding about the program. Those are the planes on which trials (engines, deck landing, combat system, subsystems as radar or Spectra) were tested and implemented. Exactly like the first F-35 are dedicated to SDD phase.


You accuse me of being of having a lack of knowledge about the Rafale program. Well I "accuse you" of having a lack of knowledge about military aircraft altogether. So calling a "prototype" or pre-production has no real importance?? For you there's no difference between a prototype and a pre-production aircraft, Really?? What a mess that must be going in your head... :roll:

By the way, you still didn't reply to my question which I'll repost again:
- If the Rafale C01 was exactly the same as a pre-production or production model WHY WAS THE RAFALE C01 RETIRED AND NOT PUT INTO SERVICE WITHIN THE FRENCH AIR FORCE?

halloweene wrote:If you are really interested in Rafale program, please try to find the movie "Rafale confidential" on youtube (dunno if a subtitled version exist) ot the book "La véritable histoire du Rafale" by Germain Chambost. About the early stages of rafale program, "Dassault 50 ans d'aventure aéronautique" by Luc Berger and Claude Carlier (vol 2, the projects) is the best source i know.


How about posting the FRIGGING link?? I have more things to do in my personal life than to search for the supposed source of someone (YOU in this case) which has demonstrated to have ZERO credibility here and for all what's worth more than 90% of what you post is actual BS and Rafale fan(actic) stuff... :roll:
This being said, I won't waste a second of my life looking for sources that YOU should be posting! :doh:


halloweene wrote:For the sake of your information, "June the 13th (1991) for his 17th flight, the plane (C01) was presented at Salon du Bourget, in front of the President de la Republique. Flight tests resume. 42 flights were sufficient to demonstrate the whole of performances and flight qualities of the serial definition of the Rafale."

Dassault, 50ans...... vol 2 p 325.


At this demonstrates or proves what exactly??
In what part of your paragraph is it proven that the Rafale C01 is exactly the same as a pre-production or production model?? :doh:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 17:31
by botsing
ricnunes wrote:In what part of your paragraph is it proven that the Rafale C01 is exactly the same as a pre-production or production model?? :doh:

To me it seems the Rafale C01 had the same kind of job as for example the F-35 AF-2:

An aircraft to test certain aspects that will go into the final production aircraft. So a developmental test aircraft.

C01 retired with almost 1900 test flight hours IIRC. Converting such an aircraft to be adapted into the air force is cost wise not viable.

Rests me to say that halloweene is either a troll or stood at the end of the line when they were handing out brains.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 18:44
by ricnunes
botsing wrote:
ricnunes wrote:In what part of your paragraph is it proven that the Rafale C01 is exactly the same as a pre-production or production model?? :doh:

To me it seems the Rafale C01 had the same kind of job as for example the F-35 AF-2:

An aircraft to test certain aspects that will go into the final production aircraft. So a developmental test aircraft.

C01 retired with almost 1900 test flight hours IIRC. Converting such an aircraft to be adapted into the air force is cost wise not viable.

Rests me to say that halloweene is either a troll or stood at the end of the line when they were handing out brains.


Yup, I fully agree with everything you said! I specially agree with your last paragraph.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 19:02
by loke
I find the namecalling in this thread quite disgusting.

What about trying to behave? (Just waiting for the childish response from the usual suspects "but he started it.. but he was saying .. but but but").

Please grow up.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 19:17
by optimist
From my memory and please correct me. There was a development plane and at one stage was powered with US engine. Then a production of a dozen or so units called F1. That was scrapped and the planes warehoused. Rafale V1.2 was developed and put into production.

The french use to be a major player in the fighter jet market to 1st tier air forces, that ship has sailed. They have managed to sell over 75 to 2nd tier air forces and that has helped a lot in the financial structure. A bigger question is where does france go from here? There is no new plane in development and I discout polishing the rafale upgrade till year 2099. Is this the end of the French fast jet production?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 20:15
by halloweene
optimist wrote:From my memory and please correct me. There was a development plane and at one stage was powered with US engine. Then a production of a dozen or so units called F1. That was scrapped and the planes warehoused. Rafale V1.2 was developed and put into production.

The french use to be a major player in the fighter jet market to 1st tier air forces, that ship has sailed. They have managed to sell over 75 to 2nd tier air forces and that has helped a lot in the financial structure. A bigger question is where does france go from here? There is no new plane in development and I discout polishing the rafale upgrade till year 2099. Is this the end of the French fast jet production?


Well the Rafale A was powered with F-404 GE 400, then 1 F404 and one M88, then 2 M88. Rafale C01, B01, M01 and M02 were powered by 2xM88. And yes they played more or less the same role as AF planes (developmental planes). That is why they are not the same as, for example YF-16/F-16. For the sake of peace, let's say they are prototypes and go on (or developmental planes, like Typhoon DA1 or F-35 AF2). Anecdotically, every rafale are state owned, afaik by Marine Nationale or Armée de l'AIr. I'm not sure about the ones DGA use. The test planes used by Dassault (B301 and M2 methinks) are not proprietary.
About upgrades, next year is coming F3R, with AGCAS, new RBE2 modes (not detailes), improved capacities for Spectra (not detailed apart from "LEA" launched decoy),new buddy to buddy system, Meteor missile, Talios pod.
Qatari Rafalehave some customization, including Elbit Targo II HMD. Indian are also tweaked with OSF IRST (and a brand new IR channel), israeli weaponry, Topsight HMD, Astra indian AA missile, modifictions of FADEC for high/hot operations...
Next F4 upgrade is now programemd for 2023/2025. (in 2023, some hardware updates will be available, but F4 will be divided in F4.1, software upgrade of present Rafale, and F4.2, with upgraded hardware. F4 standard should be available in 2025. Further options are more clouded : MLU around 2030 for sure, but some evoke a Rafale NG around 2035.
It was recently ndetailed by PH Grolleau in several nournals including combat aircraft, the most comprehensive article being on Air Fan.

The dozen of Rafale F1, M2 to M10, have recently been upgraded or are being upgraded, to F3 standard

Ah botsing, C01 was retired after 1841 hours of flight. Thank you for your nice words.

About references, i give you references from writen books. will not waste time taking photos to post them just to satisfy nitpickers. Take it ot leave it (but you can check references btw).

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 20:36
by magitsu
optimist wrote:Is this the end of the French fast jet production?

My suspicion is that France's aversion to Nato in favor of doing their own thing is detrimental to their sales effort. For example this Belgium sale should have everything going for them (besides the historical F-16 EPAF connection). Neighbors, speaks mostly the same language. There's similar infrastructure to be shared than with the F-35.... but when operative support to Nato operations is required, US is better equipped to provide it. Because Belgium goes everywhere USA goes, not where France does.

Finland would be another chance, but once again France has shown very little interest in providing geopolitical clout in the Baltics. The only realistic option to reel in outside muscle seems to be the US.

So they don't even make a good alternative in case of technical risk for F-35. Super Hornet is the second best choice at the moment.

Switzerland is unique case because they can do whatever they like. No real threat, not part of coalitions.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 21:16
by eloise
halloweene wrote:About references, i give you references from writen books. will not waste time taking photos to post them just to satisfy nitpickers. Take it ot leave it (but you can check references btw).


The sametime you spend typing down the name of the books you could have snap some pictures and post them, in fact it may take even less time to take the photos or post links. The same standard applied to everyone, not just you.
Sure, sometimes people nitpick but you can't really complain when your claims are rather questionable when someone checked with available sources. Last time you claimed Rafale was the "First in.. Last out" in Atlantic Trident exercise, but it is later revealed that the direct quote was "Rafale has the most interesting play time"

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 21:18
by ricnunes
halloweene wrote:Well the Rafale A was powered with F-404 GE 400, then 1 F404 and one M88, then 2 M88. Rafale C01, B01, M01 and M02 were powered by 2xM88. And yes they played more or less the same role as AF planes (developmental planes). That is why they are not the same as, for example YF-16/F-16. For the sake of peace, let's say they are prototypes and go on (or developmental planes, like Typhoon DA1 or F-35 AF2). Anecdotically, every rafale are state owned, afaik by Marine Nationale or Armée de l'AIr. I'm not sure about the ones DGA use. The test planes used by Dassault (B301 and M2 methinks) are not proprietary.


Even if the Rafale C01 is not "exactly the same" as the YF-16, the Rafale C01 is NOT a production (or even pre-production) aircraft either hence my analogy with the YF-16.
Besides if you lurk around this same site (F-16.net) which by its name can be clearly seen that it is mostly dedicated to the F-16 you can for example read the profile of the F-16 number 72-1568 which was actually a YF-16 (number 72-1568) here in the link below:
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... profile/2/
Or you can even take a look at the first YF-16 (and previous to the one above), the YF-16 number 72-1567 here:
http://www.f-16.net/aircraft-database/F ... profile/1/

And by reading those aircraft entries, anyone can clearly understand and read that the role of the YF-16 was basically the same as the role of the Rafale C01 - A developmental and test aircraft and again hence my Rafale C01/YF-16 analogy!

Glad that at least you finally agree that the Rafale C01 is NOT the same as a production aircraft. It seems that there's hope for you afterall.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 21:23
by SpudmanWP
eloise wrote:The same time you spend typing down the name of the books you could have snap some pictures and post them, in fact it may take even less time to take the photos or post links.


I learned this lesson long ago when I started using Photobucket.

Thankfully I was able to get all my pics exported to Imgur before Photobucket's latest extortion.. Err I mean feature to enhance the hot-linking experience. :bang:

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 21:38
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:
About Shimooka, i said it must be its worst article. As a "defense" analyst (originally a pure economist, he suddenly became a defense analyst when he started talking about F-35 and Canada - which is to my knwoledge its only incursion in defence world- with a clear agenda)



Guess again.


Citing a "Mirage 3000" and saying that a free fall bomb is comparable to a propelled bomb is not imho the best criteria to be cited as a "respectable defense analyst" (albeit, of cours, errors can happen anyone), which he is not, albeit a respectable economist and/or historian.

.


Just because you've decided they are not comparable doesn't mean they are not comparable. That's
1.your opinion
2. Not enough to justify attempting to discredit him
3. Giving you any credibility whatsoever
4. Sharing why your opinion trumps his.

You want You say he's not a true analyst while keeping quiet about what you truly are, well that's childish and again won't help you. Until your resume tops his, your just another guy on the internet being pretentious about how smart you are while convincing no one, and making quips about languages when you apparently have issues with English definitons.


The point once again, was that Rafale can't carry JDAM, forcing users to use more expensive COMPRABLE PGMs to complete the same task. You can go on and on but in the end my point was that one must pay more.

I can't believe you are continuing to argue this at all really. Looking forward to your next excuse filled post explaining why I am rightdefinitions.

Rafale can't carry JDAM and must use other more expensive weaponry. Why is this so hard?

And as for shimooka "knows nothing about defense" care to take that back or provide us with a reason you say such a thing. I'll wait

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 21:38
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:
I learned this lesson long ago when I started using Photobucket.

Thankfully I was able to get all my pics exported to Imgur before Photobucket's latest extortion.. Err I mean feature to enhance the hot-linking experience. :bang:

This works well too
https://postimages.org

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 21:47
by XanderCrews
halloweene wrote:
viper12 wrote:Create a new account ? What are you smoking ?

Just give a source for everything you say, because each time we checked the details, we've seen it was wrong or dubious.


Precise, give an example. eg. Tell me on what precise point you want a source.


Pick one.

We don't always need a source but if you're going to make claims and ask us to take your word for it, we need to know your background. You can't use your self as a source of you are not credible. Stop me if I'm going to fast.

And you can't site a book most people don't own as proof lol. You're in the age of the internet. If you need my bio I'm in rare Marine book, page 356 paragraph 6 lol

And accusing other of alternate accounts just to ask for sources is richly paranoid.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 12 Jul 2017, 23:41
by spazsinbad
SpudmanWP wrote:
eloise wrote:The same time you spend typing down the name of the books you could have snap some pictures and post them, in fact it may take even less time to take the photos or post links.


I learned this lesson long ago when I started using Photobucket.

Thankfully I was able to get all my pics exported to Imgur before Photobucket's latest extortion.. Err I mean feature to enhance the hot-linking experience. :bang:

Oh Yeah. I have been caught by the BotoPhucketCrap. I'll look at Imgur. How did you do it? OK now I see 'eloise' has another method at https://postimages.org/

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2017, 00:07
by viper12
Oh damn, he quoted "Rafale confidential", which can be viewed here : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7RYZovAj54

I would like to point out a few fallacies undermining the credibility of this documentary :

1) At 6:15, they say the cost of an aircraft increases the heavier a plane is, which is used as a reason for leaving the European Combat Aircraft program, as the other partners wanted a heavier fighter. The problem with this is an oversimplification of the lifecycle costs of an aircraft ; from my point of view, production volume and the quality of the avionics are the main criteria in the costs. Making a compromise with the other partners would have spread instead of duplicated the R&D costs, increased the production volume by at least adding the production volume of the 2 aircraft and reduced the operations and support costs by having common spares. And very importantly too, there's also the question of how much capability for the TOTAL cost. The Revolt of the Majors thesis shows it pretty well with estimates in the '70-'80s ( https://etd.auburn.edu/bitstream/handle ... III_55.pdf ), and if making the comparison today, it would be between 4th and 5th gen fighters and the vastly reduced number of aircraft required for a strike ( http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-V5MR3mEM9wk/V ... 77b29e.jpg ). For a more detailed breakdown of costs, check smsgtmac's cost definition table : http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-dnY9BMOLDBA/T ... itions.bmp

2) At 8:57, they say the Eurofighter isn't a true twin-engine aircraft because it doesn't have separated air intakes and engine ducts to prevent, in supersonic flight, gases from a failing engine could escape from the front and be ingested by the still functional engine. I would say this is extremely unlikely with modern engines, and the flight safety aspect of single versus twin-engine aircraft has been exemplified in the recent decades by the F100-PW-229, with 1 failure on the F-15E and zero on the F-16C IIRC.

3) At 11:50, they say the ACX will have a digital fly by wire, a "first". I would seriously question that assertion, or reframe this as a "first in France", since the F-16 already got digital fly by wire in the late '80s, and if I correctly read it, the NASA F-8 flew with it in 1972 : http://www.f-16.net/articles_article13.html

4) At 28:33, they claim it's the first plane with a cockpit designed by and for the pilots. Why do I have the feeling it was already the case with the F-16, and to a lesser degree, the F-15 ?

5) At 29:33, they say they had a specification for "stealth" in 1988 (The French word "furtivité" is best translated as stealth.). I would say that's quite sugarcoating the plane, since most estimates would put the Rafale's RCS in the 0.1-1 square meter range, which isn't even close to what most people would call for a stealth aircraft. Even better, at 30:50, they claim the Rafale has the frontal RCS of...a sparrow. Last time I've checked, a sparrow is roughly a 3cm diameter cylinder when viewed from the front, so that would mean a cross section 0.0007 square meter. That's right, if the cross section is roughly equal to the RCS, we're in F-22/F-35 territory...

Oh, and they say at 31:20 that C01 is a prototype.

I don't have access to the other sources, but remember one thing ; people here are prone to have read doctrine or very technical documents such as the ones found on DTIC.mil, or acquisition and procurement documents, so expect them to have much more depth and knowledge than the average public for which Rafale confidential was produced, so basic statements will attract a lot of scrutiny, if not outright mockery.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2017, 02:00
by SpudmanWP
Basically I "archived" my Photobucket account to a zip file, unpacked it, then uploaded it to imgur. the same can be done elsewhere.

In Photobucket, go to an album and press "Download Album" on the right-hand side under "Actions".

Image

In the popup, tell it you're not a robot

Image

You will get an email when it's ready, click Download

Image

It will open a page, click Download

Image

When it comes time to upload to Imgur (if you use that), you can select multiple files rather than one at a time.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 13 Jul 2017, 03:05
by spazsinbad
'SWP' many thanks for that - there are loads of fotofrukit jpgs in many allbums - geez they have a hide after all this time.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 09:52
by viper12
Got a reply analyzing the "Rafale confidential" "documentary" quoted by halloweene, finally approved, 3 posts above this one.

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 11:28
by eloise
SpudmanWP wrote:Basically I "archived" my Photobucket account to a zip file, unpacked it, then uploaded it to imgur. the same can be done elsewhere.

Do you still have the APG-81 elements counts photos.?

Re: F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

Unread postPosted: 25 Jul 2017, 15:09
by wil59
XanderCrews wrote:
halloweene wrote:
About Shimooka, i said it must be its worst article. As a "defense" analyst (originally a pure economist, he suddenly became a defense analyst when he started talking about F-35 and Canada - which is to my knwoledge its only incursion in defence world- with a clear agenda)



Guess again.


Citing a "Mirage 3000" and saying that a free fall bomb is comparable to a propelled bomb is not imho the best criteria to be cited as a "respectable defense analyst" (albeit, of cours, errors can happen anyone), which he is not, albeit a respectable economist and/or historian.

.


Just because you've decided they are not comparable doesn't mean they are not comparable. That's
1.your opinion
2. Not enough to justify attempting to discredit him
3. Giving you any credibility whatsoever
4. Sharing why your opinion trumps his.

You want You say he's not a true analyst while keeping quiet about what you truly are, well that's childish and again won't help you. Until your resume tops his, your just another guy on the internet being pretentious about how smart you are while convincing no one, and making quips about languages when you apparently have issues with English definitons.


The point once again, was that Rafale can't carry JDAM, forcing users to use more expensive COMPRABLE PGMs to complete the same task. You can go on and on but in the end my point was that one must pay more.

I can't believe you are continuing to argue this at all really. Looking forward to your next excuse filled post explaining why I am rightdefinitions.

Rafale can't carry JDAM and must use other more expensive weaponry. Why is this so hard?

And as for shimooka "knows nothing about defense" care to take that back or provide us with a reason you say such a thing. I'll wait
The cost will decrease ! 05-01-2017
The Armaments Branch has ordered new AASM Block 4 kitsPosted in Air Force by Laurent Lagneau The 05-01-2017

inShare
4
image: http://www.opex360.com/wp-content/uploa ... 170105.jpg

aasm Burst-20170105