F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

[optimist]

via Imgflip Meme Generator

[XanderCrews]

Looks are entirely subjective. I think the rafale looks like hammered dogsh!t with a radar signaling refuelling probe stuck in as an afterthought, but im not here trying to convince people that since it looks like dogsh!t it can't fly past mach 1, since dogsh!t isn't capable of flight?

The Rafail is fat turd compared to the F-104, and it's slower too. What a crappy plane.

AIR_Rafale-M_Damocles_Micas_Paveways_DA_lg.jpg

What a REAL fighter looks like:

Lockheed_(Aeritalia)_F-104S_Starfighter,_Italy_-_Air_Force_AN1314189.jpg

Even the Typhoon looks positively svelte compared to the tubby Rafail:

Eurofighter_c_Minich_web6.jpg

Compared to those two the Rafale does look stubby, fat, and with some small wings. compromised in order to do too many things. Not one of those things being interception or air policing. Did you see the blog with the old mirage III pilot saying he hope more mirages are ordered but he knows people have to be careful of the Rafale program?

[mas]

Full air to air weapons load for a typhoon is 6 bvr aam and 2 sr aam.

[XanderCrews]

I stand corrected.
*Note to self..a missile has been fired in anger at 1.5

Assuming it's true, and we all know how accurate the Iran and Iraq reports are

[steve2267]

Not fired in anger, but how fast was the A-12 flying when it tested the predecessor to the AIM-54? (I want to say it was the AIM-4 Falcon, but not sure.) I recall Mach 3, but I may recall Ben Rich's book incorrectly.

[F-16ADF]

F-104 had a VERY small frontal cross section. That and the J79 gave it superb acceleration. I think it was equal to, or slightly better than the English Electric Lightning?? And the Lightning was a beast.


https://i.pinimg.com/originals/79/33/13 ... 31a106.jpg

[ricnunes]

Full air to air weapons load for a typhoon is 6 bvr aam and 2 sr aam.

Sure.
But no way a Typhoon will reach Mach 2 with that weapon loadout/configuration.

[mas]

Not with tanks but with 8 aam ? Why not considering the Luftwaffe quote the maximum speed as Mach 2.35.

[sferrin]

Not fired in anger, but how fast was the A-12 flying when it tested the predecessor to the AIM-54? (I want to say it was the AIM-4 Falcon, but not sure.) I recall Mach 3, but I may recall Ben Rich's book incorrectly.

Mach 3.2 & 75k to 80k feet and launched from internal weapons bays. And it was the AIM-47. (While it looks somewhat similar to the AIM-54 they are very different beasts.)

"Between 1965 and 1966, YF-12A prototypes fired thirteen AIM-47A missiles at various targets. Lockheed flight crews conducted seven launches, with the other six conducted by USAF flight crews. These test launches were unarmed but fully guided, with the missiles homing in on various target drones. The AIM-47A proved capable of hitting targets as low as 500 feet when fired from 75,000 feet and Mach 3.2. Twelve of the thirteen missiles either hit or passed within the high explosive warhead’s lethal radius, the single failure attributed to an internal power failure in a guidance component. By all accounts, the AIM-47A was a formidable weapon, far outstripping the performance and operating envelope of any other contemporary AAM."

xaim-47a.jpg (22.45 KiB) Viewed 86109 times

[ricnunes]

Not with tanks but with 8 aam ? Why not considering the Luftwaffe quote the maximum speed as Mach 2.35.

I never seen such claim/value (Mach 2.35) before.
Honestly I don't buy that value even because in order to achieve such speed values (High Mach 2 or in this case Mach 2.35) you'll need variable air intakes.
Variable air intakes increase RCS (quite considerably) and complexity which affects costs and maintenance (and also weight) so I'm pretty sure that the Typhoon doesn't have such air intakes - even because the first step to reduce RCS would be to remove such variable air intakes, if they ever existed in the first place.
Sure if the Typhoon had such variable air intakes (like for example the F-15, Mig-29 or Su-27) than I would believe that the Typhoon could eventually achieve Mach 2.35 but without them, I doubt it.

Regarding the 8 AAM, the problem is that wing pylons also add a considerable degree of drag (as well as the missiles themselves) so I'm very suspicious that the Typhoon would reach Mach 2 (Mach 2.0 in this case) with 4 wing pylons and 4 AAMs on each pylon (for example two AMRAAMs and two ASRAAMs).

[viper12]

Sure.
But no way a Typhoon will reach Mach 2 with that weapon loadout/configuration.

To be fair, I'd say it's possible ; the F-15A/C could already reach Mach 1.8 with 4 AIM-7's, 4 AIM-9's and a centerline pylon (page 348 or A9-4E) : http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs ... hp?id=3704

And this becomes Mach 2.25 with 10°C below standard day and a 102% engine trim.

[ricnunes]

Sure.
But no way a Typhoon will reach Mach 2 with that weapon loadout/configuration.

To be fair, I'd say it's possible ; the F-15A/C could already reach Mach 1.8 with 4 AIM-7's, 4 AIM-9's and a centerline pylon (page 348 or A9-4E) : http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs ... hp?id=3704

And this becomes Mach 2.25 with 10°C below standard day and a 102% engine trim.

Are you saying that the Typhoon will reach Mach 2 with 3 (three) fuel tanks (2 under the wings and 1 in the centerline), plus 4 AAMs under the wings and 4 AAMs under the fuselage?
With all due respect, I don't buy it.

The F-15A/C reaching Mach 1.8 example that you mention carried in terms of external fuel tanks a single centerline fuel tank (and not three) which only seems to somehow support my suspicions.

[viper12]

Unless I misread it, the Eurofighter's brochure mentioned a full air-to-air armament, but didn't mention any fuel tanks, so unless I got it completely wrong, I'd take that as Mach 2.0 with just the AAMs. Also note that my F-15A/C's configuration is just with the centerline pylon, not with the centerline tank.

[swiss]

I never seen such claim/value (Mach 2.35) before.

Like mas said the German Luftwaffe says Mach 2.35

http://www.luftwaffe.de/portal/a/luftwa ... 0CPUBP1G84


And they are several claims ( Nato, BAE Systems) the EF max speed is 2495 Km/h at altitude which is Mach 2.35.


There is no mention of fuel tanks from Airbus. Only full Air to air missiles load.

@ Viper12

[ricnunes]

Unless I misread it, the Eurofighter's brochure mentioned a full air-to-air armament, but didn't mention any fuel tanks, so unless I got it completely wrong, I'd take that as Mach 2.0 with just the AAMs. Also note that my F-15A/C's configuration is just with the centerline pylon, not with the centerline tank.

Well, if you look/read my comment which you replied at:

Sure.
But no way a Typhoon will reach Mach 2 with that weapon loadout/configuration

That comment from me was a direct reply to mas where he posted the picture of the "Full air to air weapons load" with a picture of the loadout which included 3 external fuel tanks.

Anyway (and again) I believe that the Eurofighter does indeed reach Mach 2 but only with 4 AAMs in the semi-recessed stations below the fuselage (and of course without any external fuel tanks).
With 8 AAMs and without external fuel tanks (which is what you're suggesting?) I still have my doubts but I admit that it's a bit "more feasible" than with any External Fuel Tanks.

Curiously and speaking of the F-15, I remember to have seen a F-15 loadout in the past which also included 4 AAMs (Sparrows) in the fuselage stations only (without the Sidewinders and the pylons for them).