F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

cataphrat1

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 2
  • Joined: 07 Feb 2014, 01:15

Unread post13 Oct 2017, 22:56

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/dae/sp ... screen.pdf

Eurofighter Typhoon is designed for high speed: Mach 1.6 with a full weapons load of four BVRAAM (Beyond Visual Range Air–to-Air Missile) and two SRAAM (Short Range Air–to-Air Missile).

I am assuming this is with fuel tanks.
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post13 Oct 2017, 23:46

Is there a fuel tank in service that can even go that fast? Most I have seen is mach 1.5 for the "supersonic" tank the typhoons carry, that's when empty. Typhoon with 4 missiles should have no issue getting to mach 2 and staying there for a usable amount of time, 8 missiles can prob get there, but hopefully they are flying towards another air field.
Online

viper12

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 217
  • Joined: 28 Jun 2017, 14:58

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 00:49

ricnunes wrote: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).


Yes, I was thinking about the 8 AAMs and no external fuel tanks loadout for the Eurofighter, as I think its 4 wing pylons should be less draggy than the F-15A/C with its wing pylons ; remember that the F-15A/C has some huge pylons, on which you must add the rails and adapters for the AIM-9's :

Image

In comparison, the Eurofighter's pylons are about the size of the IRIS-T AAM, which itself is around the size of the AIM-9's :

Image

The 4 AIM-7's loadout is a bit further down in the F-15's -1, on page 353 or A9-5 : http://www.avialogs.com/viewer/avialogs ... hp?id=3704

As you can see, it even hits Mach 2.1 on a standard day in this case.
Everytime you don't tell the facts, you make Putin stronger.

Everytime you're hit by Dunning-Kruger, you make Putin stronger.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 03:12

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


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


There are lots of wrong data. What is the empty weight of F-22? In your chart it's higher than 46000 lbs. If you change it to 43000 lbs it is very close to Typhoon. If you use more recent data (39000 lb thrust per engine instead of the vague "35000 lb class") F-22 is the king of the hill.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 03:20

When calculating T/W ratio, it is important to load the fuel for the same A/B duration, otherwise it is unfair to those with high fuel capacity (like F-35).

Fuel consumption = SFC * thrust * time. Modern engines all have SFC close to 1.9 (you are welcome to verify this with published engine data), so fuel consumption is proportional to thrust.

F-35's total thrust is 30% higher than that of Rafale. So when comparing T/W rario, F-35's fuel load should also be 30% higher than that of rafale to allow for the same A/B duration. In your chart it is almost twice as big.

For instance, if Rafale carries 3000 lb of fuel, F-35 should carry 3000 * 1.3 = 3900 lb of fuel.

F-35's T/W: 43000/(29000 + 3900) = 1.31
Rafal's T/W: 16600*2/(22000 + 3000) = 1.33

Almost no difference.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 721
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 05:01

steve2267 wrote: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.


yes, it would have been tested for separation on the plane and have a flight envelope for that weapon, in which it can be fired. I don't see an issue with M3 being for say level flight. It is a good example of theoretical speed and practical speed. Where no one has ever launched in anger, at anything near this speed from the plane.

I felt like playing a bit for some reason and entered the rafale thread, I'm normally not here, it's a no win and it's still the same stuff, as when it was trying to beat the F15/16/18sh on the forums 20 years ago..it was flogged in that debate too. It didn't have the radar and missiles then, it still doesn't. It's just laughable with you see it vs f-22/35

also the world has changed, as far as I see it. The f-35 is the submarine of the sky. As you know, a sub slows down when it's in the battle space, speed doesn't matter, signature is everything. In exercises, I read the F-22 uses supercruise to get back to the tanker and re-enters subsonic. It's never going to be the WW1 1vs1 with the f-35, when the minimum pack of f-35 is 4 and they are just the little finger on a hand of systems within systems.

the name of the game now is to confuse someone for a few minutes
Force Level Electronic Warfare for the ADF
http://apdcpodcasts.blogspot.com.au/201 ... -2017.html
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 05:46

'optimist' said: "...the minimum pack of f-35 is 4 and they are just the little finger on a hand of systems within systems...."

Yes that is the USAF number from my reading however just the other day discovered a RAAF quote for three (of course easy enough to go to four). I'll look for the quote....

OOPS - I was making a PDF from an old problematic FLASH graphic which had truncated last lines on pages so I must have only remembered the three and NOT the subsequent FOUR as per: [PDF will be posted on Oz thread elsewhere]

Article posted here already (but not my PDF as mentioned): viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=315303&hilit=Kerr#p315303

NOW full 2 page PDF uploaded: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=23043&p=378460&hilit=quotes#p378460
"...Generating the assets to test the Block 3F full warfighting capability software associated with the planned declaration in 2020 of lnitial Operational Capability (IOC) for the RAAF's 3 Squadron was complex but on track, AVM Deeble said.

While F-111s used to fly two miles from each other, the RAAF's JSF fighting methodology would probably start with a three ship formation flying tens of miles apart but operating in concert, exchanging and fusing data from each other over a much larger area of airspace.

"But the real power of this aircraft will be once you start utilising a four ship formation and integrating it as envisaged in Plan Jericho with other capabilities like Wedgetail, Poseidon, Triton, Growler, Super Hornet and the Air Warfare Destroyer."..."
Last edited by spazsinbad on 14 Oct 2017, 06:37, edited 1 time in total.
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline
User avatar

geforcerfx

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 06:26

gta4 wrote:When calculating T/W ratio, it is important to load the fuel for the same A/B duration, otherwise it is unfair to those with high fuel capacity (like F-35).

Fuel consumption = SFC * thrust * time. Modern engines all have SFC close to 1.9 (you are welcome to verify this with published engine data), so fuel consumption is proportional to thrust.

F-35's total thrust is 30% higher than that of Rafale. So when comparing T/W rario, F-35's fuel load should also be 30% higher than that of rafale to allow for the same A/B duration. In your chart it is almost twice as big.

For instance, if Rafale carries 3000 lb of fuel, F-35 should carry 3000 * 1.3 = 3900 lb of fuel.

F-35's T/W: 43000/(29000 + 3900) = 1.31
Rafal's T/W: 16600*2/(22000 + 3000) = 1.33

Almost no difference.


You can't take the empty weight and add the fuel amount you want and call that loaded weight(at least that's what I was told by a few engineers and pilots), your missing several hundred pounds of additional weight that has to be there (oil, crew, crew equipment, and sometimes weapons) My chart shows aircraft at 1/4 fuel, and a F-35 at the same fuel fraction as the 1/4 tanked rafale. The 1500l fuel question was brought up, which is quarter internal fuel for the rafale so I compared it to other aircraft at there quarter tank as well, both the F-35 and Su-35 suffered as they have significantly larger fuel fractions compared to the other jets (which is what the last line shows loaded weight fuel fraction). I also stated the american jets tend to have more weight in there loaded weight numbers, idk where the weight comes from. I have only found one loaded weight for the F-22, and it's the one wikipedia uses as well, it's from a Bill Sweatman article from avweek. When you take his loaded weight(64,840lbs) drop the fuel load (18,000) and the well documented empty weight (43,340) your left with around 3500lbs additional lbs of weight. As I said american jets usually have a bit more than the Euro or Russian aircraft when you do this, but this is way to much. If you take 6 x 335lbs and 2 x 188lbs off your down to 1100lbs. Prob also have to take out ammo weight for the gun, no idea how much that weighs (though someone here prob does) and you prob have 400-800lbs left over, that needs to be in your loaded weight. On the engines I used 35,000lbs, that's what Lockmart, USAF, and P&W all list for the performance, it may be more, but that's what they list so that's what I used.
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 721
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 07:36

spazsinbad wrote:'
"But the real power of this aircraft will be once you start utilising a four ship formation and integrating it as envisaged in Plan Jericho with other capabilities like Wedgetail, Poseidon, Triton, Growler, Super Hornet and the Air Warfare Destroyer."..."

Although I can't envisage going anywhere by ourselves. When you include a few other major systems, we get really scary.
Scarier still, when you consider what happens when we plug into the USN/MC
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 21697
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -1

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 07:51

:devil: Yeah let us hijack/threadjack the RAFALE thread eh. :mrgreen: RAFALEnoobs do it elsewhere but hey....
RAN FAA A4G Skyhawk 1970s: https://www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ AND https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 721
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 08:56

geforcerfx wrote:
You can't take the empty weight and add the fuel amount you want and call that loaded weight(at least that's what I was told by a few engineers and pilots), your missing several hundred pounds of additional weight that has to be there (oil, crew, crew equipment, and sometimes weapons) My chart shows aircraft at 1/4 fuel, and a F-35 at the same fuel fraction as the 1/4 tanked rafale. The 1500l fuel question was brought up, which is quarter internal fuel for the rafale so I compared it to other aircraft at there quarter tank as well, both the F-35 and Su-35 suffered as they have significantly larger fuel fractions compared to the other jets (which is what the last line shows loaded weight fuel fraction). I also stated the american jets tend to have more weight in there loaded weight numbers, idk where the weight comes from. I have only found one loaded weight for the F-22, and it's the one wikipedia uses as well, it's from a Bill Sweatman article from avweek. When you take his loaded weight(64,840lbs) drop the fuel load (18,000) and the well documented empty weight (43,340) your left with around 3500lbs additional lbs of weight. As I said american jets usually have a bit more than the Euro or Russian aircraft when you do this, but this is way to much. If you take 6 x 335lbs and 2 x 188lbs off your down to 1100lbs. Prob also have to take out ammo weight for the gun, no idea how much that weighs (though someone here prob does) and you prob have 400-800lbs left over, that needs to be in your loaded weight. On the engines I used 35,000lbs, that's what Lockmart, USAF, and P&W all list for the performance, it may be more, but that's what they list so that's what I used.

I think I see the problem, the source.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 721
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 12:37

spazsinbad wrote::devil: Yeah let us hijack/threadjack the RAFALE thread eh. :mrgreen: RAFALEnoobs do it elsewhere but hey....


It makes as much sense as doing a Rafale vs Klingon bird of pray thread
He's not trolling hard, but I've never seen any fanboy of any jet see reason.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1523
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 12:46

swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
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.




Thanks for the link swiss.

However that value seems odd since most publically available data about the Typhoon indicates Mach 2.0 as the max speed for the Eurofighter Typhoon, as for example can be seen in the official Eurofighter Typhoon website here:
https://www.eurofighter.com/the-aircraft#airframe

Other sites such as this:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/aircraft/fighter/typhoon/
which also indicated a maximum speed of Mach 2.0 or 2,125 km/h.

Moreover and also of notice, the official RAF website indicates that the Eurofighter Typhoon maximum speed is actually Mach 1.8 and thus even lower than the often mentioned Mach 2.0. Here:
https://www.raf.mod.uk/equipment/typhoon.cfm


I actually can understand where that Mach 2.35 maximum speed may have come from. It probably comes from a speed value 2,495 km/h which comes up while doing a simple search on google. That speed converted to Mach and at an altitude of 40,000ft is indeed around Mach 2.35 (2.348 to be more precise) when using for example this calculator:
http://www.hochwarth.com/misc/AviationCalculator.html

But then again, the same source (simple google search) also states from the F-15 a maximum speed 3,017 km/h which using the same calculator above at the same altitude (40,000 ft) gives the F-15 a maximum speed of Mach 2.84 :shock:
(also note that Mach 2.84 contradicts the F-15A/C manual)
I don't think that the F-15 could ever reach such speed since its maximum speed was Mach 2.5 (or lower, which is confirmed by the F-15A/C manual).
So my conclusion is that if this value is not accurate for the F-15 than the same is likely possible for the Typhoon's value.

I don't want or pretend to doubt about German official data but it really seems to "contradict" the official manufacturer data (see the official website above) and even other service's data like the RAF. I wonder why this happens?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 12:50

geforcerfx wrote:
You can't take the empty weight and add the fuel amount you want and call that loaded weight(at least that's what I was told by a few engineers and pilots), your missing several hundred pounds of additional weight that has to be there (oil, crew, crew equipment, and sometimes weapons)


You did it backwards and count it twice. In the US standard of empty weight, oil is already included (yes it weighs hundreds of pounds). Some aircraft also has gun ammo/pylons/wing tip missiles/air crew included. What you call "empty weight" is in fact "recovery weight" by US standard.

Example: The official empty weight of super hornet block II is 31500 lb (E model), and in the flight manual, flying weight with 60% fuel, 5 amraams and 1 FLIR pod is 43700 lbs. Then you can deduct the 31500 lb is with everything included. You don't need to count oil/aircrew/bla bla bla again.

Another Example is F-35A. LM reported the recovery weight of F-35A (AA-1) without engine is 22040 lb, so the recovery weigh with engine is somewhere around 27000~28000 lbs, but the reported empty weight is 29000 lb.
F-35 aa-1.JPG


geforcerfx wrote:When you take his loaded weight(64,840lbs) drop the fuel load (18,000) and the well documented empty weight (43,340) your left with around 3500lbs additional lbs of weight.

You could easily over-estimate empty weight with this method, because you don't know what kind of payload is included. You need the corresponding payload (like the F/A-18E case)

And the most amazing thing in your chart is that, by subtracting fuel weigh from flying weight, I got 24000 lb for Typhoon and 22000 lb for Rafael, which are exactly the reported empty weight of these two aircraft. Do you mean:

1) They do not have any payload in your calculation
2) Their empty weight is significantly lighter than the manufacture reported weight

Which one do you mean?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 13:07

By the way, Typhoon is getting heavier (12t empty weight, around 26000 lb) after 20 years of updates.This is from official Eurofighter World Magzine:
typhoon empty weight.jpg
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests