F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 13:48

Even though I'm now convinced that the EF is better than the f-22. I hope APA sues then for copyright infringement, for stealing their proprietary comparison format.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1764
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 13:50

D*mn... I had no idea the Typhoon was a 5th gen platform!?! :shock: :roll:

Everyone wants in the 5th gen club. Everyone wants to pull down the F-22 / F-35. F-22? Lots and lots of fuel. Internal carriage? Complex. Heavy. Expensive. You don't need VLO! You can do it (survive) with a balanced approach! Networked? F-22 - partial / Rx only. Typhie? Full! F-35? Hah! It's not even a fighter... it's an attack aircraft... so how can it be a 5th gen fighter!?!

(I did not realize the Typhie has full networking capability? What is the name of the Typhie's MADL-equivalient LPI / high-bandwidth network? Or is it only Link-16?)
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, add dollop of F-117 & gob of F-22, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well, then bake. Whaddya get? An F-35.
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 366
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 15:02

See, charts like this sometimes make me just want to pull my hair out. :doh: :bang: Anyone knowledgeable about the subjects knows that the article is full of crap. However, the average person doesn't. It's like the writers of that chart think that VLO is just a little side note and not as important as empty weight or other relatively unimportant things. The only thing that the EF does better than the f-22 is range and cost. That's all. It's balanced approach to survivablility is doublespeak for not stealth. It is not superior kinematically. And please, superior networking? That one just hurt to read. 5th gens are known for being flying sensor farms that enhance the rest of the joint force considerably.


And don't get me started on what they said about the f-35....
Offline

cavok

Banned

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 15:47

5th gens are known for being flying sensor farms that enhance the rest of the joint force considerably.


Which imho is more important and more durable than VLO. That said, during Trilat 17, both F-22 and F-35 could play as quaterbacks (F-22 needed a C2 L-16 "mission commander" capable plane or to use radio, on F-35 the j-message is implemented). Whoever, in case of trouble, F-22 could intervene. F-35, at the time limited to 2 AMRAAMs and slowlier couldn't.
That is exactly this type of capability that will be implemented on F4 standard of Rafale. EFT should not be disregarded also, a highband discrete datalink could very well be soon implemented (i do not know) and Captor E should be a hell of a radar.

Anw, most interesting part will probably around 2030, we should know which is the best concept, VLO networked plane or VVLO UCAV + LO plane (also networked)
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 366
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:02

cavok wrote:and Captor E should be a hell of a radar.


What makes you say this?
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:07

Well, with the updated 12 ton empty weight shown on EuroFighter official brochure, we can confidently say that F-35 and EF2000 have almost the same T/W ratio now. :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:16

cavok wrote:Which imho is more important and more durable than VLO. That said, during Trilat 17, both F-22 and F-35 could play as quaterbacks (F-22 needed a C2 L-16 "mission commander" capable plane or to use radio, on F-35 the j-message is implemented). Whoever, in case of trouble, F-22 could intervene. F-35, at the time limited to 2 AMRAAMs and slowlier couldn't.
That is exactly this type of capability that will be implemented on F4 standard of Rafale. EFT should not be disregarded also, a highband discrete datalink could very well be soon implemented (i do not know) and Captor E should be a hell of a radar.

Anw, most interesting part will probably around 2030, we should know which is the best concept, VLO networked plane or VVLO UCAV + LO plane (also networked)



son, You are an amateur, this is how you troll the rafale saying it's LO. Early threads in strategypage should be your Bible.


https://www.strategypage.com/militaryfo ... ofcomments
Bluewings12 7/28/2009 4:13:56 PM
Some posters must be deaf or they can 't read . Ok , let 's start again .

Rufus doesn 't have a clue on the Rafale 's design and he keeps spreading lies . Tell me Rufus , are you not tired to look stupid ? You post BS by the numbers without backing up anything and you really hope that is enough or will do to fool people ? You 're mistaking . You said :

""We are talking specifically about the Rafale's lack of significant RCS""
(first mistake)
""The Rafale is a more or less conventional 4th generation aircraft""
(2nd mistake)
""Like most 4th generation designs it has received some minimal RCS reduction work""
(3rd mistake)
""one look at the Rafale and tell you that it has received, at best, extremely minimal RCS reduction""
(4th mistake)
""you must convince yourself that its designers had expertise in a field they simply didn't""
(5th mistake)

Rufus , you are incapable to back-up anything I just quoted because you 're wrong on all accounts and there is nothing on the Net to prove your case , you have no case . You are a misinformed lyier . In fact , you are trolling .

On the other hand , I can demolish your BS with ease because I know what I am talking about and I also have all the data I need to do so . Read , learn and don 't forget :

"The French fighter is definitely a ?low-observable? aircraft, and its systems will set new standards in terms of low-observability and survivability. Every effort has been made by the engineers to minimise its infrared and radar signatures. The objective was not to make the aircraft undetectable or to match the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the F-117 or B-2, but to significantly reduce the detection and tracking range of hostile airdefences. Accordingly, the airframe has been carefully shaped to cut down its RCS. Other signature reduction measures include state-of-the-art Radar-Absorbing Materials in various areas of the airframe, ?sawtooth? edges on the foreplanes, on the flaperons, and on some access panels and doors, specially treated canopy, plus ?double-S? shaped air-intake ducts to hide the engine compressor faces. Thanks to the Hot Spot treatment, infrared signature is minimised, and the Snecma M88 turbofans have been optimised to limit infrared detectability."
(From Rafale International Fox-Three No 4)

I remind you that the Rafale has been designed from day one to be LO (not VLO) . The design started in 3D CAD , then the prototypes have been validated after spending weeks in anechoic chamber with various load . I 've got a piture of a Rafale in the chamber loaded with 2 different fuel tanks (1250 l and 2000 l) and 2 Micas , unfortunatly the picture is part of a pdf and I can 't post it here . Notice the "carefully shaped airframe" to start with .
Then :
"The fuselage and wings are manufactured entirely with composite materials and alloys (carbon fiber, kevlar, titanium and various alloys) and received treatment reducing the reflection of electromagnetic waves, making the jet discrete ."
(From a French DoD publication , january 2006)
Also :
"The Rafale is low observable and it can operate by night or day in all weather conditions. It features the latest technologies including multisensor fusion and digital voice control."
(From Dassault Aviation Publication , february 2002)

You see Rufus (and other non believers) , there is plenty of official material who clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge (and bias) . I 've got some more but it should be enough for now , I 'll dig out extra studies as I see fit .
It is about time to acknowledge that the Rafale is not a 4th generation fighter and it hasn 't been built to be one of them .
Some of you did not like what Wingman said but he is correct and his posts should be kept in mind .
Rufus also said :
""France has extremely minimal RCS reduction experience and they had none at all at the time the Rafale was being designed.""

I 've just demolished its rubbish . More to it , France started her research in stealth technology in late 70s , almost
Last edited by optimist on 14 Oct 2017, 16:18, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

sferrin

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 4774
  • Joined: 22 Jul 2005, 03:23

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:17

optimist wrote:Even though I'm now convinced that the EF is better than the f-22.


:lmao:
"There I was. . ."
Offline

cavok

Banned

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:28

optimist wrote:
cavok wrote:Which imho is more important and more durable than VLO. That said, during Trilat 17, both F-22 and F-35 could play as quaterbacks (F-22 needed a C2 L-16 "mission commander" capable plane or to use radio, on F-35 the j-message is implemented). Whoever, in case of trouble, F-22 could intervene. F-35, at the time limited to 2 AMRAAMs and slowlier couldn't.
That is exactly this type of capability that will be implemented on F4 standard of Rafale. EFT should not be disregarded also, a highband discrete datalink could very well be soon implemented (i do not know) and Captor E should be a hell of a radar.

Anw, most interesting part will probably around 2030, we should know which is the best concept, VLO networked plane or VVLO UCAV + LO plane (also networked)



son, You are an amateur, this is how you troll the rafale saying it's LO. Early threads in strategypage should be your Bible.


https://www.strategypage.com/militaryfo ... ofcomments
Bluewings12 7/28/2009 4:13:56 PM
Some posters must be deaf or they can 't read . Ok , let 's start again .

Rufus doesn 't have a clue on the Rafale 's design and he keeps spreading lies . Tell me Rufus , are you not tired to look stupid ? You post BS by the numbers without backing up anything and you really hope that is enough or will do to fool people ? You 're mistaking . You said :

""We are talking specifically about the Rafale's lack of significant RCS""
(first mistake)
""The Rafale is a more or less conventional 4th generation aircraft""
(2nd mistake)
""Like most 4th generation designs it has received some minimal RCS reduction work""
(3rd mistake)
""one look at the Rafale and tell you that it has received, at best, extremely minimal RCS reduction""
(4th mistake)
""you must convince yourself that its designers had expertise in a field they simply didn't""
(5th mistake)

Rufus , you are incapable to back-up anything I just quoted because you 're wrong on all accounts and there is nothing on the Net to prove your case , you have no case . You are a misinformed lyier . In fact , you are trolling .

On the other hand , I can demolish your BS with ease because I know what I am talking about and I also have all the data I need to do so . Read , learn and don 't forget :

"The French fighter is definitely a ?low-observable? aircraft, and its systems will set new standards in terms of low-observability and survivability. Every effort has been made by the engineers to minimise its infrared and radar signatures. The objective was not to make the aircraft undetectable or to match the Radar Cross Section (RCS) of the F-117 or B-2, but to significantly reduce the detection and tracking range of hostile airdefences. Accordingly, the airframe has been carefully shaped to cut down its RCS. Other signature reduction measures include state-of-the-art Radar-Absorbing Materials in various areas of the airframe, ?sawtooth? edges on the foreplanes, on the flaperons, and on some access panels and doors, specially treated canopy, plus ?double-S? shaped air-intake ducts to hide the engine compressor faces. Thanks to the Hot Spot treatment, infrared signature is minimised, and the Snecma M88 turbofans have been optimised to limit infrared detectability."
(From Rafale International Fox-Three No 4)

I remind you that the Rafale has been designed from day one to be LO (not VLO) . The design started in 3D CAD , then the prototypes have been validated after spending weeks in anechoic chamber with various load . I 've got a piture of a Rafale in the chamber loaded with 2 different fuel tanks (1250 l and 2000 l) and 2 Micas , unfortunatly the picture is part of a pdf and I can 't post it here . Notice the "carefully shaped airframe" to start with .
Then :
"The fuselage and wings are manufactured entirely with composite materials and alloys (carbon fiber, kevlar, titanium and various alloys) and received treatment reducing the reflection of electromagnetic waves, making the jet discrete ."
(From a French DoD publication , january 2006)
Also :
"The Rafale is low observable and it can operate by night or day in all weather conditions. It features the latest technologies including multisensor fusion and digital voice control."
(From Dassault Aviation Publication , february 2002)

You see Rufus (and other non believers) , there is plenty of official material who clearly demonstrate your lack of knowledge (and bias) . I 've got some more but it should be enough for now , I 'll dig out extra studies as I see fit .
It is about time to acknowledge that the Rafale is not a 4th generation fighter and it hasn 't been built to be one of them .
Some of you did not like what Wingman said but he is correct and his posts should be kept in mind .
Rufus also said :
""France has extremely minimal RCS reduction experience and they had none at all at the time the Rafale was being designed.""

I 've just demolished its rubbish . More to it , France started her research in stealth technology in late 70s , almost


Thank you "pro" granda. I do not read antiquated early threads on SP, i'm not locked in neolithics
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:35

sferrin wrote:
optimist wrote:Even though I'm now convinced that the EF is better than the f-22.


:lmao:


now apa really know how to do a chart, ( koop and Co they have faded away now, you don't know what you miss, till it's gone)
http://www.ausairpower.net/jsf.html

Image
Last edited by optimist on 14 Oct 2017, 16:38, edited 1 time in total.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:37

About VLO, I just want to add the following:

- Yes, VLO is here to stay and will stay for a very looong time!
VLO is here to stay just like like other aerial warfare technologies that preceded it, like for example:
Paint camouflage, Airborne Radars, Jet Engines, Air-to-Air Missiles, etc...

Even painted camouflage which looks "outdated" today since aircraft are able to destroy themselves dozens of miles away (almost a hundred) is still being developed and improved today as we speak.

So yes, an aircraft which isn't VLO is already outdated today and as we speak, PERIOD!

And it doesn't matter what radar technology and network capabilities may be added to aircraft like the Rafale or Typhoon or other 4th and 4.5th gen fighter aircraft - They are outdated TODAY, and again PERIOD!
Or resuming with an analogy from the past, adding new radar/sensor technology and network capabilities to the Rafale or Typhoon, like for example in the form of updates such as the Rafale F4 is basically the same as doing this back in 1944-45:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_FR_Fireball

The above link is about the FR-1 Fireball a hybrid propeller and jet engine aircraft developed when the first jet engines came up. And what was the result? Such aircraft didn't work out as pure jet engine aircraft were already the future with propeller aircraft (note we are talking about fighter/combat aircraft) quickly becoming obsolete.
If Rafale F4 (or Eurofighter Typhoon updates) brings all what the "Rafale fanatic" above claims or even more, they (Rafale, Typhoon, etc...) will only be the "FR-1 Fireball" of modern days!

So I guess many of these "desktop experts" ranging from some Eurocanards fanatics to people who writes articles like that one about the Typhoon above should before trying to actually write and even learn something about military aircraft, learn something about ACTUAL HISTORY (this case military aircraft history) :roll:
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:37

According to Dassault, Rafale empty is 22k
https://www.dassault-aviation.com/en/de ... ance-data/


EF is 24,300lbs and will only gain more weight once the AMK aerodynamic modifications are implemented.



So if you compare the original black Rafale from the 1990's to the present one, it indeed has gained a few thousand lbs. Same with EF. The Gripen also has added a few thousand lbs from its original austere version to the Gripen E.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:38

cavok wrote:... i'm not locked in neolithics


OH YES YOU ARE!

Just look at my previous post... :roll:
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 16:47

cavok wrote:Thank you "pro" granda. I do not read antiquated early threads on SP, i'm not locked in neolithics

If you think a 2009 thread is antiquated, you forget the rafale is from the 80's, before you were born :doh:
you can cut 20 years on the thread, so Rafale is 20 years older than antiquated :roll:
Dec 12 1991, the day the rafale m flew was the day Maastricht Treaty was signed to create a European Community
everything has all been said..it's all wash, rinse and repeat.

the rafale wasn't LO then, it's not LO now, regardless what nationalistic fanboys and dassault say.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

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

Unread post14 Oct 2017, 17:13

Rather puzzling statement, on F-22 vs EF earlier, yet-

BAE/AirBus has found deficiencies on EF "phone-booth" fighting ability. They want a jet with more high AOA authority, that is why they studied the AMK modifications. It seems the standard EF has rather poor high alpha-nose pointing prowess (generally thanks to the over swept designed delta wing). Until EF gets TVC (if it ever does, and that is a big if) it will always lag behind the Raptor in high AOA maneuvering. I have witnessed the F-22 in flight, and it can cut corners/angles like no other fighter that I have seen-
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests