F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

Tintin

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 22:28

Unread post10 Jan 2008, 13:23

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.
Offline

LowObservable

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 16:34

Unread post10 Jan 2008, 14:29

A different view of wing design:

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

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post10 Jan 2008, 17:08

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.
Offline

Tintin

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 32
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 22:28

Unread post13 Jan 2008, 19:34

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!!
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1525
  • Joined: 20 Jul 2005, 04:28
  • Location: Langley AFB, VA

Unread post14 Jan 2008, 19:54

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.
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post15 Jan 2008, 05:17

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.
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post16 Jan 2008, 07:28

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!
I think therefor I am
Offline

Ozzy_Blizzard

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 88
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2007, 14:53

Unread post16 Jan 2008, 07:44

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.
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post16 Jan 2008, 09:24

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.
I think therefor I am
Offline

Pilotasso

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 532
  • Joined: 29 Oct 2006, 03:35

Unread post16 Jan 2008, 12:18

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.
Offline

fretmarks

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 134
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2004, 07:55

Unread post16 Jan 2008, 12:28

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.
Austin 1, Fox 3!
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post16 Jan 2008, 14:57

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?
I think therefor I am
Offline

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post16 Jan 2008, 20:25

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.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4798
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post17 Jan 2008, 10:15

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!
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 69
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2006, 09:19

Unread post17 Jan 2008, 13:16

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]
I think therefor I am
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests