F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

LMAggie

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 07:43

Unread post18 Jan 2008, 01:42

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.
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4797
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post18 Jan 2008, 13:53

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.
Offline

fretmarks

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post18 Jan 2008, 15:37

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.
Austin 1, Fox 3!
Offline

fretmarks

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post18 Jan 2008, 16:27

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.
Austin 1, Fox 3!
Offline

checksixx

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post18 Jan 2008, 17:05

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...
Offline

LMAggie

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 579
  • Joined: 12 Aug 2007, 07:43

Unread post18 Jan 2008, 23:54

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.
“Its not the critic who counts..The credit belongs to the man who does actually strive to do the deeds..”
Offline

Ozzy_Blizzard

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 04:24

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.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4797
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 07:53

Well, put Ozzy. Does the ASRAAM have a 360 field of engagement? How does it detect things behind the nose? I am curious.
"Spurts"

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

Ozzy_Blizzard

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 08:35

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).
Offline

fretmarks

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 11:23

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.
Austin 1, Fox 3!
Offline

Ozzy_Blizzard

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 12:44

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.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 17:24

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.
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 17:44

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.
Offline

fretmarks

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post19 Jan 2008, 20:21

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:
Austin 1, Fox 3!
Offline

end

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

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

Unread post20 Jan 2008, 05:50

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.
I think therefor I am
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests