F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

[quicksilver]

Hmmm. I don’t think too many folks are having a hard time understanding what an F-35 does in spite of its comparatively benign appearance.

The US, UK, Aus, Japan, Korea, Denmark, Norway, NL, Belgium, Israel, Turkey; maybe even Canada. That’s a substantial list of folks who seem to ‘get it.’ We could even argue a list of other countries that do as well, the timing simply isn’t right for them yet.

I think he's referring mainly to the tax-paying public. (And idiot politicians.)

I don’t see anyone rioting in the street over the 22B that LM et al are getting for block buy. Apparently it’s lack of menacing appearance hasn’t gotten any traction yet with pogo or even click bait critics, who all seem to have gone underground.

[hornetfinn]

I think what you are saying could be true but it could also be not true depending on the design. For instance the Typhoon with 3 tanks and AAMs can do Mach 1.8 whereas the F-18 is barely supersonic so it does depend a lot on how optimized for speed your internal bay less aircraft is. So Mig-31/Typhoon would beat F-35 in speed with equivalent stores and fuel but most other aircraft would not surpass Mach 1.5 nevermind the loss of 9g capability in most cases. The F-35 is a pretty good design, speed-wise, maneuverability-wise, even with its big wide stubby fuselage.

I don't think even Typhoon can beat F-35 in speed with most equivalent stores and fuel. It can be supersonic only with those 1,000 litre tanks. Even with 3 tanks it would still carry less fuel than F-35. I do agree that it likely still has pretty impressive performance in air-to-air loadout but not when carrying air-to-ground ordnance. There F-35 really shines still with full performance envelope with normal A/G loadout. Not so with EF Typhoon or any other 4th gen fighter AFAIK.

I agree that F-35 is extremely impressive design from anyway you look at it.

[ricnunes]

I think what you are saying could be true but it could also be not true depending on the design. For instance the Typhoon with 3 tanks and AAMs can do Mach 1.8 whereas the F-18 is barely supersonic so it does depend a lot on how optimized for speed your internal bay less aircraft is. So Mig-31/Typhoon would beat F-35 in speed with equivalent stores and fuel but most other aircraft would not surpass Mach 1.5 nevermind the loss of 9g capability in most cases. The F-35 is a pretty good design, speed-wise, maneuverability-wise, even with its big wide stubby fuselage.

If there's one thing that your post "proves" is that external stores always have a very big impact on drag (with the level of drag impact varying from different kind of stores and quantity).
Let's first look at your Typhoon example:
- Like hornetfinn correctly said those (3) EFTs are small ones (1,000 L tanks) which were clearly designed to have the lowest drag impact possible (often called "Supersonic Tanks") plus fuselage mounted missiles which should also have a lower drag impact compared to for example mounting the same missiles under the wings but even with "low drag" external loadout configuration the impact on drag is very big in which a Typhoon which can attain a top speed of Mach 2.0+ while clean but with that "low drag" configuration the top speed is considerably reduced to Mach 1.8
Now imagine high or higher drag configurations such as including under-wing Air-to-Air missiles, Air-to-Ground ordinance and/or bigger EFTs?
- Another and even more noticeable example is exactly the Super Hornet which can in a clean configuration attain a top speed of Mach 1.8 (higher than a "clean F-35") but while carrying only 2xAMRAAMs mounted on the fuselage pylons (and therefore low drag) plus 2xSidewinders on the wingtips (also low drag) the Super Hornet can only attain a top speed of Mach 1.57 (lower than an internally fully armed F-35).

Of course that with this I fully agree with you that the drag impact from external stores will vary from aircraft to aircraft but my point is, independently of which aircraft were' talking too, external stores will always have a very big impact on drag.

[marsavian]

Indeed and many bombs/missiles are not cleared for supersonic external carriage too. My point was that it would be a close run thing either way but with internal bays you can always rely on a consistent speed/turning/stealth performance. The F-22/Su-57/J-20 are all Mach 2 aircraft so given a big enough aircraft you don't have to take a speed hit with internal bays anyway.

[lbk000]

The F-22/Su-57/J-20 are all Mach 2 aircraft so given a big enough aircraft you don't have to take a speed hit with internal bays anyway.

Just to interject, it is doubtful to me that the J-20 would be a Mach 2 aircraft considering its fixed inlet design.

[sferrin]

The F-22/Su-57/J-20 are all Mach 2 aircraft so given a big enough aircraft you don't have to take a speed hit with internal bays anyway.

Just to interject, it is doubtful to me that the J-20 would be a Mach 2 aircraft considering its fixed inlet design.

It's a popular misconception that "fixed inlets" automatically limit an aircraft to sub Mach 2 speed. It's incorrect of course. Both the XF8U-3 and F-22 could/can fly well above Mach 2. The F-16 has a fixed inlet. It can also go Mach 2.

[botsing]

The F-22/Su-57/J-20 are all Mach 2 aircraft so given a big enough aircraft you don't have to take a speed hit with internal bays anyway.

Just to interject, it is doubtful to me that the J-20 would be a Mach 2 aircraft considering its fixed inlet design.

It's a popular misconception that "fixed inlets" automatically limit an aircraft to sub Mach 2 speed. It's incorrect of course. Both the XF8U-3 and F-22 could/can fly well above Mach 2. The F-16 has a fixed inlet. It can also go Mach 2.

Yes, but would it be of a tactical venue? Like limiting the max reach due to fuel efficiency and such?

It's nice that the F-16 can reach mach 2, but in what tactical scenario is that likely to be deployed? And will that be enough to warrant the other offsets?

[citanon]

This is a bit off topic, but since people were discussing drag a couple of pages back, can you guys give some insight on how Boeing can develop CFTs that actually reduce drag on the Super Hornet. Also, if the CFTs are so beneficial, why are they just not designed into the original aircraft?

https://www.crows.org/news/389085/The-S ... grades.htm

[steve2267]

This is a bit off topic, but since people were discussing drag a couple of pages back, can you guys give some insight on how Boeing can develop CFTs that actually reduce drag on the Super Hornet. Also, if the CFTs are so beneficial, why are they just not designed into the original aircraft?

https://www.crows.org/news/389085/The-S ... grades.htm

As I skimmed your reference URL, I took that to mean that the drag of the Super Duper with CFT's will be less than the drag of a Super Duper without CFT's but with EFTs. So they are saying the drag of the CFTs is less than the drag of the EFTs. At least, that is how it read to me.

[blindpilot]

This is a bit off topic, but since people were discussing drag a couple of pages back, can you guys give some insight on how Boeing can develop CFTs that actually reduce drag on the Super Hornet. Also, if the CFTs are so beneficial, why are they just not designed into the original aircraft?

https://www.crows.org/news/389085/The-S ... grades.htm

Knowing Boeing they are just leaving off "the rest of the story." It reduces drag .... pause ... pause .... ["over what the drag with EFTs would be"] ...
Then today's journalist just drop the "rest." and you get the quote you saw.

Notice the quote buried at the end of the article -

"The current F/A-18 480-gallon external fuel tanks are mounted under the wing. The CFTs are mounted on top of the wing on either side of the aircraft dorsal," Lt. Lauren Chatmas, Navy spokeswoman

They don't reduce drag over a clean aircraft.

MHO,
BP

[steve2267]

BP said it more eloquently than I.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

Ye Olde Press Brief said otherwise.

https://news.usni.org/2013/08/27/docume ... per-hornet

"F264 clean aircraft flown side-by-side with F266 w/CFTs on 6 August 2013
Fuel burn rate (drag) demonstrated to be the same or better with CFTs"

I think it has to do with designing the CFTs to produce lift at lower AoA, unloading the wing. Just a WAG.

[marsavian]

The F-18 CFTs are really well designed and streamlined and pretty contiguous with the current airframe profile unlike the quite ugly protuding F-16 ones. So why not originally design it like that ? Target clean weight probably.

[sprstdlyscottsmn]

They only offer the drag benefit when subsonic. When transonic or supersonic they give the same drag as a centerline tank. I forget where I read that.

[geforcerfx]

I'm still trying to find my source, but the CFTs were in design back in the early days of the super hornet. Before all the size increases it was considered a low drag way to replace the EFTs the hornet's always carried and open up the heavy pylons for strike loads.