F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3189
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:04

vilters wrote:Better legs?
Given the same combat load => Flying formation, the Rafale pilot is the one going swimming first.


You really think a SH with 12 AAM's (and all that drag, b/c 8 of those 12 are hanging under its wings) is going to out-range a Rafale with say, 4 meteors and 2 ASRAAM's? Bear in mind 4 of those Meteors can be carried snug to the fuselage. See below, albeit in our example the Rafale wouldn't be carrying those external tanks.

I'm not aware of the "max AA loadout" of the Rafale, so not sure if it's cleared to carry more than the 6 cited AAM's.
Attachments
F-18 SH with AMRAAM.jpg
Rafale with meteor.jpg
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:13

Current max operational AA loadout is 6 AAM, including 4 possible hardpoints for METEOR. Can be carried with 3 standard (530 gal.) or supersonic (330 gal.) tanks.

8 AAM (including 4 METEOR and 3 tanks) loadout is qualified by Dassault and the DGA. Can be operationally qualified if needed. Centerline hardpoints could be qualified (if they are wired), but unlikely and probably no use for them.

I think that a SH carrying 10-12 AAM would just happen in SH fanboys wet dreams considering the drag and the lack of endurance.
Last edited by f4u7_corsair on 23 Feb 2019, 13:14, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1981
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:14

mixelflick wrote:Fair point on how many AMRAAM's she can carry. Albeit in that photo, are not the two outboard most wing stations carrying Sparrows? I wasn't aware we still had them in the inventory. When I saw such a loadout years ago on an F-15, I asked the pilot why bother? He said, "bigger warhead"...


Yes, the missiles carried on those two outboard most wing stations are Sparrows indeed. And of course that these can be swapped by AMRAAMs anytime (the outboard most wing stations can carry AMRAAMs instead).
IMO the reason why you see Sparrows carried in photo is because the photo itself is old. If you notice - and it's not easy to notice since the quality of the photo isn't the best, I'm afraid - that Super Hornet has a "pitot style" probe on the front of its nose, which means that Super Hornet is a prototype and as such pretty much proves that the picture is old, I would say taken in the late 1990's or very early 2000's (and personally I remember to have watched that photo back then), this when the Sparrows were still in use (although being replaced by the AMRAAM, even back then).

I believe there's another reason why aircraft such as the F-15 or F/A-18 carry or carried until recently the Sparrow missile:
To use/"expend" existing old stocks of missiles (Sparrows in this case) while sparing and ensuring a better management of the newer missile (AMRAAM) stocks.
I would say that a loadout combining Sparrows and AMRAAMs is more than good enough for most or even any peacetime mission.


mixelflick wrote:But yes I think the Meteor is the deciding factor, along with SPECTRA etc..


Don't forget that the Super Hornet carries IDECM which has the same role as SPECTRA in the Rafale.


mixelflick wrote:Are USN SH's now flying with the AIM-120D? I see most loaded with AIM-120C-7's..


Yes, I can't see why the USN Super Hornets aren't currently flying with AIM-120D.
According to the following official US Navy webpage (AMRAAM entry):
https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_disp ... d=100&ct=2

The Navy achieved IOC of the latest hardware variant AIM-120D in January 2015.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:20

ricnunes wrote:Don't forget that the Super Hornet carries IDECM which has the same role as SPECTRA in the Rafale.

Performance could be discussed (actually, probably not with open source data), and IDECM doesn't include laser-warning.
ricnunes wrote:Yes, I can't see why the USN Super Hornets aren't currently flying with AIM-120D.
According to the following official US Navy webpage (AMRAAM entry):
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=100&ct=2</span>

The Navy achieved IOC of the latest hardware variant AIM-120D in January 2015.

Qualification is a thing, widespread use is another. It's probable that most USN units keep a majority of AMRAAM Cs in their inventories. AMRAAM Ds are expensive, and the Cs have probably some years of shelf life ahead of them to justify a massive order of its successor.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1981
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:32

f4u7_corsair wrote:Current max operational AA loadout is 6 AAM, including 4 possible hardpoints for METEOR. Can be carried with 3 standard (530 gal.) or supersonic (330 gal.) tanks.

8 AAM (including 4 METEOR and 3 tanks) loadout is qualified by Dassault and the DGA. Can be operationally qualified if needed. Centerline hardpoints could be qualified (if they are wired), but unlikely and probably no use for them.

I think that a SH carrying 10-12 AAM would just happen in SH fanboys wet dreams considering the drag and the lack of endurance.


And you're forgetting that the Super Hornet can carry 10 air-to-air missiles plus the same 3 external fuel tanks while the Rafale carries 8 air-to-air missile with also 3 external fuel tanks.

I always find very funny (and puzzling) the Rafale fanboys which can go to the point of claiming that other aircraft (this case the Super Hornet) carrying a loadout of 10 air-to-air missiles give the aircraft's (Super Hornet) a massive drag but a Rafale with 8 air-to-air missiles plus 3 external tanks don't seem to suffer from such drag penalties :roll:

Moreover, this was a Super Hornet that was sent operationally on a mission over Syria:
Image

And you're saying that a SH loadout with 10-12 air-to-air missiles is unfeasible due to the drag and lack of endurance. Oh boy...

Anyway, my previous point with the Super Hornet's 14 air-to-air missile loadout - independently if it will be carry it operationally or not - is to prove that the Super Hornet does carry more missiles than the Rafale, which is replicated to similar roles and/or payloads. Is this so hard for a Rafale fanboy to understand?? :doh:
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1981
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:41

f4u7_corsair wrote:Qualification is a thing, widespread use is another. It's probable that most USN units keep a majority of AMRAAM Cs in their inventories. AMRAAM Ds are expensive, and the Cs have probably some years of shelf life ahead of them to justify a massive order of its successor.


And???

Doesn't the same thing happen with the Rafale? Or resuming, I'm pretty sure that the Rafale's standard missile will still be the current MICA versions in which some of them will eventually started to getting replaced by the Meteor. Or are you going to say that the the Rafale will from now on always fly with Meteors?? Because if you do then I have some bridges to sell you!

Anyway, what you're describing it's not different from what happens with any other aircraft, including your Rafale - first use and expend the old ordinance/missiles at the same time that the new missile/ordinance are gradually and increasingly being introduced and used.

Or resuming, the AIM-120C for the Super Hornet will be the same as current MICA versions are for the Rafale while the AIM-120D is currently for the Super Hornet what the Meteor is for the Rafale.

Heck, I'm pretty much sure that there are quite more AIM-120D available for the USN Super Hornet compared to the number of Meteors available for the French Rafales, considering that the AIM-120D reached IOC with the US Navy in January 2015 while the Meteor only reached IOC with the French forces quite recently.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 13:47

No need to be salty or aggressive ricnunes.

It's quite known that the SH is quite a draggy aircraft as designed. It's somewhat mediocre supersonic performance is well-known. It wasn't built for that.

I'm also willing to bet that the DI of these dual AMRAAM launchers + pylons is higher than the single rails on the Rafale. Hence my guess about the 10-12 AAM setup being quite draggy, and hence why we don't see a lot of these setups on AA missions.

I'm also willing to bet that the 330 gal. supersonic tanks of the Rafale are less draggy than the Hornet 330s which aren't designed for supersonic speeds (AFAIK).

Do you know the DI of this 10 GBU loadout? Just for a good laugh.

My statement was about drag. Not if it can carry then or not - I know it can. Why are you getting mad?

Or resuming, the AIM-120C for the Super Hornet will be the same as current MICA versions are for the Rafale while the AIM-120D is currently for the Super Hornet what the Meteor is for the Rafale.

Heck, I'm pretty much sure that there are quite more AIM-120D available for the USN Super Hornet compared to the number of Meteors available for the French Rafales, considering that the AIM-120D reached IOC with the US Navy in January 2015 while the Meteor only reached IOC with the French forces quite recently.

Well I never said the opposite. Breathe slowly and take your medication...
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1981
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 14:07

wil59 wrote:
wil59 wrote:
vilters wrote:Better legs?
Given the same combat load => Flying formation, the Rafale pilot is the one going swimming first.

Lollll

AIM/120d < Météor. Aesa rbe2= Apg 79


I grant you that "AIM/120d < Meteor" should be true.

However regarding this:
Aesa rbe2= Apg 79

And perhaps if you're so sure of this, you should elaborate this, no?

Anyway, according to several sources the APG-73 MSA radar, used on legacy F/A-18C Hornets (and Block I Super Hornets) had a radar detection somehow bigger (against an air-to-air target) than the RBE PESA radar detection range also against an air-to-air target which in the case of the RBE is said to be 60 nautical miles against a 30 square foot target.

The RBE AA (AESA) radar in the very best case scenario improved RBE PESA detection range by 100% (2 times) but this improvement is most likely to be less than these 100%.
Now the APG-79 AESA radar is said to have 2 to 3 time more the detection range compared to the APG-73 MSA radar!

So, do the math and lets see if you continue to claim that the "Aesa rbe2= Apg 79"...
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 14:18

You'll have to tell us your sources for the APG-73 range versus a similar target. Easy to throw "do the math" without giving us the figures. ;)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1981
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 15:53

f4u7_corsair wrote:No need to be salty or aggressive ricnunes.


Really??

After saying this:
I think that a SH carrying 10-12 AAM would just happen in SH fanboys wet dreams considering the drag and the lack of endurance.

You're accusing me of being "salty or aggressive". Guess you're having short-memory loss problems, no?


f4u7_corsair wrote:It's quite known that the SH is quite a draggy aircraft as designed. It's somewhat mediocre supersonic performance is well-known. It wasn't built for that.
.....


And where's sources that state that a similiary loaded SH is much more draggy than a Rafale. Or, where is the source that state that a clean Super Hornet is much more draggy than a clean Rafale?

Because last time I checked both aircraft (Super Hornet and Rafale) had pretty much the same Top Speed ( Mach 1.8 ) when clean, so my guess would be that the drag diference between both aircraft shouldn't be that big as you seem to imply. So execuse my if I have my doubts about your rambling above.


f4u7_corsair wrote:Do you know the DI of this 10 GBU loadout? Just for a good laugh.

My statement was about drag. Not if it can carry then or not - I know it can. Why are you getting mad?


No, I don't know the DI of that 10xGBU loadout. However what I do know is that same loadout was used operationally over a real combat area - Syria. So whatever DI that Super Hornet was subjected to with that same loadout, it was manageable enough for that same Super Hornet to be sent over an actual combat mission and that a Super Hornet with a 10-12 air-to-air missile loadout would have a far lower DI than that 10xGBU loadout.
So stop pretending that such heavy loadouts aren't or can't used operationally on the Super Hornet while for some "miracle" they can in the case of the Rafale!

And no, I'm not getting mad. I just hate when people try to distort facts in the namesake of "fanboyism".

P.S - just to be clear I'm not saying that a clean Super Hornet has the same/similar drag as an also clean Rafale. It's quite possible that the Super Hornet may be draggier than the Rafale. What I'm saying is that the diference isn't that big as it seems to be implied above.


f4u7_corsair wrote:
Or resuming, the AIM-120C for the Super Hornet will be the same as current MICA versions are for the Rafale while the AIM-120D is currently for the Super Hornet what the Meteor is for the Rafale.

Heck, I'm pretty much sure that there are quite more AIM-120D available for the USN Super Hornet compared to the number of Meteors available for the French Rafales, considering that the AIM-120D reached IOC with the US Navy in January 2015 while the Meteor only reached IOC with the French forces quite recently.

Well I never said the opposite. Breathe slowly and take your medication...


Really? Then what was this:
8 AAM (including 4 METEOR and 3 tanks) loadout is qualified by Dassault and the DGA. Can be operationally qualified if needed. Centerline hardpoints could be qualified (if they are wired), but unlikely and probably no use for them.

I think that a SH carrying 10-12 AAM would just happen in SH fanboys wet dreams considering the drag and the lack of endurance.


If this isn't saying otherwise then I wonder what would be? But hey, this is not the first time that you post something only then to say later on that you didn't.
So I retort you the medication advise and now I advise you to check a doctor about your aparent memory loses :roll:
Last edited by ricnunes on 23 Feb 2019, 16:03, edited 1 time in total.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1981
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 15:57

f4u7_corsair wrote:You'll have to tell us your sources for the APG-73 range versus a similar target. Easy to throw "do the math" without giving us the figures. ;)


http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/0 ... 13.en.html

https://www.forecastinternational.com/a ... _RECNO=328

http://vnfa2.tripod.com/FA-18_Radar.html

The first two state ">60 nautical miles" (more than 60 nautical miles) while the later states "about 80nm", this of course for the APG-73.

Good enough?
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 78
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 16:16

ricnunes wrote:I always find very funny (and puzzling) the Rafale fanboys which can go to the point of claiming that other aircraft (this case the Super Hornet) carrying a loadout of 10 air-to-air missiles give the aircraft's (Super Hornet) a massive drag but a Rafale with 8 air-to-air missiles plus 3 external tanks don't seem to suffer from such drag penalties


Well, yes, the SH will suffer from more drag penalties than the Rafale because of those silly canted out pylons that are like constantly deployed air brakes. They are pretty much aerodynamic aberrations and a very embarrassing characteristic of the SH. And the SH is a notorious draggy airframe itself...

While i think that the SH is probably more advanced than the Rafale M when it comes to radar and avionics, however there is no doubt in my mind that the Rafale M is a much more optimized design and successful compromise that the SH could ever be. An Americanized Rafale M with US radar and avionics, F414 engines, JHMCS and US weapons... Now that would be something. :)

And you're saying that a SH loadout with 10-12 air-to-air missiles is unfeasible due to the drag and lack of endurance. Oh boy...


Not unfeasible but impractical, thats for sure.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 126
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 16:42

Thank you Tiger05.

ricnunes wrote:(links)
The first two state ">60 nautical miles" (more than 60 nautical miles) while the later states "about 80nm", this of course for the APG-73.

Good enough?

No, because it does not state what kind of target this figure is valid for (RCS). Confirms that you just pulled numbers of your hat for your APG-79 vs RBE2 guesstimation on the basis of biased APG-73 data interpretation. But I'm used to that coming from you.

ricnunes wrote:
f4u7_corsair wrote:No need to be salty or aggressive ricnunes.


Really??

After saying this:
I think that a SH carrying 10-12 AAM would just happen in SH fanboys wet dreams considering the drag and the lack of endurance.

You're accusing me of being "salty or aggressive". Guess you're having short-memory loss problems, no?

Point taken, apologies for the poor wording. You're seriously overreacting though.

f4u7_corsair wrote:It's quite known that the SH is quite a draggy aircraft as designed. It's somewhat mediocre supersonic performance is well-known. It wasn't built for that.
.....


And where's sources that state that a similiary loaded SH is much more draggy than a Rafale. Or, where is the source that state that a clean Super Hornet is much more draggy than a clean Rafale?

Because last time I checked both aircraft (Super Hornet and Rafale) had pretty much the same Top Speed ( Mach 1.8 ) when clean, so my guess would be that the drag diference between both aircraft shouldn't be that big as you seem to imply. So execuse my if I have my doubts about your rambling above.

See what Tiger05 said above regarding the pylons, a notorious feature of the SH dragginess.
Also, aerodynamics 101, difference in drag can have impact on other performance than max speed, i.e.acceleration or fuel consumption.
f4u7_corsair wrote:
Or resuming, the AIM-120C for the Super Hornet will be the same as current MICA versions are for the Rafale while the AIM-120D is currently for the Super Hornet what the Meteor is for the Rafale.

Heck, I'm pretty much sure that there are quite more AIM-120D available for the USN Super Hornet compared to the number of Meteors available for the French Rafales, considering that the AIM-120D reached IOC with the US Navy in January 2015 while the Meteor only reached IOC with the French forces quite recently.

Well I never said the opposite. Breathe slowly and take your medication...


Really? Then what was this:
8 AAM (including 4 METEOR and 3 tanks) loadout is qualified by Dassault and the DGA. Can be operationally qualified if needed. Centerline hardpoints could be qualified (if they are wired), but unlikely and probably no use for them.


If this isn't saying otherwise then I wonder what would be? But hey, this is not the first time that you post something only then to say later on that you didn't.

Where the hell did I say that the METEOR was fielded in bigger numbers than the 120D? I spoke about qualification, in case you have reading comprehension difficulties.
Last edited by f4u7_corsair on 23 Feb 2019, 16:44, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 16:43

First thing first, if SH uses only the conformal pylons for amraams under its air intake there is not problem with canted pylons at all.

Secondly, SH itself is not a draggy air frame. Low sweep wing means lower subsonic induced drag and higher Lift/Drag ratio, even though it may give you an impression of high drag. Remember a superhornet has better subsonic acceleration than a clean Flanker.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 821
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 16:49

And, it is not correct to assume "what if I put XXX engine on XXX aircraft" without considering the airflow modification and weight penalty to the airframe. If you put F414 onto Rafale you need to enlarge the airintake for more airflow, strengthen the fuselage, making the airframe heavier, making center of gravity shift, so some ballast is required, and Rafale's wing loading is higher which makes the rafale even more vulnerable against a SH in a one-circle fight (the tightest turner in Indian MMRCA test is SH, not Rafale). There is a chain effect in every aspect.

F18 j turn pirouette.jpg

F18 J turn 270.gif
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests