F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

The F-35 compared with other modern jets.
  • Author
  • Message
Online
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 390
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 16:21

ricnunes wrote:I never said that the SH has a similar level of drag compared to the Rafale, did I?
And I never said that the SH didn't have more drag than the Rafale, did I?

What I did say was that some people here often state that the SH has some brutal drag which I don't believe or else the aircraft wouldn't be supersonic for instance.

So again, when pilot testimonies and performance charts show that it has very high/brutal drag, you choose not to believe them because the SH can go supersonic? Interesting.

ricnunes wrote:Yes, it is more draggy than a F-15, F-16 or Rafale for example, so what? Does this impair the Super Hornet from doing the same roles/tasks as those other aircraft? Definitely not!

Please enlighten me on why aircraft have KPP's specifying speed and acceleration in different scenarios if those attributes are not essential to completing the roles and tasks associated with the mission.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

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

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 16:46

ricnunes wrote:
Most of the detection range values from US Radars seem to use the F-16 (or a similar RCS sized target) as the reference point for radar detection range figures which puts the target in the same 30 square foot ballpark as per the RBE PESA radar specs.
Anyway, I don't believe that detection range of the APG-73 is against a target with a bigger RCS than 30 square foot.
Moreover even if both the APG-73 and RBE PESA have basically the same/similar detection range against the same target, this proves that the APG-79 has a longer detection range than the RBE AESA since the former has a detection 2 to 3 times bigger than its "predecessor" (APG-73) while the later has a detection range somehow lower than 2 times the predecessor (RBE PESA).

Even if the above is somehow a "guesstimate" it is nevertheless based on some facts/sources while "RBE AESA having the same range as the APG-79" is not even there!
Or resuming, the "RBE AESA having the same range as the APG-79" claim doesn't even seem to be based on any tangible source.
So it's funny that you seem to doubt that the APG-79 has a longer detection range than the RBE AESA as compared to having the same/similar detection range.

Yeah, I see your reasoning pattern here. Taking an incomplete figure and considering the best case scenario while considering the worst case scenario for the "competing" system with equally incomplete data.

When there was a discussion ongoing between a tentative Super Hornet armed with AIM-120D versus a Rafale armed with Meteor which afterwards unfolded like that:
1- A poster asked if the US Navy already fielded the AIM-120D which I replied with source, that yes.
2- Then you came up with the comment above in the sequence of the same conversation.
3- Then I pointed out that the AIM-120D was at the same stage but likely more advanced (including number of missiles fielded) compared to the Meteor within French Forces.

So yes, IMO you were clearly implying that the Super Hornet wouldn't currently use the AIM-120D due to "low availability" of the weapon (which I actually and partially agree), so what I did was to point out that the same issue would also affect (and likely even more so) the Meteor usage on the Rafale.

Yeah, and I said that I never said the opposite. I'm very aware that the METEOR isn't fielded to operational units yet. I don't know why you had to argue on this and what you even argued about.

It's not because I point something out on a system that I automatically think the opposite on another, despite what you'd like to believe. I'm not a fanboy...

So, above you apologize for your "wording" above but now you're again at it?!

"poor wording" again?? :roll:

Guess, that it's not me who's having some "comprehension difficulties"...

And then you (and "apparently" white_lightning35 as well) wonder why I "overreact", go figure why! :roll:

Fact is, you put words in my mouth that I haven't said, nor even thought, doubled by your questionable reasoning pattern. It's not the first time I witness this with me or on other posts here. It's quite tiresome and I take responsibility for my caustic reaction.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 17:55

Honestly, i don't know why we discuss this again?

The SH was inferior to the EF with MSA Radar in the A to A domain. ( Danish evaluation). And the Rafale was better then the same EF standard even with PESA Radar. (Evaluation Switzerland) So it's a fact that Rafale is the better Air to Air machine. Period.

@Ric: Even you stated that the Rafale is better in that domain. :wink:
Offline

shania

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2015, 15:27

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 18:26

swiss wrote:Honestly, i don't know why we discuss this again?

The SH was inferior to the EF with MSA Radar in the A to A domain. ( Danish evaluation). And the Rafale was better then the same EF standard even with PESA Radar.

In swiss eval, they are both very close to baseline Hornet.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 19:10

shania wrote:
swiss wrote:Honestly, i don't know why we discuss this again?

The SH was inferior to the EF with MSA Radar in the A to A domain. ( Danish evaluation). And the Rafale was better then the same EF standard even with PESA Radar.

In swiss eval, they are both very close to baseline Hornet.


I would say a Hornet C/D with APG-73 and AMRAAM-C7 is a far cry from a "baseline Hornet". And close is a very elastic term. In this case a SH would be also "close" to a F/A-18 C/D.
Offline

shania

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 31
  • Joined: 09 Apr 2015, 15:27

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 19:55

swiss wrote:I would say a Hornet C/D with APG-73 and AMRAAM-C7 is a far cry from a "baseline Hornet". And close is a very elastic term. In this case a SH would be also "close" to a F/A-18 C/D.

Sorry I meant baseline in eval.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 20:42

marsavian wrote:
ricnunes wrote: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!

Who is saying this ?


For example, here:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... apg-79.htm

With more power than the APG-73, the APG-79 will have two or three times the air-toair detection range and will allow tracking of significantly more targets. It will also have a much better ability to identify targets and break out those that are closely spaced.


There's also a mention to this detection level in a post of this same forum (f-16.net) here:
viewtopic.php?t=5238
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.
Online

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1152
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 20:52

Thanks.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 20:54

f4u7_corsair wrote:Taking an incomplete figure and considering the best case scenario while considering the worst case scenario for the "competing" system with equally incomplete data.

Talk about intellectual honestly there...


As opposed, you didn't post any reasoning or sources in your post regarding this subject.

Actually, all you did was to continue with your personal attacks against me, as it can be read above with:
"Talk about intellectual honestly there"

Great dude that you are. You apologize for "wrong wording" only to continue that same "wrong wording" again :roll:
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 post26 Feb 2019, 21:12

white_lightning35 wrote:So again, when pilot testimonies and performance charts show that it has very high/brutal drag, you choose not to believe them because the SH can go supersonic? Interesting.


First those pilot testimonies and charts shows that the Super Hornet is more draggy in the transonic and supersonic regimes indeed, never said otherwise. In subsonic regimes the diference in drag doesn't seem that much.

And the subsonic regime is a very important one since most aerial combats seem to have been done there.

Moreover, you and your fellow f4u7_corsair seem to indicate that drag is the only factor or decisive factor in terms of performance. The fact is that it is not! For example engine power is another very important factor and here the Super Hornet has more powerful engines which definitely helps to offset the drag.
Note that I'm not saying or implying here that the Super Hornet may have a better performance than the Rafale, by the contrary. However having more powerful engines helps to mitigate the bigger drag somehow.

Not that this matters anything since you're clearly here doing personal attacks against me at it can clearly seen below with your comments.

white_lightning35 wrote:I'm sorry, it's just that I always feel an attraction to comment on stupid posts and many of those come from you. Nothing personal.


This is not a fact, this is a personal opinion of yours that only reinforces that you're only here to make personal attacks towards me.
Or resuming, you "attraction" here is to personal attacks.


white_lightning35 wrote:Again, I don't think you know what the word reason means either.


Really?? How many times you admitted to be wrong here in this forum??
I've admitted several times. So here I probably know better than you the meaning of the word "reason" :roll:

Anyway, I'm tired of you. You can do all the personal attacks that you wish towards me since I "welcome you" to my ignore list! This also extends to f4u7_corsair.
Last edited by ricnunes on 26 Feb 2019, 23:15, 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 post26 Feb 2019, 21:31

swiss wrote:
@Ric: Even you stated that the Rafale is better in that domain. :wink:


Hi swiss.
I'm not saying that the Super Hornet may be better than the Rafale in air-to-air combat in overall terms. I do agree for instance that the Rafale has better performance (mainly in terms of acceleration) compared to the Super Hornet.
The Rafale likely has a better EW suite as well.
And yes, I admit that the Rafale may/should have a edge in air-to-air combat when equipped with the Meteor.
But without the Meteor not so much. For example a Super Hornet armed with AIM-120C-5 or better yet the AIM-120C-7 should have the edge in BVR combat over a Rafale armed with MICA missiles, even because those AMRAAMs outranges the MICAs. Moreover (and again), the Super Hornet is capable of carrying more air-to-air missiles.

Anyway, what I was saying was that the Super Hornet has the edge over the Rafale in terms of Radar. If you will, what I was saying is that IMO the APG-79 is better (and has better detection range) than the RBE2 AA.
And radar is a very important metric for air-to-air combat although I admit, it's not the only one.


marsavian wrote:Thanks.

You're welcome marsavian.
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

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 751
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 22:17

IMHO the most important factors in a2a between two 4.5 gen fighters:

* EW capabilities
* Sensor fusion
* MMI
* missile performance


I don't think the range of the radar by itself is a significant differentiator in such a case -- both SH and Rafale have excellent long-range AESA radars. And if the target is not VLO but (at best) LO then I strongly suspect the maximum radar range is not that important -- both radars will spot the other at quite long range (unless EW is efficient; in which case max radar range is probably not that important; but rather how well the radar can handle EW).

The SH can support itself on the Growler today; and soon it can get support also from the F-35; the French don't have anything like Growler or F-35 thus they have invested heavily in EW, and most likely much more than the USN have invested in EW for the SH (due to the EW capabilities in the Growler).

The sensor fusion and MMI in the Rafale is very good. Some pilots are claiming Rafales sensor fusion is better than the SH (but others may disagree...? ;))

My money would be on the Rafale -- whether FR3 vs the SH block II, or Rafale F4 vs SH block III.

Of course, for those that can buy F-35, neither Rafale nor SH would be very attractive (with one exception; the Rafale is of course much better looking than the other two!)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

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

Unread post26 Feb 2019, 23:12

@loke,

Thanks for your post. That's actually how a good argumentation should happen. Those "two guys above" should IMO take notice of this.

In general I trend to agree with your post, namely on your 4 points above.

However I wouldn't minimize the Radar detection range factor and I definitely believe that this can be a very important and even a "differentiator" because a "good" sensor fusion is dependent on "good" sensors and the main sensor of choice in a fight between 4.5 gen fighters would be the radar because of its longer range (compared to other sensors such as for example IRST) and all of this if there isn't an AWACS present for example.

Even within the context of sensor fusion, longer range radars means that a flight of friendly aircraft could be aware of the position of enemy aircraft this sooner rather then later compared if the 4.5th gen aircraft has a somehow shorter range radar. This IMO gives a big tactical advantage.

Of course one could argue that ESM can track emitting radars at longer ranges than a radar can detect the ESM aircraft/target. But then again, both the SH and Rafale have AESA radars which should have LPI which would limit the effectiveness of ESM.

Resuming, if an aircraft can detect the enemy at longer range this will give it a tactical advantage and when both opposing aircraft have the same/similar RCS (which is basically the case regarding the SH and Rafale) then a longer range radar will be IMO important to give such advantage over the other aircraft.

But like you said the F-35 far surpasses both the SH and the Rafale, this because it has a much lower RCS while having superior sensors (like a superior radar) all of this working alongside the best and most advanced sensor fusion.

And again, I agree that your 4 points that you mentioned above are also very important indeed.
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

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 384
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post27 Feb 2019, 22:14

ricnunes wrote:



But without the Meteor not so much. For example a Super Hornet armed with AIM-120C-5 or better yet the AIM-120C-7 should have the edge in BVR combat over a Rafale armed with MICA missiles, even because those AMRAAMs outranges the MICAs. Moreover (and again), the Super Hornet is capable of carrying more air-to-air missiles.


The EF has also AMRAAM und carrie more missiles than the Rafale. But he was inferior in DCA and OCA to the French Fighter.

ricnunes wrote:Anyway, what I was saying was that the Super Hornet has the edge over the Rafale in terms of Radar. If you will, what I was saying is that IMO the APG-79 is better (and has better detection range) than the RBE2 AA.
And radar is a very important metric for air-to-air combat although I admit, it's not the only one.



Im not sure about this. The RBE2 PESA was better overall than the APG-73 in the evaluation. And there are several DOT&E and FOT&E reports who confirmed, the APG-79 is not a big improvement to his predecessor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-79

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/AN/APG-79

The APG-79 AESA radar demonstrated marginal improvements since the previous FOT&E period and provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar. However, operational testing does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.


But we talked about this. :wink:

I would say APG-80,APG-79 and RBE2 AA are roughly on the same level.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3154
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post27 Feb 2019, 23:52

swiss wrote:







Im not sure about this. The RBE2 PESA was better overall than the APG-73 in the evaluation. And there are several DOT&E and FOT&E reports who confirmed, the APG-79 is not a big improvement to his predecessor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/APG-79

https://wikivisually.com/wiki/AN/APG-79

The APG-79 AESA radar demonstrated marginal improvements since the previous FOT&E period and provides improved performance relative to the legacy APG-73 radar. However, operational testing does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.


But we talked about this. :wink:

I would say APG-80,APG-79 and RBE2 AA are roughly on the same level.


So 6 years ago, the DOT&E revealed issues from 10 to 12 years ago, and the assumption is that in 2019, these still hold true?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests