F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

[SpudmanWP]

The last time that DOT&E reported on the F-18 was in the 2016 report (released in the Spring of 2017). It's odd that DOT&E has stopped reporting on the SH before it demonstrated that it has met all of the requirements. If I was a tinfoil hat wearing dude I would wonder why this coincided with Trump's election and the Boeing Exec who now sits atop the DoD....

Assessment
• Although capability enhancements in SCS H10 resulted in incremental changes in the ability of the Super Hornet to complete missions, DOT&E did not expect this software release to add significant mission capability. The F/A-18E/F
remains operationally effective in some threat environments and ineffective in particular air warfare environments noted in classified reports. Though SCS H10 has begun to address some of those long-standing deficiencies in air warfare, the Super Hornet requires further improvements. Software false alarms in SCS H10 impose a maintenance burden on unit
personnel.
• SCS H10 testing showed improved AESA reliability, and while it demonstrated the highest reliability to date since introduction of the AESA in 2006, it fell short of its reliability requirement. Although the AESA provides improved performance compared to the legacy mechanically-steered radar, DOT&E has assessed the radar as not operationally suitable since the 2006 IOT&E because of poor software stability and BIT performance. Fault identification and isolation functionality have improved, but the AESA false alarm rate remains high. Additionally, the F/A-18 has demonstrated interoperability deficiencies with on- and off-board sensor inputs.
• DOT&E continues to assess the EA-18G as operationally effective and suitable subject to the same threat limitations as
the Super Hornet. The radar performance degradation occurs when ALQ-99 pods radiate in AESA frequencies, affecting
Growler operational effectiveness.
• Because the Navy did not include an end-to-end multiple AIM120 missile test during SCS H10, testing has been deferred to SCS H12 FOT&E. The Navy will not have successfully demonstrated that the AESA can support this required capability until this test is successfully completed.
• The Navy’s F/A-18 fleet relies more heavily on Lot 25+ E and F aircraft compared to the Navy’s operational test squadron, VX-9, which includes more F/A-18C and D aircraft and older E and F aircraft that lack HOL mission computers and APG-79 AESA radars, making test conditions less operationally representative

[ricnunes]

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

On the other hand the Eurofighter had a Mechanically Scanned Array or MSA radar while the Rafale already have a more advanced PESA radar, this at time of that evaluation (the Swiss evaluation, right?).
IMO, this could/should be the reason why the such conclusion was reached.

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.

I don't think it's fair to assume that:
1- only other radars such as the RBE receive improvements while for some odd reason or reasons the APG-79 stays "stagnant" without receiving any improvements at all.
2- when pilots say that the Super Hornet is draggy that's an "universal truth" but when pilots say that the APG-79 is more effective than the APG-73, namely having 2 to 3 times more detection range those same pilot reports get dismissed.

Anyway the report posted by SpudmanWP about the APG-79 seems to centered around reliability issue and definitely not around any eventual detection range problem/issue.

My 2 cents anyway...

[madrat]

Rafale was superior when MICA IR dominated. Otherwise Rafale really has no technical edge today.

[swiss]

On the other hand the Eurofighter had a Mechanically Scanned Array or MSA radar while the Rafale already have a more advanced PESA radar, this at time of that evaluation (the Swiss evaluation, right?).
IMO, this could/should be the reason why the such conclusion was reached.

The EF had also a MSA Radar in the Danish evaluation, it was the same version. Also reason, why i think the APG-79 is not so good as some expected.

I don't think it's fair to assume that:
1- only other radars such as the RBE receive improvements while for some odd reason or reasons the APG-79 stays "stagnant" without receiving any improvements at all.
2- when pilots say that the Super Hornet is draggy that's an "universal truth" but when pilots say that the APG-79 is more effective than the APG-73, namely having 2 to 3 times more detection range those same pilot reports get dismissed.

Anyway the report posted by SpudmanWP about the APG-79 seems to centered around reliability issue and definitely not around any eventual detection range problem/issue.

My 2 cents anyway...

I think nobody said the APG-79 "stagnant". But reliability it's a very important factor for a radar. What brings you Range, if you don't know is there really a target, or what kind of target it is.

And on the Raytheon homepage there is no mention of 2-3 more Range than the APG-73.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa

Also in your F-16-net Link.

viewtopic.php?t=5238

The Tracking Range of 128km is not a figure that would outrange an RBE2 AA.

[swiss]

Thanks spudman.

[loke]

One highly relevant quote from what Spudman qouted above:

The F/A-18E/F remains operationally effective in some threat environments and ineffective in particular air warfare environments noted in classified reports.

So the SH is ineffective in particular air warfare environments; this is described in classified reports.

With statements like that, I struggle to see how anybody can claim the SH is superiour to the Rafale, in particular in a2a.


To claim that SH is superior to Rafale, in particular in a2a, one would need to have access to classified reports (and the know-how to correctly interpret what they say). Most on this forum fail on both accounts; those that doesn't know speak and those who know, will remain silent...

What we do know was that the Rafale scored very well in all mission categories including a2a related mission categories; and much better than Typhoon, in the Swiss eval. We also know that SH and Typhoon seemed to be roughly in the same ballpark as the SH in the Danish eval (the SH had some weak points in some categories, the Typhoon had some weak points in others)

It would be very interesting if the Swiss in their next competition would do as the Danes and publish a report showing how the different fighters score. I think some people on this forum would be surprised of the Rafale results... or rather, how the SH would score compared to the Rafale. That is just my uneducated guess of course.

[SpudmanWP]

Oddly enough the F/A-18 Super is still listed as being under Program Oversight with the DOT&E in their FY2018 docs that came with the Annual Report but no report on the F-18 itself. I submitted a FOIA request for the documentation supporting it's removal, but I would not hold my breath. Stranger still is the F-18's removal in light of it's upcoming Block3 updates.

[ricnunes]

The EF had also a MSA Radar in the Danish evaluation, it was the same version. Also reason, why i think the APG-79 is not so good as some expected.

And according to the same (Danish) evaluation here:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ection.pdf

The Super Hornet ranked #2 in the Military aspects (which evaluated stuff such as survivability and mission effectiveness) while the Eurofighter ranked #3, as such it ranked better in the parameter where sensors (such as the radar) can make a diference.

So I fail to see your point above.

I think nobody said the APG-79 "stagnant". But reliability it's a very important factor for a radar. What brings you Range, if you don't know is there really a target, or what kind of target it is.

Reliability doesn't mean the lack of capability to detect (or not) a target.
IMO, reliability is more related to maintenance rather than performance. For example it may take longer to perform certain maintenance tasks on the radar (APG-79) than initially anticipated or planned for.

And on the Raytheon homepage there is no mention of 2-3 more Range than the APG-73.

https://www.raytheon.com/capabilities/p ... /apg79aesa

And neither there is any mention of detection range at all, so and again I fail to see your point here.

Also in your F-16-net Link.

viewtopic.php?t=5238

The Tracking Range of 128km is not a figure that would outrange an RBE2 AA.

That 128km cannot be verified, at least I couldn't verify it. However the "detection range of APG-79 being 2 to 3 times of longer than the APG-73" can and I posted a link to this. Anyway, here's the link again:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... apg-79.htm

Besides, if the APG-79 is "so bad" (according to you) why is it the basis for the most advanced radar fitted on the F-15E, the APG-82? Doesn't make much sense, does it.

Moreover here's another link which states that the APG-79 has a detection range of 150km against a 1 square meter RCS target which itself contradicts the 128km value above:
http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/0 ... 14.en.html

At the same time I also remember to have read other figures putting the APG-79 detection range at more than 195 km detection range figures - although I don't know the target's RCS for such figure but I would say it shouldn't be more than 30 square foot.

[marsavian]

Moreover here's another link which states that the APG-79 has a detection range of 150km against a 1 square meter RCS target which itself contradicts the 128km value above:

Well it would do anyway as the latter is the tracking range. I would expect the APG-79 to outrange the RBE2-AA as it has 30-40% TR modules on a bigger dish and it was a front to back redesign. The RBE2-AA is really APG-83 SABR league. They will need GaN to make that small dish more powerful in F4 release I presume.

[optimist]

one of the nordic nations did a super hornet evaluation that was released. I would suggest that details may be found there.
GaN will be available for all players. So I wouldn't give one player a tick because of it.

[magitsu]

It would be very interesting if the Swiss in their next competition would do as the Danes and publish a report showing how the different fighters score. I think some people on this forum would be surprised of the Rafale results... or rather, how the SH would score compared to the Rafale. That is just my uneducated guess of course.

The Swiss comp just got some extra political meddling.
https://www.defensenews.com/global/euro ... se-revamp/

Switzerland’s new defense chief, Viola Amherd, has intervened in the course of the multibillion-dollar “Air 2030” program, tasking a former Swiss astronaut with critiquing its underlying premises.

Claude Nicollier, an astrophysicist and former military pilot, has until the end of April to review a 2017 expert report on the $8 billion project to buy a new fleet of fighter aircraft and ground-based air-defense gear.

The second opinion is expected to delay the political process for the program. Technical evaluations of contractor offerings will proceed as planned this spring and summer, the defense ministry said in a statement.

**

Defense ministry spokesman Renato Kalbermatten told Defense News that Nicollier’s scope for critiquing the 2017 expert report is wide open, which means anything from aircraft numbers to cost is open for scrutiny. It is not expected, however, that the review will question the overall need for the program, he said.

Notably, a reassessment of the threats expected to be countered by the modernization program is part of Nicollier’s mandate.

More at source, but the meat is here.

[hythelday]

I can't be the only one who thinks tasking "one man" to do anything about a major program like that is iffy.

Erare humanum est, astronaut or not.

[botsing]

I can't be the only one who thinks tasking "one man" to do anything about a major program like that is iffy.

Erare humanum est, astronaut or not.

Indeed, so I expect this to be a case study done by a team that is managed by Claude Nicollier.

News reports are like a car navigation system; you always have to be aware of wrong guidance/reporting.

[sferrin]

I can't be the only one who thinks tasking "one man" to do anything about a major program like that is iffy.

Erare humanum est, astronaut or not.

Like Robert Gates with the F-22.

[magitsu]

Well, hopefully at least the one man choice doesn't mean that the new minister already has a specific result in mind which she would prefer to receive.