F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

[swiss]

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.

Yes "slightly better", than a fighter with a MSA Radar. And you know also, the Radarsystem is a very important factor in Air to Air. which the SH lost against the EF.

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.

They clearly talk about operational effectiveness.

Fault identification and isolation functionality have improved, but the AESA false alarm rate remains high.

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

Well, you said raytheon mentioned that the APG-79 has 2-3 times more range than the APG-73.

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

They said "will have". But after operational testing the improvement was marginal according to the reports.

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.

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.

I never said that. But it is for sure not a top noch 4 gen Radar.

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

Yes and all your figures prove the Apg-79 has less Range than the RBE2 AA. And you know, even the PESA Version has a detection Range of 140 km against a 3m2 target.

https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/06/0 ... us-squall/

That would mean the RBE2 AA has over 210 km Range vs 3m2 target.

The RBE2-AA is really APG-83 SABR league .

The SABR has over 30% more Range than the APG-66(V)2. IIRC is 90km vs 5m2 target. So it could be, it has less Range than the RBE2 PESA.

[gta4]

High supersonic drag doesn't mean high subsonic drag. In fact SH is pretty efficient at subsonic.

Comparison of acceleration at low altitude:

A 18920 kg flanker (very low fuel remaining) has an average subsonic acceleration of 9.3m/s^2
A 17241 kg SH (carries much more fuel than a 18920 kg flanker) has an average subsonic acceleration of 10 m/s^2

From flight manual:

https://postimg.cc/vgJxnQYn
https://postimg.cc/zLFVB93z
https://postimg.cc/F104m9LL
https://postimg.cc/hhH3DwmQ

[loke]

Regarding the Danish eval (which looked at SH, Typhoon, and F-35, and also included Danish F-16 as a "baseline"):

They looked at the following categories:

NTISR Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance (NTISR)

SCAR Strike, Coordination and Reconnaissance (SCAR)

CAS Close Air Support (CAS)

DCA Defensive Counter Air (DCA)

AI Air Interdiction (AI)

S/DEAD Suppression / Destruction of Enemy Air Defences (S/DEAD)

Typhoon Survivability:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day____5____4____3_____3____1____2
Score - cloudy_5____5____4_____3____1____2
Average______5.0___4.5__3.5___3.0__1.0___2.0
Total average: 3.2

Super Hornet Survivability:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day____5____4____4_____3___1_____1
Score - cloudy_5____5____5_____3____1____1
Average______5.0___4.5__4.5___3.0__1.0___1.0
Total average: 3.2

F-16 Survivability:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI___S/DEAD
Average______5.0___5.0___2.0___1.0__1.0___1.0
Total average: 3.2

Typhoon Mission effectiveness:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day___3____3____3____3_____2____2
Score - night__3____3____3____3_____2____2
Score - cloudy_2____1____2_____3____2____2
Average______2.7___2.3__2.7___3.0__2.0___2.0
Total average: 2.4

Super Hornet Mission effectiveness:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day___4____4____4____2_____2____2
Score - night__4____4____4____2_____2____2
Score - cloudy_2____1____2_____2____2____2
Average______3.3___3.0__3.3___3.0__2.0___2.0
Total average: 2.6

F-16 Effectiveness:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI___S/DEAD
Average_____2.3___2.7___2.3___1.0__1.0___1.0
Total average: 1.7

As we can see from the above, the "survivability" of SH and Typhoon are very similar. SH is better in "effectiveness", in NTISR, SCAR, CAS. However in DCA, AI, and S/DEAD they have the same scores. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, the F-16 has the same level of "survivability" as the SH and Typhoon.

For Effectiveness, the SH scores 2.8, the Typhoon 2.5, and the F-16 1.7

In the Swiss eval the Typhoon scored lower than the Rafale in all categories. For the "phase 2" eval (2015 config, most relevant comparison) they scored as follows:

Rafale:
Air Policing____DCA__OCA/AI/DA__Recce___Strike
___6.98_______7.28_____7.41______7.63___7.63


Typhoon:
Air Policing____DCA__OCA/AI/DA___Recce___Strike
___6.48_______6.49_____6.54______5.43____5.75

It seems difficult to draw any firm conclusions, however one may make the following observations:

In the Danish eval, the surivavibilty of the SH and Typhoon were the on the same level; in terms of effectiveness the SH scores higher than Typhoon in 3 categories and the same in 3. Whereas in the Swiss eval, the Rafale scored higher than the Typhoon in all categories. The Swiss eval did not split into "survivability" and "effectiveness" like the Danish; the two categories were combined into one. The two evals had different definitions of categories, however it seems with huge overlap. Rafale was clearly better than the baseline (the Swiss Hornet) whereas the Typhoon was better than baseline in only some categories in the Swiss eval. The same was observed in the Danish eval (F-16 as baseline).

Conclusion: No firm conclusion can be drawn. In the Swiss eval the Rafale scored significantly higher than the Typhoon, and well above baseline for all categories. In the Danish eval the SH scored higher than Typhoon in effectiveness but the same in survivability. Both SH and Typhoon scored the same as F-16 in survivability, and better than F-16 in effectiveness..

Some conclusions seem to be:
1. Both Rafale and SH are superior to Typhoon
2. Both Rafale and SH are significantly better than the "classical" 4.0 gen fighter jets (Hornet/F-16)
3. Typhoon scores higher than Hornet/F-16 in some categories, but in some is either on the same level or weaker
4. Whereas the SH scores better than Typhoon in 3 categories and the same as Typhoon in 3 categories (Danish eval), the Rafale scored better than Typhoon in all categories (Swiss eval). This is one of the points that may indicate that the Rafale has very few weak points and therefore may score higher than SH in a head-to-head comparison. However differences in methodology between the two evals make comparisons between the evals difficult.

[F-16ADF]

Jello and Sunshine are suppose to have a podcast on the Dassault Rafale tomorrow or Sunday. I don't know if they are going to do just a general comparison, or talk with an actual ADA/Marine Rafale pilot or a USN Rafale exchange pilot. However, it should be very interesting. I imagine they both flew against the jet in the Hornet, so lets see what they say.

[skyward]

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:
<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">http://www.radartutorial.eu/19.kartei/08.airborne/karte014.en.html</span>

Yes and all your figures prove the Apg-79 has less Range than the RBE2 AA. And you know, even the PESA Version has a detection Range of 140 km against a 3m2 target.

<span class="skimlinks-unlinked">https://www.aviationtoday.com/2009/06/01/serious-squall</span>/

That would mean the RBE2 AA has over 210 km Range vs 3m2 target.

The RBE2-AA is really APG-83 SABR league .

The SABR has over 30% more Range than the APG-66(V)2. IIRC is 90km vs 5m2 target. So it could be, it has less Range than the RBE2 PESA.

I think you have misread your our url source. It clear stated the RBE2 has a desertion range of 140 km against a 3m2 target. This is align with the 1000 TR it have. The APG-80 have 1000 TR with a desertion range of 165 km against a 5m2 target. Which it about 140km against for a 3m2 target.

Since the SABR is about the same as APG-80, It should have about the same performance. Which is around the same performance of RBE2.

[optimist]

For a fair eval of the super hornet. You need to add the other half of the system, being the growler. That picks up where a stand alone super seems lacking. They work as a team. The hornets have all had off-board assets as a team, being previously the prowler. Unlike the f-35 that has full onboard EW and doesn't need the the off-board asset.

[magitsu]

Yeah, it seems that all relevant competitions starting from the Finnish one will include Growler. The main obvious reason is that Boeing can't hope to get a sale with only SH in this market.

[gta4]

High supersonic drag doesn't mean high subsonic drag. In fact SH is pretty efficient at subsonic.

Comparison of acceleration at low altitude:

A 18920 kg flanker (very low fuel remaining) has an average subsonic acceleration of 9.3m/s^2
A 17241 kg SH (carries much more fuel than a 18920 kg flanker) has an average subsonic acceleration of 10 m/s^2

From flight manual:

https://postimg.cc/vgJxnQYn
https://postimg.cc/zLFVB93z
https://postimg.cc/F104m9LL
https://postimg.cc/hhH3DwmQ

Well I though you guys like this but it seems none of you are interested

[marauder2048]

Since the SABR is about the same as APG-80, It should have about the same performance. Which is around the same performance of RBE2.

It's not; the SABR is a smaller aperture designed to stay within the ECS limits of the vanilla F-16.

[wil59]

For a fair eval of the super hornet. You need to add the other half of the system, being the growler. That picks up where a stand alone super seems lacking. They work as a team. The hornets have all had off-board assets as a team, being previously the prowler. Unlike the f-35 that has full onboard EW and doesn't need the the off-board asset.

no the comparison is 1 vs 1, if you add an additional asset it distorts the result, an airplane should be able to attack and defend itself , so in this case the f-18 or it takes 2 planes for a mission to be able to limit the risks clearly the F-18 super hornet is not versatile, I simply translate your thoughts, although for me the F-18 super hornet remains an excellent aircraft.

[magitsu]

no the comparison is 1 vs 1, if you add an additional asset it distorts the result, an airplane should be able to attack and defend itself , so in this case the f-18 or it takes 2 planes for a mission to be able to limit the risks clearly the F-18 super hornet is not versatile, I simply translate your thoughts, although for me the F-18 super hornet remains an excellent aircraft.

The comparison shouldn't be 1 vs 1. Instead better to have something that has real world relevance. Though it has its own drawbacks, since you can't really extrapolate from "best for x country's use case and general sec pol situation" to best for another country.

For example many countries operate fighters in pairs or rather set of four. Which would indicate that 4v4 would be the smallest relevant. But 1+1+1+1 (whether the total capability is more than a sum of its parts) considerations are indeed harder than 1v1.

[loke]

Yeah, it seems that all relevant competitions starting from the Finnish one will include Growler. The main obvious reason is that Boeing can't hope to get a sale with only SH in this market.

Boing will of course sell as much as possible to as many has possible however two issues limit Growler sales:

1. Many countries will not be granted access to such an advanced tool by the US
2. Many countries will not have either the funding or the need to operate the Growler

This is reflected in the fact that Growler is not on the table in Switzerland, or in the two Indian competitions (Air Force and Navy). AFAIK it is also not offered to Canada(?). It could have been offered to Poland but they already said they will go for a 5. gen platform, excluding SH/Growler.

That leaves mainly Germany (in addition to Finland). Germany will most likely go for Typhoon, for political reasons only. (from a military POV SH/Growler would not have been the best solution either; F-35 would have been).

That leaves Finland. They will go for F-35 of course.

[loke]

no the comparison is 1 vs 1, if you add an additional asset it distorts the result, an airplane should be able to attack and defend itself , so in this case the f-18 or it takes 2 planes for a mission to be able to limit the risks clearly the F-18 super hornet is not versatile, I simply translate your thoughts, although for me the F-18 super hornet remains an excellent aircraft.

The comparison shouldn't be 1 vs 1. Instead better to have something that has real world relevance. Though it has its own drawbacks, since you can't really extrapolate from "best for x country's use case and general sec pol situation" to best for another country.

For example many countries operate fighters in pairs or rather set of four. Which would indicate that 4v4 would be the smallest relevant. But 1+1+1+1 (whether the total capability is more than a sum of its parts) considerations are indeed harder than 1v1.

I am quite sure the Swiss and Danish evals did not look at 1-1 scenarios when they calculated their scores... (or if they did, it would have been just a tiny fraction of one of the scores). This is one of the reasons I qoute those two, instead of dreaming up some funny scenario and focus on 1 or 2 parameters like most people tend to do...

[loke]

For the sake of completeness I include the F-35 scores:

Typhoon Survivability: Total average: 3.2
Super Hornet Survivability: Total average: 3.2
F-16 Survivability: Total average: 3.2
F-35 Survivability: Total average: 4.7

Typhoon Mission effectiveness: Total average: 2.4
Super Hornet Mission effectiveness: Total average: 2.6
F-16 Effectiveness: Total average: 1.7
F-35 Effectiveness: Total average: 4.2

The F-35 is a clear winner both in terms of survivability and effectiveness.

[magitsu]

That leaves Finland. They will go for F-35 of course.

Yes, Growler likely won't help in the end. But Boeing at least shows pictures that they intend to offer it to Germany, Canada and Switzerland.

I am quite sure the Swiss and Danish evals did not look at 1-1 scenarios when they calculated their scores... (or if they did, it would have been just a tiny fraction of one of the scores). This is one of the reasons I qoute those two, instead of dreaming up some funny scenario and focus on 1 or 2 parameters like most people tend to do...

Agreed, much better.