F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post03 Mar 2019, 01:29

It's fair to say that I followed neither comp. I didn't even know there was a second eval. Google found that when I was searching for 'rafale comp singapore f-15 us engines' to see if that is where I got that the rafale used us engines or was it earlier in its development.

I found it valid to my point, in that it shows that different nations have different mission sets than others, that the plane is measured on. It becomes even worse when you try and use one nations data on another's to draw a conclusion. You need all the facts,that we don't have access to.

So we are left to speculate. How else can you get 182 pages on this thread and still no answer. I'm sure this isn't the first time these eval have been talked about on this thread. :D
Aussie fanboy
Offline

skyward

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 01 Jun 2006, 13:33

Unread post03 Mar 2019, 06:10

swiss wrote:
skyward wrote:
swiss wrote:
They speak about current Radar, the RBE2 PESA. The text was written in 2009. The first AESA was delivered in 2012.


They have been testing it since 2006 from the article. I guess they don't know the radar performance till it is on the plane.


Yes. The AESA was in service 2013. So it's clear at the time the current Radar was the RBE2 PESA. And even if don't belive this. You really think the AESA Radar has only 40 km more Range than the Mirages RDI Radar 30 years bevor? Even the RDY Radar from the 90s had a range of over 100 km. :wink:

Sure I think they are saying AESA Radar. it is 50% performance increase and increase of more then 50 km Range vs RDI Radar. Like I said I put it around the performance of AN/APG-80.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post03 Mar 2019, 08:49

optimist wrote:
I found it valid to my point, in that it shows that different nations have different mission sets than others, that the plane is measured on


Yes i agree here. But Range and capability of sensors are for all Nation the same. Also using this sensors to engage a target in DCA or OCA for example. Because Western Air Forces train together and learn from each other in joint exercises.

So i think the real point here is, some guys can not accept, that Fighter X from country Y is better then Fighter A from country B. Even if you have facts and figures. :wink:

skyward wrote:Sure I think they are saying AESA Radar. it is 50% performance increase and increase of more then 50 km Range vs RDI Radar. Like I said I put it around the performance of AN/APG-80.


Sorry you are clearly wrong here. Between the RDI and RBE2 AESA there are two other Radarsystems. Several version of the RDY, with over 100km in the 90s. And the RBE2 PESA from 2001 with 140 km Range . And finally the RBE2 AA with over 50% range increase to the PESA.

https://hushkit.net/2015/06/07/the-indo ... dge-radar/


What percentage increases over PESA will the radar offer in terms of search and tracking ranges?

In terms of performance, detection range is increased by considerably more than 50% and the radar can look in many directions at the same time offering significantly enhanced tracking capabilities.


By the way the APG-80 has roughly the double Range, probable of the APG-68(V)9. So that would be over 200km vs a Fighter Target. Which roughly concurs with the Range of the RBe2 AESA.
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 208
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post03 Mar 2019, 10:57

mixelflick wrote:
popcorn wrote:
f-16adf wrote: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.

Just finished the podcast and it appears both were impressed by the Rafale's performance which the former French Navy pilot described as a "rocketship" able to zoom from sea level to 45k feet in under a minute and supercruise at M1.4 though it wasn't mentioned at what configuration. Neither of the US pilots apparently flew against it .


Rafale can supercruise at mach 1.4? This is the first I've heard of such a thing. Even completely clean, that's an incredibly impressive number.

Did I just miss this, or has that been documented before??

http://rafalefan.e-monsite.com/medias/f ... t-2011.jpg
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post03 Mar 2019, 16:11

gta4 wrote:
gta4 wrote: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 :mrgreen:


All your technical posts are interesting gta4 ! Yes thanks for spelling out that Super Hornet accelerates fine in the subsonic but not as well in the supersonic, I suspect the F-35C has a similar profile. The naval fighter/bombers will either have to outfox, outhide, outfight or outlast their opponents but not so much on the outrunning side.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2146
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post03 Mar 2019, 21:35

swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote: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.


Swiss,

How can you say that the "SH lost against the EF", at least in the Danish evaluation?? The Super Hornet was better placed in 3 of the 4 main evaluation points (Military aspects, Economic aspects, Industrial aspects) and the EF was only better placed than the Super Hornet in the Strategic aspects (which is based on partnership/interoperabilidade with other allied nations - as such a more political aspect rather than military).
Read page 4 of the link that I'll re-post below:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ection.pdf



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


What I did post was that there are sources pointing out that the APG-79 had 2 to 3 times more range than the APG-73, that's all.
I may even have said that the source of the above came from actual SH pilots since I remember that have read that. Never directly quoted Raytheon itself.
Again the source that I used came from this Globalsecurity site:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... apg-79.htm


swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote: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.


In the meanwhile I found another sources regarding the APG-79 here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ar-192985/

Here you can clearly read the following:

"Tests to date have proved up to five times the reliability of the mechanically scanned APG-73 radar that the AESA unit will replace. Air-to-air detection ranges have also been demonstrated at more than three times those of the APG-73 during tests of the advanced radar, which has the ability to operate virtually simultaneously in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes."

Are you convinced now?

That link above even says "more than 3 times". So it's more than what is stated in the Globalsecurity site (which is 2 to 3 times more).


swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote: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.


Correct that you didn't say that. But if you're going to say that the APG-79 has rather shorter-range and/or that it doesn't meet its requirements than you must be prepared to say the same about the APG-82 since the later is based on the former.
That's what I meant.



swiss wrote: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.


My figures before was to prove you that the figures regarding the APG-79 are not correct (for instance they contradict). Those are clearly IMO, likely to be the figures of the APG-73 (and NOT from the APG-79).
I remember back in the early 2000's when the Rafale came out that I wasn't impressed at all with the Rafale's radar performance in detection ranges against air-to-air targets.
Yes, those values that you posted above are the same values which I already knew and which again aren't better than the APG-73 (I repeat APG Seventy Three, and not Nine) and this being the APG-73 an MSA radar while the RBE was already PESA.
So at best the RBE PESA and APG-73 detection range are about or roughly the same/similar. Which again, means that the APG-79 detection range (up to 3 times or more or 300% than the APG-73) should be longer than the RBE AESA (50%-100% more than the RBE PESA).

Moreover, there's also what marsavian correctly said:
- The APG-79 has more T-R modules than the RBE AESA.
(this makes a very diference regarding AESA radars, which both RBE AESA and APG-79 are)
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

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post04 Mar 2019, 01:32

swiss wrote:
optimist wrote:
I found it valid to my point, in that it shows that different nations have different mission sets than others, that the plane is measured on


Yes i agree here. But Range and capability of sensors are for all Nation the same. Also using this sensors to engage a target in DCA or OCA for example. Because Western Air Forces train together and learn from each other in joint exercises.

So i think the real point here is, some guys can not accept, that Fighter X from country Y is better then Fighter A from country B. Even if you have facts and figures. :wink:


I didn't see reference to sensor range or capability. It seems to be a generic score for their mission requirement.

I also think it's a pointless exercise in comparing antenna size and then drawing a conclusion to the quality of the radar system. I think the rafale mesa radar system is better than the early russian stuff with bigger antenna. By the logic here, the russian would be better.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 767
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post04 Mar 2019, 09:03

optimist wrote:I also think it's a pointless exercise in comparing antenna size and then drawing a conclusion to the quality of the radar system. I think the rafale mesa radar system is better than the early russian stuff with bigger antenna. By the logic here, the russian would be better.


Ricnunes, please take some time to read the above :)
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 983
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post04 Mar 2019, 09:22

loke wrote:
optimist wrote:I also think it's a pointless exercise in comparing antenna size and then drawing a conclusion to the quality of the radar system. I think the rafale mesa radar system is better than the early russian stuff with bigger antenna. By the logic here, the russian would be better.


Ricnunes, please take some time to read the above :)

Don't get too excited :mrgreen: I still think the backend of the rafale radar needs some money spent on it to bring it up to date, various comp have said as much including from a french general, or at least high up and the indian chief of air who said the f-16 and fa-18 had better radar and weapons
Aussie fanboy
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 429
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post04 Mar 2019, 16:32

ricnunes wrote:Swiss,

How can you say that the "SH lost against the EF", at least in the Danish evaluation?? The Super Hornet was better placed in 3 of the 4 main evaluation points (Military aspects, Economic aspects, Industrial aspects) and the EF was only better placed than the Super Hornet in the Strategic aspects (which is based on partnership/interoperabilidade with other allied nations - as such a more political aspect rather than military).
Read page 4 of the link that I'll re-post below:
https://www.globalsecurity.org/military ... ection.pdf


Hello Ric. :)

I talked only bout the Air to Air domain. Were the EF scored with 3 and the SH with 2.

No doubt, the SH is the better multirole fighter than the Typhoon.





ricnunes wrote:In the meanwhile I found another sources regarding the APG-79 here:
https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... ar-192985/

Here you can clearly read the following:

"Tests to date have proved up to five times the reliability of the mechanically scanned APG-73 radar that the AESA unit will replace. Air-to-air detection ranges have also been demonstrated at more than three times those of the APG-73 during tests of the advanced radar, which has the ability to operate virtually simultaneously in both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes."

Are you convinced now?

That link above even says "more than 3 times". So it's more than what is stated in the Globalsecurity site (which is 2 to 3 times more).



Agreed, according to this article you were right. But this article was written in January 2005 bevor the APG-79 completed formal operational evaluation (OPEVAL) testing in December 2006. And after that the DOT&E reported:

assessing it as not operationally effective or suitable due to significant deficiencies in tactical performance, reliability, and BIT functionality.


And

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.


So sorry, i can not believe after such statements, the APG-79 have 2 or even 3 times better Range than the APG-73. They clearly talk also about performance.

We will defiantly not find an agreement here. :wink:


ricnunes wrote:

Correct that you didn't say that. But if you're going to say that the APG-79 has rather shorter-range and/or that it doesn't meet its requirements than you must be prepared to say the same about the APG-82 since the later is based on the former.
That's what I meant.

Well we don't have any information about the performance of the APG-82. And according to wiki they use only the processor of the APG-79.





ricnunes wrote:So at best the RBE PESA and APG-73 detection range are about or roughly the same/similar.


Yes i have the same opinion. At least the RBE2 had the better overall performance in the evaluation.


ricnunes wrote:Moreover, there's also what marsavian correctly said:
- The APG-79 has more T-R modules than the RBE AESA.
(this makes a very diference regarding AESA radars, which both RBE AESA and APG-79 are)


This is correct. As far as i know. If they are technical on same level and trouble free. :wink:

optimist wrote:Don't get too excited :mrgreen:


Damn, and i was hoping, you are joining to the dark side. :mrgreen: :wink:
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 01:49

marsavian wrote:https://m.timesofindia.com/india/50-of-rs-59000-cr-rafale-price-paid-but-first-flight-in-oct-2022/amp_articleshow/67607182.cms

NEW DELHI: India has already paid more than half of the Rs 59,000 crore owed to France under the contract inked in 2016 for the 36 Rafale fighter jets, which will be delivered between November 2019 and April 2022.
The 13 India-specific enhancements or upgrades on the 36 jets will, however, become fully operational only by September-October 2022 as they will require another six months to undergo "software certification" after all of them have touched down in India.

The "non-recurring" design and development cost of the 13 ISEs or upgrades, which range from radar enhancements, low-band jammers and Israeli helmet-mounted displays to towed decoy systems and the engine capability for "cold start" from high-altitude regions, is pegged at 1.3 billion euros in the overall 7.8-billion-euro deal for the 36 Rafales.


More on the intricate details of the India Rafale deal

https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/ ... 019165.ece
https://sputniknews.com/asia/2019011810 ... pposition/
https://mobile.twitter.com/PChidambaram ... 8512333825

In 2007, five years before M/s Dassault Aviation was declared the L1 vendor, that is, the Lowest Bidder and the presumptive winner of the tender floated by the United Progressive Alliance government for the supply of 126 Rafales (18 flyaway plus 108 to be manufactured, under licence, in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Limited), the price quoted by the vendor for one flyaway bare-bones aircraft was €79.3 million. By 2011, the escalation cost factor had taken this per-aircraft price up to €100.85 million. In 2016, the 9% discount on the 2011 price obtained by the NDA government for the 36 Rafales it was buying from France through an Inter-Governmental Agreement brought this per-aircraft price down to €91.75 million.

But that is not even half the story. Dassault claimed a €1.4 billion cost for the ‘design and development’ of 13 India Specific Enhancements, that is, additional capabilities in the form of hardware as well as software that had been specified by the Indian Air Force all along, and this cost was negotiated down to €1.3 billion. What it meant was that the design and development cost, now distributed over 36 Rafale fighter jets, shot up from €11.11 million per aircraft in 2007 to €36.11 million when the deal was struck in 2016.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3262
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 02:06

swiss wrote:














So sorry, i can not believe after such statements, the APG-79 have 2 or even 3 times better Range than the APG-73. They clearly talk also about performance.

We will defiantly not find an agreement here. :wink:












There have been many other links, stating that was the case (not just when referring to the APG-79 vs APG-73). A given size AESA will have a significant range advantage over MSA and PESA arrays, due to much better efficiency, gain, and antenna sensitivity.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 869
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 03:02

marsavian wrote:
gta4 wrote:
gta4 wrote: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 :mrgreen:


All your technical posts are interesting gta4 ! Yes thanks for spelling out that Super Hornet accelerates fine in the subsonic but not as well in the supersonic, I suspect the F-35C has a similar profile. The naval fighter/bombers will either have to outfox, outhide, outfight or outlast their opponents but not so much on the outrunning side.


Super hornet is a strange example if you notice the acceleration boost around 500kts (it accelerates from 520kts to 550kts in just 1 second.)
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1258
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 09:57

gta4 wrote:Super hornet is a strange example if you notice the acceleration boost around 500kts (it accelerates from 520kts to 550kts in just 1 second.)


Dynamic thrust ? Drag curve having a pronounced trough ? Or a combination of both ?
Offline

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2808
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 12:02

wrightwing wrote:There have been many other links, stating that was the case (not just when referring to the APG-79 vs APG-73). A given size AESA will have a significant range advantage over MSA and PESA arrays, due to much better efficiency, gain, and antenna sensitivity.


This is true. AESAs also have higher average power or in other words higher duty cycle. This means that AESA with same peak power as MSA or PESA will actually put significantly more energy towards targets in each beam. Modern AESAs also have higher peak power though. For example the highest powered MSA/PESA in fighters is currently Irbis-E with 20kW peak power. There are 16 to 20W X-band GaAs T/R modules and thus the same peak power could be generated by 1000 module AESA like AN/APG-80 or -83. But average power is what sets detection range and that could be twice higher in current AESAs compared to MSA/PESA radars. Or AN/APG-80 sized radar could have equal average power to Irbis-E by just using 10W modules.

Calculating the whole thing makes it fairly clear.

Modern AESA has about 5-6 dB overall advantage in loss budget during transmit and receive phases compared to modern MSA/PESA radar. SImply put in MSA and PESA radars the radar signal is attenuated much more in both transmit and receive paths. This means with equal transmitter power, AESA actually radiates higher power radar signal from the antenna. In receive path the radar signal is attenuated less before it gets to radar receiver, so lower powered radar signals can be handled. 6 dB difference is equal to 4 times the power, which means is AESA and MSA/PESA radars are otherwise identical (transmitter power, back end, similar antenna efficiency), then AESA will have about 40% longer range.

But antenna efficiency is higher in AESAs. MSA/PESA are usually in the region of 50-70% with very good antenna designs and AESAs are in the region of 70-80%. Because the efficiency works both ways (transmit and receive paths), then this will increases the power levels significantly. If both transmit at same power level, PESA/MSA will leak more power outside the main beam and also not collect signals as efficiently during receiving as AESA antenna.

Calculating all these together means that GaAs AESA will have about twice the range in no-clutter conditions. But AESA radars have much better clutter attenuation properties due to distributed HPA/LNA architecture where amplifier errors de-correlate. Clutter attenuation properties are so good in modern AESAs, that it can have additional 50% range increase compared to MSA/PESA radars in serious clutter conditions.

IMO, GaAs AESA radar having twice the range (compared to MSA/PESA) in open air conditions without any real clutter is pretty likely. It might well have three times the range in serious clutter conditions (sea/ground clutter and low altitude target). Of course AESAs have many other properties that make them much better overall even if range increase is not that big. A lot depends on what properties have been emphasized and what are the requirements. For example cost, cooling, reliability/maintenance and EW requirements might mean shorter range figures but might still be preferable for operational systems.

I don't think we have much to compare RBE2 AESA, AN/APG-81 or AN/APG-79. All have and will be upgraded and a lot of info about them is rather inconclusive or contradictory. For example the processor for AN/APG-79 has been upgraded several times already. We know that AN/APG-81 has significantly bigger antenna than RBE2 AESA. AN/APG-79 also has larger antenna and even USMC Classic Hornets are now going to be upgraded with AN/APG-79(V)4. All those radars (and associated aircraft) also likely have different requirements and so we can't say AN/APG-79 is better or worse than RBE2 AESA for example. It might be that AN/APG-79 has not met requirements whereas RBE2 AESA has, even if AN/APG-79 was more capable system. I do think that all these AESA radars offer very significant performance and reliability improvements over the previous MSA/PESA systems.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests