F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:20

spazsinbad wrote:The point? What is the point about all this argy-bargy about top speed when real pilots consider it irrelevant. My Point.

Its a different generation. Back in the 70s, speed was like key because of all the recon flights by Mig-25s at top speed. Everyone was worried about how to intercept.

Speed is still a factor (otherwise, why bother with afterburners...) for A2A, not so much A2G. If the other guy needs to get away, he better be faster than the guy chasing. And its still about energy management.

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:25

So far, the argument pattern we've witnessed:

"The Rafale can't reach high supersonic with EFT" -> "There's no use in going that fast in a dirty loadout, it's not practical!!!"

Let alone the fact that you seem to accept in the end that it is in fact possible, I'll just remind again that we're talking about the absolute flight envelope, and not the operational practical use of such performance. I mean, no one here implied it would be practical under all circumstances (it might be in some)... just that it was possible. Is it too hard to accept?

fbw · by **fbw** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:28

Eurofigher Pilot stated Mach 1.8 with three tanks in testimony to Canadian Parliament. Then he goes on to state:

“ I have done above Mach 1.6 for a total of 15 minutes with three tanks on, but that was with heavy manoeuvring in between”

http://www.ourcommons.ca/DocumentViewer ... 8/evidence

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:29

Nevertheless - not just speed management but FUEL MANAGEMENT whilst anyone chasing an F-35 may want to look for that 'over the shoulder' AIM-9 shot. It seems absolutely silly to me that after 188 pages 'what the RAFALE can and cannot do' is still in dispute. The thread is about F-35 v RAFALE - how's that goin'? Whose RAFALEs? Egypt? India? Buehler? Anyone?

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:31

Thanks for providing a figure. I had no doubt the Typhoon current tanks were high-supersonic rated too (they're less pointy, but smaller (260 gal).. although my Mk.1 eyeball DI-meter would be incapable of estimating to what extent they're +/- draggy than the Rafale's 330s).

fbw · by **fbw** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:33

spazsinbad wrote:Nevertheless - not just speed. It seems absolutely silly to me that after 188 pages 'what the RAFALE can and cannot do' is still in dispute. The thread is about F-35 v RAFALE - how's that goin'? Whose RAFALEs? Egypt? India? Buehler? Anyone?

Agreed, just find it odd certain posters find their opinion trumps official statements and pilot’s own words. Moving on...

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:35

And even odder to see a somewhat dishonest shift in argumentation. Case closed indeed I guess!

weasel1962 · by **weasel1962** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:37

f4u7_corsair wrote:Thanks for providing a figure. I had no doubt the Typhoon current tanks were high-supersonic rated too (they're less pointy, but smaller (260 gal).. although my Mk.1 eyeball DI-meter would be incapable of estimating to what extent they're +/- draggy than the Rafale's 330s).

I believe there are 2 tanks sizes. I understand only the smaller 264 gal is supersonic rated.

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:39

Yes, there are two tank sizes designed for Eurofighter, but the bigger one is only on commercial brochures (and development aircraft?) AFAIK - I've only seen the small ones in service.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:41

fbw wrote:
Agreed, just find it odd certain posters find their opinion trumps official statements and pilot’s own words. Moving on...

We are quoting real pilots........ :doh:

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:43

weasel1962 wrote:
f4u7_corsair wrote:Thanks for providing a figure. I had no doubt the Typhoon current tanks were high-supersonic rated too (they're less pointy, but smaller (260 gal).. although my Mk.1 eyeball DI-meter would be incapable of estimating to what extent they're +/- draggy than the Rafale's 330s).

I believe there are 2 tanks sizes. I understand only the smaller 264 gal is supersonic rated.

The F-35 can exceed the speed of sound with several 2,000 lbs GBU-31's. Yet, that doesn't mean it could sustain those speeds in any practical sense....

f4u7_corsair · by **f4u7_corsair** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:46

The F-35 can exceed the speed of sound with several 2,000 lbs GBU-31's. Yet, that doesn't mean it could sustain those speeds in any practical sense....

??????????????????
Where on earth is the connection?

Corsair1963 wrote:
fbw wrote:
Agreed, just find it odd certain posters find their opinion trumps official statements and pilot’s own words. Moving on...

We are quoting real pilots........

Yes indeed, the Rafale pilots that have been quoted are real.

As for the F-15E pilot you quoted, I fail to see how the fact that she has personally not been above M1.5 on her aircraft has any relevancy on the M1.4 SC or M1.7 w/ EFT capability (capability, not talking practicality here) on Rafale. Just like your quote above.

fbw · by **fbw** » 13 Mar 2019, 02:48

Corsair1963 wrote:
fbw wrote:
Agreed, just find it odd certain posters find their opinion trumps official statements and pilot’s own words. Moving on...

We are quoting real pilots........

Whose “we” ? We as in me from both the pilot on the podcast and the Eurofighter pilot testimony? Where is the “we”? Quote me a pilot refuting anything from the testimony, or statements made. Or is this another “shift the goalpost”.

The statement started with your “skepticism”. I simply posted the information available, not claiming in what configurations these speeds are operationally relevant in regards to mission radius or endurance. That would require data that isn’t available, and wasn’t part of the original question.

There are people who are skeptical the earth is round, facts say otherwise. Similar situation here.

optimist · by **optimist** » 13 Mar 2019, 04:01

fbw wrote:[Corsair1963"]
fbw wrote:
Spare me your chauvinism. You discount the doc from le bourget, the pilot’s, the official statements inn Dassault’s own magazine. Please.

I’ve no reason to pump the performance of the Rafale. I just find it disingenuous to dismiss official (and unofficial) statements because you find it inconvenient to your “opinion”.

The quote about Mach 1.7 with three eft comes from this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ... RVQw1vRgZY

It’s a news report with a journalist on a backseat ride in a Rafale. Good luck, it’s in French. P.S. the Rafale is FCS limited to 750 knots/Mach 1.8. Similar to the F-35 KCAS/Mach limit. Does not mean it’s thrust/drag limited to Mach 1.8.

......................................

How many times have we heard the F-15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5??? Yet, as I have already said over and over again. That is not what it is capable of in the real world under combat conditions...

So, for sake of argument load up your Rafale with three external fuel tanks. Then take off and climb to your top speed of Mach 1.7. Guess what happens a hundred miles out you exhaust all of your fuel! Hell, you can't even make it back to base! I guess you can find a "tanker" hopefully???

So, explain to me and the other members a mission profile. In which the Rafale could reach Mach 1.7 under combat conditions and make it back to base....

First off, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the F-15C and Mach 2.5, maybe you should have checked the flight manual.

Second, I don’t have to “explain” anything to you. You’ve doubted that the Rafale can super cruise despite official furofighterstatements otherwise and that it cannot reach Mach 1.7 with 3 eft. The news story above states otherwise, and it’s plausible. If the F-16 can reach Mach 1.3 with a DI of 150, it isn’t that surprising that the Rafale could reach Mach 1.7 in that configuration. Obviously, the range would be severely impacted, but that’s not the question at hand is it?

Why don’t you explain to all us members here why the Rafale cannot super cruise despite dassault and pilot’s stating it can and demonstrate why it can’t rrach Mach 1.7 “dirty” when it seems completely reasonable when you compare F-16 block 50.

Other than concorde, the f-22 has claimed a supersonic 'cruise' speed. There is a list of planes that can go supersonic on dry, as a by product rather than by design. I think the rafale, gripen, eurofighter f-15, f-16 and f-18, in low drag. It was all back 10-15 years ago. On a few forums, the clever guys were on strategypage at the time, when the f-22 claimed operational significance and efficient sustained cruise flight on M1.5+ dry.

There isn't much argument about the 2007 fox 3 pilot saying M1+ with tank. The recent M1.4 with tank is the question and a head scratch. Perhaps a misspoke and joined 1.4 clean and M1+ dirty to M1.4 dirty? That is even more than the eurofighter is claiming and a big ask for us to believe. I would have the eurofighter the top of this list. When the rafale E-M, drag and acceleration charts are on the net, it will help.

Corsair1963 · by **Corsair1963** » 13 Mar 2019, 04:09

fbw wrote:
Whose “we” ? We as in me from both the pilot on the podcast and the Eurofighter pilot testimony? Where is the “we”? Quote me a pilot refuting anything from the testimony, or statements made. Or is this another “shift the goalpost”.

The statement started with your “skepticism”. I simply posted the information available, not claiming in what configurations these speeds are operationally relevant in regards to mission radius or endurance. That would require data that isn’t available, and wasn’t part of the original question.

There are people who are skeptical the earth is round, facts say otherwise. Similar situation here.

I am sure you didn't know the F-15 never flew remotely close to Mach 2.5 in the real world. So, spare me with what you think you know...