F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 16 Mar 2019, 14:07

f-16adf wrote:Granted there is no available Rafale performance manual out. And going by the F-16CJ -1. A load-out of 4 aams only gives it a DI of about 22. The 2 tip missiles are zero, and the 2 aim-9's + pylons are 22. If you look at the Mil and Max AB acceleration charts, and even the turn charts, a (and using some interpolation) DI of 22 is not going to impact a Block 50 F-16 all that much. I would expect the same for Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon. In fact, Rafale and EF may even have a smaller DI because of the fuselage mounted aams.

Even when the Block 50CJ (mid 1990's manual- years before HAF abridgment) use to mount wing tip aim-9's; DI on tips was still counted as zero.

F-16CJ drag index chart.jpg

One must also remember even the F-35 has to carry its Aim-9X's on external pylons. Anybody care to guess DI on those (since we don't have a manual)? Zero? 10-25?

I'll say 15-20. They're underwing as opposed to wingtip, and canted outward so.... going to be a lot more drag than wingtip I'd imagine. I'm more concerned with how they affect RCS. 2 more IR homing missiles is really going to help, especially if they're near BVR block 2's...

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the F-35 can only (currently) carry 4 AMRAAM's internal. Believe they're fast tracking the six option, but those 2 9x's are big either way IMO. Anyone lucky enough to detect it is in for a NASTY surprise in the event they can merge and jump it.

It just takes away any supposed advantage Russia's/China's "supermaneuverable" Flankers theoretically have in the WVR arena..

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 17 Mar 2019, 22:08

f-16adf wrote:Granted there is no available Rafale performance manual out. And going by the F-16CJ -1. A load-out of 4 aams only gives it a DI of about 22. The 2 tip missiles are zero, and the 2 aim-9's + pylons are 22. If you look at the Mil and Max AB acceleration charts, and even the turn charts, a (and using some interpolation) DI of 22 is not going to impact a Block 50 F-16 all that much. I would expect the same for Rafale or Eurofighter Typhoon. In fact, Rafale and EF may even have a smaller DI because of the fuselage mounted aams.

Well, that DI of 0 (zero) with 2 wingtip mounted missiles is while having 2 Sidewinders on these stations.
But what's the DI of 2 wingtip mounted AMRAAMs on the F-16? (instead of Sidewinders)

So, I would say that a more close comparison in terms of DI against a Rafale with wingtip MICAs would be a F-16 with wingtip AMRAAMs and not Sidewinders.

Regarding the DI of the Rafale fuselage mounted missiles/MICAs against the Typhoon fuselage mounted missiles/AMRAAMs for example, I would say that in the case of the Rafale the DI of the fuselage mounted missiles which have a similar configuration as again and for example in the Hornet/Super Hornet would be higher than the DI of fuselage mounted missiles in the Typhoon since in the later case the fuselage mounted missiles are mounted in semi-recessed positions where "half" of the missiles are somehow hidden inside the aircraft's fuselage.

This is another reason why I doubt the Mach 1.4 Supercruise with 4xAAMs figure for the Rafale.

fbw · by **fbw** » 18 Mar 2019, 01:19

Aim-120 on stations 1&9 have to same DI as the Aim-9, which is essentially O, the basic aircraft DI of 7/6.

This is getting a bit ridiculous, eyeballing drag of external stores. The drag of external stores is unique to each aircraft. Referring to the Rafale, without references, we can guess all day. Two points: four mica (2 wingtip, and two on fuselage mounts) isn’t the same as hanging pylons with missiles and compounding interference drag. And again I’m not sure what there is to doubt, Dassault has stated the supercruise with four missiles, pilots have stated it. Short of getting a backseat ride or hands on the flight manual, what standards of rigor need be applied?

The same questions about supercruise capability (duration, loadout, max achieveable speeds in different conditions) can be applied to all the claimed supercruisers with exception to the F-22. I may doubt the tactical relevance of supercruise for a couple of claimed supercruise capable aircraft, but as for the Rafale or Typhoon’s ability to supercruise with a relatively light load in the climate Europe? Don’t see any reason to question the manufacturer’s statements.

F-16ADF · by **F-16ADF** » 18 Mar 2019, 05:37

Wingtip Aim-120's are DI of zero on F-16CJ.

Fuselage mounted Aim-120's on Super Hornet are a DI of 4. So 4*2=8 DI for 2 AMRAAMS on SH. It's the same for legacy Hornet.

Also, Rafale and Eurofighter Typhoon do not suffer from trim drag while supersonic.

swiss · by **swiss** » 18 Mar 2019, 16:24

fbw wrote: but as for the Rafale or Typhoon’s ability to supercruise with a relatively light load in the climate Europe? Don’t see any reason to question the manufacturer’s statements.

I see it the same way. But i have to say, i take "Spurts" statements very seriously, as an aerodynamic engineer

ricnunes · by **ricnunes** » 18 Mar 2019, 17:02

f-16adf wrote:Wingtip Aim-120's are DI of zero on F-16CJ.

Ok, I stand corrected about the Wingtip Aim-120's on the F-16.

Thanks for the heads up.

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 21 Mar 2019, 22:13

OOPS!: "The aircraft was taking off when the seat ejection device of the navigator tripped. The pilot managed to land the aircraft safely. The 64-year-old navigator, who is not a soldier, was thrown off the runway and suffered serious injuries, including back injuries. Hospitalized, he is in a stable and conscious state. The pilot suffered cuts in his hands because of broken glass cockpit." 20 Mar 2019 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wi ... 23248Sixty

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 30 Mar 2019, 05:39

This thread has been searched for the six page PDF attached - apologies if it has been posted before.

RAFALE Combat Aircraft Monthly Jul 2015 Vol16 No7 PRN pp24.pdf [below JPG]

madrat · by **madrat** » 30 Mar 2019, 13:21

spazsinbad wrote:OOPS!: "The aircraft was taking off when the seat ejection device of the navigator tripped. The pilot managed to land the aircraft safely. The 64-year-old navigator, who is not a soldier, was thrown off the runway and suffered serious injuries, including back injuries. Hospitalized, he is in a stable and conscious state. The pilot suffered cuts in his hands because of broken glass cockpit." 20 Mar 2019 https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wi ... 23248Sixty

Was the navigator his boss and this a workplace violence incident? Sounds fishy.

mixelflick · by **mixelflick** » 31 Mar 2019, 13:28

spazsinbad wrote:This thread has been searched for the six page PDF attached - apologies if it has been posted before.

RAFALE Combat Aircraft Monthly Jul 2015 Vol16 No7 PRN pp24.pdf [below JPG]

Damn, those external stores turn a gorgeous airframe into... not so gorgeous LOL. Really ruins the Rafale's pleasing lines, much moreso than an equivalent loadout on a Eurofighter IMO. Seeing this really makes you appreciate the aesthetics of 5th gen fighters like the F-35, 22 and even SU-57 and J-20.

Fortunately, miniaturizing things like AMRAAM fins and a svelter 9x allows the F-22 to carry a typical F-15 AAM loadout internally. To a lesser extent, that's true for the F-35 too. Hopefully CUDA or like AAM program will bring the F-35's total AAM loadout up. Flying with just 2 AMRAAM's would make me a little nervous, assuming there were no other platforms airborne that could contribute AMRAAM's to the fight.

F-35 carrying the 9x doesn't ruin its look IMO. In fact, I think it adds to it. Coupled with the fact they're LO (cited elsewhere), carrying those would really add to my confidence factor. And if the rumors are true, they're BVR/near BVR capable..

spazsinbad · by **spazsinbad** » 31 Mar 2019, 17:21

"... F-35's total AAM loadout up. Flying with just 2 AMRAAM's would make me a little nervous..." in an LO/VLO airframe?

botsing · by **botsing** » 31 Mar 2019, 18:07

And again the idea with the "lonely F-35 zombie". This time with only carrying 2 AMRAAMs, somehow completely outside the integrated battlefield, like a lost kid looking for its mom.

Yes, when planners make up such catastrophic BS scenarios it is indeed time to be very nervous.

XanderCrews · by **XanderCrews** » 31 Mar 2019, 19:18

spazsinbad wrote:"... F-35's total AAM loadout up. Flying with just 2 AMRAAM's would make me a little nervous..." in an LO/VLO airframe?

Years and Years ago on another forum, I was told emphatically by someone that their nations' fighter pilots would refuse to fly the F-35 since it was a single engine. My response was that the C-130 had 4 engines, and they could always transfer, there's never a shortage of people who want to fly fighters, or a shortage of engines on a transport plane

:mrgreen:

marsavian · by **marsavian** » 31 Mar 2019, 20:33

If a F-35 has only 2 AMRAAMs on board then it's not on an air superiority mission and it still has the internal gun to fall back on for further self defense. You would expect F-22 from the front and F-15/F-16 from the back to be providing discrete air cover for strike F-35 or maybe other specific F-35 with 4 AMRAAM at least if not with a lot more AAMs in beast mode.

madrat · by **madrat** » 01 Apr 2019, 00:10

Seems like in a target deficient environment the F-35A could single-handed clear the skies of a 250km grid fairly quickly. You might be able to do more like 450km x 250km using a figure-8 track. As long as you could secure the ground around the base from anti-vehicle rifles, and indirect artillery (i.e. mortars) you could disperse your force far and wide.