F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale
- Forum Veteran
- Posts: 989
- Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46
I heard that the Rafale beat the Typhoons 7-1.
I seriously don't understand why you guys seem to scoff at what a Rafale pilot says, but yet seem to believe everything other pilots say. Even the Rafale pilot on TFPP spoke about beating other jets. I guess he is lying too, right?
And for what it's worth, yes, the Block 60 does have better accel. than the Rafale. But it weighs nearly 21,000lbs empty, so all that extra weight is just making that wing work harder.
The F-16 is great, and I believe the best WVR fighter it could be-- if you took a Block 15ADF, and put a PW F100-229 motor in it. And maybe did some other mods to it (composites, FLCS updates). Now that would be a fearsome combo.
I seriously don't understand why you guys seem to scoff at what a Rafale pilot says, but yet seem to believe everything other pilots say. Even the Rafale pilot on TFPP spoke about beating other jets. I guess he is lying too, right?
And for what it's worth, yes, the Block 60 does have better accel. than the Rafale. But it weighs nearly 21,000lbs empty, so all that extra weight is just making that wing work harder.
The F-16 is great, and I believe the best WVR fighter it could be-- if you took a Block 15ADF, and put a PW F100-229 motor in it. And maybe did some other mods to it (composites, FLCS updates). Now that would be a fearsome combo.
swiss wrote:But all this dogfight story seems to be way overrated. Of course, its good for the pilot skills, and a lot of fun. But when your read interviews with fighter Pilots, no matter 4 or 5 gen, all tell you same. If you end up in a dogfight, you did somting horrible wrong. So a capable sensor suit is far more important today than (low speed) maneuverability.
Yes, I fully agree with you. Even if the Rafale has more metrics which is better than the Typhoon (when it comes to dogfight/agility/kinematics) compared to otherwise, I fully agree that this "story" is way overrated.
swiss wrote:@ Ric: The F-16 E has also 10% more thrust then a Bl 50.
Yes, that's also true indeed. Nonetheless this still indicates that the F-16 is not inferior (when it comes to agility/kinematics) compared to the Rafale.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call EW and pretend like it’s new.
f-16adf wrote:I heard that the Rafale beat the Typhoons 7-1.
1- Do you have a reliable source for that?
2- Even if that "score" ends up being true, what does it represents?? A single exercise dogfight or a bunch of them or all of them?? Which pilots were pitted against each pilots?? What were the RoE?? Were the Rafales playing offensively and the Typhoon defensively or other situations?? Etc, etc , etc...
f-16adf wrote:I seriously don't understand why you guys seem to scoff at what a Rafale pilot says, but yet seem to believe everything other pilots say. Even the Rafale pilot on TFPP spoke about beating other jets. I guess he is lying too, right?
Because the guy (Rafale pilot) is particularly scoffing at the Typhoon, no??
At the same time he seem to admit having difficulties not only against F-16s but also against Harriers and Alpha Jets but then again against the Typhoon is like clubbing baby seals!! This simply doesn't add up, period! No matter how you put it, the Typhoon is a dangerous aircraft and not an "easy enemy"! And then we have the S-400 yada yada yada....
I believe that someone intelligent as yourself can or should at least consider that there's something "fishy" here.
So yes, with all the points that I previously mentioned and articulated I would say that the pilot is either greatly exaggerating his and his aircraft (Rafale) exploits or yes, that he's "lying".
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call EW and pretend like it’s new.
- Active Member
- Posts: 166
- Joined: 22 Jul 2015, 18:12
ricnunes wrote:f-16adf wrote:I heard that the Rafale beat the Typhoons 7-1.
1- Do you have a reliable source for that?
2- Even if that "score" ends up being true, what does it represents?? A single exercise dogfight or a bunch of them or all of them?? Which pilots were pitted against each pilots?? What were the RoE?? Were the Rafales playing offensively and the Typhoon defensively or other situations?? Etc, etc , etc...f-16adf wrote:I seriously don't understand why you guys seem to scoff at what a Rafale pilot says, but yet seem to believe everything other pilots say. Even the Rafale pilot on TFPP spoke about beating other jets. I guess he is lying too, right?
Because the guy (Rafale pilot) is particularly scoffing at the Typhoon, no??
At the same time he seem to admit having difficulties not only against F-16s but also against Harriers and Alpha Jets but then again against the Typhoon is like clubbing baby seals!! This simply doesn't add up, period! No matter how you put it, the Typhoon is a dangerous aircraft and not an "easy enemy"! And then we have the S-400 yada yada yada....
I believe that someone intelligent as yourself can or should at least consider that there's something "fishy" here.
So yes, with all the points that I previously mentioned and articulated I would say that the pilot is either greatly exaggerating his and his aircraft (Rafale) exploits or yes, that he's "lying".
Yeah, I call BS on that. THe Typhoon has better power and agility than the Rafale, the French rafale also lacks helmet Cueing and IRST is limited compared to it. I believe that export version of the Rafale have helmet cueing and better IRST if interpreting the french pilot on Fighter pilot podcast.
Personally, I think the German pilots in their typhoons would eat the French for lunch. They already beat with old F4s the East Germans flying Mig 29, and then moving to Mig 29 giving practice to US pilots in F18, they gave the US pilots very good professional lessons with precise metrics laid out and without the chest thumping. These dudes are no joke and what they say I can usually trust to be true more than the hyperbolic unprofessional blather of the French counterparts (unprofessionalism explainable somewhat by their systematic intent to hide their own weaknesses, datas and metrics from their counterparts, seeking to spy on them, as this culture of spying and mystification is ingrained early in French engineering schools with students undercutting each other).
- Active Member
- Posts: 133
- Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28
All I can say is LOL! First of all, if he's flying a fighter aircraft like the Rafale at 200 feet he would still likely "eat a S-400 missile up into his tailpipe" since that even the S-300P has a minimum engagement altitude of 25 meters or around 82 feet (which is much lower than 200 feet) - The S-400 won't of course have a higher minimum engagement altitude compared to the S-300P.
FFS, this is truly dweller-level analysis. You must be among those journalists or twitter expert wannabees who see SAM rings as ultimate, instant death zones, at all altitude, at max range.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10
Well, from previous Typhoon pilots interview, they could own (in WVR) Su-30MKM, Mig-29 and Mirage2000 easily.
Now they say they had mixed WVR results (win/neutral) against F-35, the process was painful, their edge was from experience, and F-35 had awesome maneuverability.
So we conclude that F-35 is a more formidable foe in WVR than Su-30MKM, Mig-29 and Mirage2000.
Now they say they had mixed WVR results (win/neutral) against F-35, the process was painful, their edge was from experience, and F-35 had awesome maneuverability.
So we conclude that F-35 is a more formidable foe in WVR than Su-30MKM, Mig-29 and Mirage2000.
Last edited by gta4 on 17 Nov 2019, 14:57, edited 2 times in total.
- Elite 1K
- Posts: 1047
- Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10
The link to the eurofighter world magazine (april 2012) was down unfortunately. I remember (100% sure) that the interviewed typhoon pilot claims in WVR, F-16/F-18/Su-30MKM/Mig-29 were no match to typhoon. They only opponent that requirs more time to deal with is GE129 powered Singaporian F-15SG.
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5319
- Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
- Location: Parts Unknown
gta4 wrote:The link to the eurofighter world magazine (april 2012) was down unfortunately. I remember (100% sure) that the interviewed typhoon pilot claims in WVR, F-16/F-18/Su-30MKM/Mig-29 were no match to typhoon. They only opponent that requirs more time to deal with is GE129 powered Singaporian F-15SG.
This is interesting info. If the F-15EX comes to pass, one would hope those at Boeing and USAF are listening. From GE's page...
"The -129 offers significant mission advantages throughout the F-15 and F-16 envelopes. For example, more than 30% additional thrust is available at critical low-altitude combat operations..."
The F100-PW-229 powered F-15E's do not offer similar performance advantages?
Who knew the extra 340lbs of thrust the GE -229 has makes all difference in the world.
Who knew the extra 340lbs of thrust the GE -229 has makes all difference in the world.
Take an F-16, stir in A-7, dollop of F-117, gob of F-22, dash of F/A-18, sprinkle with AV-8B, stir well + bake. Whaddya get? F-35.
Dynamically the thrust difference between -129 and -229 varies from 800 lbf transonic up to 1700 lbf supersonic according to Spurts.
Even the statically less -220 in the F-15C shows an improvement dynamically over the -100.
All US 4th gen acceleration
Source viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53363
Even the statically less -220 in the F-15C shows an improvement dynamically over the -100.
All US 4th gen acceleration
Source viewtopic.php?f=46&t=53363
- Elite 5K
- Posts: 5986
- Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
- Location: Nashua NH USA
Those are all 40k ft values, not indicative of the low altitude statement. That said, I don't believe there is any point where a -129 has 30% more thrust than a -229, maybe a -220.
"Spurts"
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
-PFD Systems Engineer
-PATRIOT Systems Engineer
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests