F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

Beagle79

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 64
  • Joined: 30 Sep 2007, 01:46

Unread post26 Oct 2007, 02:05

F-35 piloted by a reasonable good pilot will win handsomely when competing on ATA/ATG/EW (or even for foreign sale!) role, thus distinguishing a 5G fighter from a <5G one :roll:
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6695
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Oct 2007, 02:46

toan wrote:As for lacking of thrust...........

Empty weight:
F-35A: 12,000 ~ 12,500 kg
EF-2000: 10,995 ~ 11,150 kg
Rafale C: 9,400 ~ 9,850 kg

Internal Fuel:
F-35A: 8,391 kg
EF-2000: 4,996 kg
Rafale C: 4,700 kg

Thrust (AB/Max. Mil) at Sea-Level:
F-35A: 40,000~43,000 Ib / 28,900 Ib*1
EF-2000: 20,250~22,275 Ib / 13,490~15,525 Ib*2
Rafale C: 16,860~17,000 Ib / 11,245 Ib*2

Weight of Standard A-A configuration:
F-35A: 12,000~12,500 kg + 5,000 kg (internal fuel) + 1,500 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 18,500~19,000 kg
EF-2K: 10,995~11,150 kg + 5,000 kg (internal fuel) + 1,500 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 17,500~17,650 kg
Rafale: 9,400~9,850 kg + 4,700 kg (internal fuel) + 1,300 kg (AAMs, pilot, gun-shells) = 15,400~15,850 kg


T/W ratio at Sea-Level (A/B / Mil):
F-35A: 0.96~1.05 / 0.69~0.71
EF-2K: 1.04~1.15 / 0.69~0.80
Rafale: 0.97~1.00 / 0.64~0.66

Personally, I think the difference of T/W ratio among the three fighters with standard A-A configuration is not very significant.........



The T/W ratio may not be significant between the three. Yet, the F-35 will have much less drag and RCS. Clearly, advantage F-35! :wink:
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post27 Oct 2007, 07:54

I think Toan's numbers may be a bit off for the JSF.

Projected empty weight is 12020 Kg
One half internal fuel is 4082 kg (which is comparable to the full internal fuel of the other two jets). You cannot stress enough the advantage of carrying all of your fuel internally.

1500kg for armament and pilot.

At 43,000lbs thrust you get a T/W ratio of 1.11 for the F-35

My numbers where taken from here:
http://www.jsf.mil/downloads/mediakits/7764.zip
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post27 Oct 2007, 13:21

@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6695
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post27 Oct 2007, 16:16

Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)



The thrust of the forthcoming GE F-136 is said to be much higher than the current P & W F-135. Which, is often over looked along with the drag and stealth advantages of the F-35 over contemporary designs. Regardless, the Lightning is going to be very capable in WVR..... 8)
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post27 Oct 2007, 22:12

Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)


If the brief is listing 13198 kg for the F-35A and 14,618 kg for the F-35B, they are probably cited pre-weight-reduction numbers. 13.2 tons is right for the current AA-1 prototype. About 1.23 tons (2,700 lbs) was trimmed from the F-35B and about 0.59 tons was reduced from the A and C variants during the weight attack redesign.
Offline

Scorpion82

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1094
  • Joined: 07 Oct 2007, 18:52

Unread post28 Oct 2007, 00:17

dwightlooi wrote:
Scorpion82 wrote:@Thumper
According the F-35 program brief from September 2006 F-35s weights and fuel load are:

F-35A/B/C:
Empty weight: 29036 lb (13198 kg)/32161 lb (14618 kg)/32072 lb (14578 kg)
Internal fuel: 18480 lb (8400 kg)/14003 lb (6365 kg)/20085 lb (9129 kg)

Can be found here:
http://www.airpower.at/jsf/JSF-Programm ... 2006-1.pdf

cheers

Edit:
F135 dry thrust = 128.1 kN (13066 kg/28745 lb)
F135 reheat thrust = 191.3 kN (19512 kg/42927 lb)

This comes from the F135 factsheet from P&W (march 2006)


If the brief is listing 13198 kg for the F-35A and 14,618 kg for the F-35B, they are probably cited pre-weight-reduction numbers. 13.2 tons is right for the current AA-1 prototype. About 1.23 tons (2,700 lbs) was trimmed from the F-35B and about 0.59 tons was reduced from the A and C variants during the weight attack redesign.


When were the reduction measures announced? As mentioned the weights are given in the document I posted above. It's from september 2006.
Offline

Thumper3181

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 626
  • Joined: 23 Jun 2006, 05:49

Unread post28 Oct 2007, 03:23

The numbers I got where downloaded from the jsf.mil website. I am not sure of the date but they are official documents for public release. The presentation you cited yours from where originally from there as well (however that presentation indicated they where estimates) so I am not sure. I would defer to DL on this one.

12661 + 4082 + 1500 = 18,243kg

19,512kg(thrust)/18,243 = 1.06
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post28 Oct 2007, 18:02

Scorpion82 wrote:
When were the reduction measures announced? As mentioned the weights are given in the document I posted above. It's from september 2006.


Right. I have read that document in detail too. However, the numbers agree with the overweight F-35 before the redesign. The F-35 was 1 ton over target weight and the B version was projected to miss range and hover load targets -- target weight of the F-35A is 12 tons and that of the F-35B was 13.5 tons.

The 14.6 ton weight of the F-35B and the 13.2 ton weight of the F-35A were more or less the weight numbers they were having a problem with prior to the redesign which delayed the program by 2 years. The AA-1 is 13.1 tons for instance and it was built to pre-redesign specs.

So either the redesign never netted any weight reductions or the numbers were for the old design. According to reports in 2006, the redesign netted a 2700 pounds reduction in the F-35B and roughly half of that amount in the other variants.
Offline

a10freedom

Newbie

Newbie

  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2008, 05:31

Unread post03 Jan 2008, 05:41

I just joined so I’m a little out of this post. If your trying to decide which plane could bet the others you have to take payload into account. The more weapons you can hold the better the chance of hitting the target. Also, how much fuel each plane can hold. Even if the F-35 does have stealth its useless if it can’t hold as much fuel as the other two fighters.
Offline

dwightlooi

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1170
  • Joined: 02 Aug 2006, 00:14

Unread post03 Jan 2008, 10:40

a10freedom wrote:I just joined so I’m a little out of this post. If your trying to decide which plane could bet the others you have to take payload into account. The more weapons you can hold the better the chance of hitting the target. Also, how much fuel each plane can hold. Even if the F-35 does have stealth its useless if it can’t hold as much fuel as the other two fighters.


The F-35 holds more internal fuel than either the Typhoon or the Rafale. Almost 180% as much -- 8.4 tons vs 4.7~4.9 tons. The Typhoon and the Rafale can of course carry external tanks, but so can the F-35.

The F-35 will carry 4~6 AAMs internally for air superioty missions, or 2~8 bombs + 2 AAMs internally for deep strikes. This represents the typically desired loads for this missions regardless of how much you can actually lug if you max out the weapon stations because this is the amount of ordnance an aircraft is expected to need on the missions with a little extra margin. When performance or stealth or both is not on longer important -- such as when trucking bombs to dump over Taliban ragheads, the F-35 will carry no less external stores as the other two fighters. Of course, if you use it as a bomb truck or missile barge bristling with all manners of stuff on pylons it will no longer be a truly stealthy platform. However, it won't be any worse than the Rafale or the Typhoon.
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6695
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post03 Jan 2008, 15:15

dwightlooi wrote:
a10freedom wrote:I just joined so I’m a little out of this post. If your trying to decide which plane could bet the others you have to take payload into account. The more weapons you can hold the better the chance of hitting the target. Also, how much fuel each plane can hold. Even if the F-35 does have stealth its useless if it can’t hold as much fuel as the other two fighters.


The F-35 holds more internal fuel than either the Typhoon or the Rafale. Almost 180% as much -- 8.4 tons vs 4.7~4.9 tons. The Typhoon and the Rafale can of course carry external tanks, but so can the F-35.

The F-35 will carry 4~6 AAMs internally for air superioty missions, or 2~8 bombs + 2 AAMs internally for deep strikes. This represents the typically desired loads for this missions regardless of how much you can actually lug if you max out the weapon stations because this is the amount of ordnance an aircraft is expected to need on the missions with a little extra margin. When performance or stealth or both is not on longer important -- such as when trucking bombs to dump over Taliban ragheads, the F-35 will carry no less external stores as the other two fighters. Of course, if you use it as a bomb truck or missile barge bristling with all manners of stuff on pylons it will no longer be a truly stealthy platform. However, it won't be any worse than the Rafale or the Typhoon.



Just think of the performance advantage the F-35 will hold vs the Typhoon and Rafale. That have to carry there stores externally! :twisted:
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post03 Jan 2008, 17:21

Look at the comparison in industry participation too. If JSF weaves it's way through SDD and delivers a workable Block I jet let alone a Block III one, it is all over for the manned fighter jet market. I like the Rafale. However there is a huge problem being able to sell it without the sales force getting shot in the foot by the French government. Where with the U.S., industry and greased politicians sing from the same sheet of music on weapon system sales. :lol:

Then of course there are other weird things like if the EU goes wack and starts carbon footprinting weapons systems, one only has to look at the Norway JSF briefing to see that the JSF will go a long way on a tank of gas. At some point and time the Rafale production is going to be completely unsustainable through lack of interest of proping up an organization that doesn't generate any sales. We may have seen the last Eurofighter customer. Then of course if JSF gets over the magic 1500-1600 airframes where cost flattens out... it is all down hill from there.

This might be a concern for some. Because if JSF is sucessful in the year 2020 or so, it will be the Microsoft Windows of fighter jets. Your options for a manned fighter are going to be extremely limited unless your government can buy Chicom knockoffs or RuTech stuff and/or those are suitable options because they don't have U.S. state department restrictions on them. If JSF is your only choice, price/value will be whatever the vendor says it is.

When you start looking at all the industry issues, then you can see that 10-15 years from now, choice is going to be even more limited on manned fighter buying options. Is this a bad thing? Well for go to war JSF coalitions probably not. It still leaves some wanting for a cheapish 2 seater for attack that has L.O. enough qualities.
- ELP -
Offline

LowObservable

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 171
  • Joined: 11 Jan 2007, 16:34

Unread post03 Jan 2008, 17:47

Whoa.
Missing element here is that the payload-range performance (along with the fuel burn, ELP) is determined by MTOW (thrust/aerodynamics), L/D (wing design, and yes, external stores if carried, and until jetissoned), SFC (engine cycle mostly) and fuel fraction (internal and external and related to clean MTOW).
JSF with internal only weapons (and DL, you should really specify "eight very small bombs") doesn't have the drag of external tanks or weapons; but to do this it carries an extra two tons of metal, all the time; and it is fatter, all the time; and A and B have the little wing demanded by the B.
It's also a mistake to assume that JSF-A can carry all that internal fuel, internal weapons AND a Typhoon/Rafale-like external load. It doesn't have the hardpoints or the lift to do that.
Offline

elp

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3143
  • Joined: 23 Sep 2003, 20:08

Unread post03 Jan 2008, 21:52

LowObservable wrote:Whoa.
Missing element here is that the payload-range performance (along with the fuel burn, ELP) is determined by MTOW (thrust/aerodynamics), L/D (wing design, and yes, external stores if carried, and until jetissoned), SFC (engine cycle mostly) and fuel fraction (internal and external and related to clean MTOW).
JSF with internal only weapons (and DL, you should really specify "eight very small bombs") doesn't have the drag of external tanks or weapons; but to do this it carries an extra two tons of metal, all the time; and it is fatter, all the time; and A and B have the little wing demanded by the B.
It's also a mistake to assume that JSF-A can carry all that internal fuel, internal weapons AND a Typhoon/Rafale-like external load. It doesn't have the hardpoints or the lift to do that.


Weight I agree. There are a lot of things to consider when talking about range. What do you think about this from the JSF sales crew? http://elpwarpigs.blogspot.com/2007/12/740-vs-590.html
- ELP -
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests