F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

talkitron

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 425
  • Joined: 07 Nov 2007, 10:55

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 01:29

Here is the State Department notice of a sale of 450 AIM-120D to Australia for $1.08 billion for the major defense equipment. Ignoring the training stuff, it crudely comes out to $2.5 million per missile.

http://www.dsca.mil/major-arms-sales/au ... r-missiles
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 403
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 02:00

Sorry, I got ahead and thought some amraam-d's were already ordered.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 02:34

swiss wrote:Today i was on the Breitling Sion Airshow in Switzerland. And because Swiss will have soon a evaluation for a new Fighter, all the invited manufacturers where there. Lockheed martin( sadly without a f-35), Airbus, Dassault and Saab

Personally I think you should have recorded the interview, partly because you are a new member so it is harder for us to trust your words 100% nothing personal here, the skepticism apply to everyone, that how we keeps Picard and similar people from making this forum a mess, partly because some claims sound rather strange

The Meteor for the UK F-35 is a short version. So its has not the same range then the "normal" Meteor.

This make no sense, Meteor for F-35 is the clipped fin version, the diameter and length of the missiles body is the same with smaller fin, same amount of propellant. If there is any range variation the version for F-35 will have longer range due to reduced drag.

Because all Missiles have a shorter Range then the Radar.

Could be true with high RCS targets, but clearly not the case against stealth aircraft or in heavy jamming situations.

Iam not saying you are lying but it could be some misunderstanding between you and them
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 03:56

So it is confirmed that a single Rafale cannot triangulate a target, while a single F-35 CAN :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 04:47

gta4 wrote:So it is confirmed that a single Rafale cannot triangulate a target, while a single F-35 CAN :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Both should be able to perform single ship triangulation if the radar is on ground or stationary.
Neither should be able to perform single ship triangulation using their ELINT if target is airborne.
With that being said, short range(wvr) missiles generally don't need exact range for firing solution
Offline
User avatar

steve2267

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2505
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2016, 17:36

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 14:35

eloise wrote:Both should be able to perform single ship triangulation if the radar is on ground or stationary.
Neither should be able to perform single ship triangulation using their ELINT if target is airborne.
With that being said, short range(wvr) missiles generally don't need exact range for firing solution


This.

I think I missed something earlier, maybe someone can clarify? If you have a RWR receiver on each wingtip, would you not be able to potentially calculate the location (bearing / distance) of an emitter, even if it is moving, via the binocular effect of having two receivers located ~10m apart? Maybe the accuracy of the distance suffers somewhat, but I would think you could tell if the emitter is CLOSE, MEDIUM, or FAR AWAY. Perhaps accurately enough to launch a LOAL missile and datalink it updates as to where to go look.

As an aside, I find the entire Lightning vs Rafale thread somewhat amusing. By all accounts, the Rafale is a fine Gen 4++ aircraft. But to try to put it in the same league as the F-35 seems absurd -- especially as the price of the F-35 continues to decrease.
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.
Offline

eloise

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1833
  • Joined: 27 Mar 2015, 16:05

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 16:40

steve2267 wrote:I think I missed something earlier, maybe someone can clarify? If you have a RWR receiver on each wingtip, would you not be able to potentially calculate the location (bearing / distance) of an emitter, even if it is moving, via the binocular effect of having two receivers located ~10m apart? Maybe the accuracy of the distance suffers somewhat, but I would think you could tell if the emitter is CLOSE, MEDIUM, or FAR AWAY. Perhaps accurately enough to launch a LOAL missile and datalink it updates as to where to go look.

You can start reading from here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&start=810
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 20:17

eloise wrote:
steve2267 wrote:I think I missed something earlier, maybe someone can clarify? If you have a RWR receiver on each wingtip, would you not be able to potentially calculate the location (bearing / distance) of an emitter, even if it is moving, via the binocular effect of having two receivers located ~10m apart? Maybe the accuracy of the distance suffers somewhat, but I would think you could tell if the emitter is CLOSE, MEDIUM, or FAR AWAY. Perhaps accurately enough to launch a LOAL missile and datalink it updates as to where to go look.

You can start reading from here: viewtopic.php?f=55&t=6094&start=810


You can still improve your track quality using several bearing measures during a given timeframe. Timeframe must be short enough not to take too much into account mobility, but long enough to perform a large enough amount to fuse your data (you'll have to cheat on time reference...).
The closer will be the aircraft you want to locate, the better it will be.
Other systems like EODAS or DDM NG can also help (giving other bearings)

Of course, the range will still be an estimation.

Btw, i would not place interferometers on wing tips. (wing tips are too mobile and you need the exact location of interferometers ...)
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2652
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 22:40

swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
swiss wrote:Today i was on the Breitling Sion Airshow in Switzerland. And because Swiss will have soon a evaluation for a new Fighter, all the invited manufacturers where there. Lockheed martin( sadly without a f-35), Airbus, Dassault and Saab.


From this, I gather that the Lockheed Martin's fighter aircraft that Switzerland is or will be evaluating is the F-16, right?


No it is definitively the f-35. :wink: They had a F-35 Simulator there.


Thanks for the clarification swiss. I misunderstood your initial post.
So this means that LM is afterall offering the F-35 to Switzerland. Is there any word on what version of the F-35 will be offered to Switzerland?


Also thanks for posting some of what the Eurofighter pilot told you. However there are some things which the pilot said which clearly aren't accurate. Perhaps the pilot got a bit "carried away" in his promotion of "his mount", the Eurofighter Typhoon, like for example:

swiss wrote:He said the RCS of the EF is under 1 m2 and better then the Superhornet.


There's also other data and claims that says otherwise (the SH has a lower RCS than the Eurofighter). On the other hand what that pilot said isn't the first claim that I read of the same nature (EF having a lower RCS than the SH).
So here it's safe to say that there's conflicting information/sources on the subject, with some sources saying the EF is better than the SH (like the pilot you talked to) while other sources say otherwise (SH being better than the EF).

Personally I still believe that the SH is better than the EF in terms of lower RCS since the SH has clearly more built-in RCS reduction features in the airframe.


swiss wrote:The Meteor has a superior Range to the AMRAAM. even to the D Version. And the European are happy to have the Meteor know. Because the Americans don't sell the D Modell to other countries.


Like others have said here, your pilot forgot that the Americans are selling the -D variant of the AMRAAM to Australia.


swiss wrote:The Meteor for the UK F-35 is a short version. So its has not the same range then the "normal" Meteor.


No it is not!
The "normal" Meteor can be perfectly fitted inside the F-35's weapons bay and when fitted in the internal pylons which can also be used to carry the air-to-ground ordinance.
The "shorter Meteor" is an inaccurate name since the accurate/correct name is in fact "clipped-fin Meteor" is being designed/developed in order to have a Meteor that can be fitted in the internal pylons used exclusively for the air-to-air missiles/AMRAAMs. Read here:

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/artic ... 35-347416/

Resuming, in relation to the F-35 and Meteor loadout it will be possible for a F-35 to carry internally:
- 2 x "Normal Meteors" and 2 x "AMRAAMs"
or,
- 2 x "Normal Meteors" and 2 x "clipped-fin Meteors"
or,
- 4 x "clipped-fin Meteors"

Finally, the only difference between the "normal meteor" and the "clipped-fin Meteors" is like the name says, the shorter fins in the later version but they will be otherwise equal.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2652
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post16 Sep 2017, 23:07

steve2267 wrote:
eloise wrote:Both should be able to perform single ship triangulation if the radar is on ground or stationary.
Neither should be able to perform single ship triangulation using their ELINT if target is airborne.
With that being said, short range(wvr) missiles generally don't need exact range for firing solution


This.

I think I missed something earlier, maybe someone can clarify? If you have a RWR receiver on each wingtip, would you not be able to potentially calculate the location (bearing / distance) of an emitter, even if it is moving, via the binocular effect of having two receivers located ~10m apart? Maybe the accuracy of the distance suffers somewhat, but I would think you could tell if the emitter is CLOSE, MEDIUM, or FAR AWAY. Perhaps accurately enough to launch a LOAL missile and datalink it updates as to where to go look.


Yes, I believe that most here can agree with that.
I don't think and believe that Rafale's SPECTRA can get an accurate distance data on the target. At best it can do what you said, something like CLOSE, MEDIUM or FAR.
Basically what SPECTRA (and other modern EW suites) give is a bearing to the target so that the Rafale pilot can launch a MICA IR in LOAL mode into that bearing direction and then basically the MICA will lock into the first target that it encounters on that bearing.

This seems to be something that looks somehow reminiscent of a well known Submarine warfare tactic (an "aerial warfare" counterpart) which is when a Submarine is fired upon with a Torpedo by another Submarine (which is detected by picking up the incoming Torpedo on Sonar) the targeted Submarine will fire back a Torpedo of its own towards the general direction of the incoming torpedo in order to hope for the attacking torpedo to evade (and with this deny other attacks or denying the refining of the first launched torpedo(es) firing solution) or even with some luck, destroy the attacking Submarine.

This Rafale capability, gives in my opinion a similar capability to what I described above about Sub warfare. For example if an enemy aircraft gets close and "locks" the Rafale, the Rafale will be able to launch (a MICA IR) at the enemy aircraft forcing it to evade or if it doesn't the enemy aircraft could be destroyed.


steve2267 wrote:As an aside, I find the entire Lightning vs Rafale thread somewhat amusing. By all accounts, the Rafale is a fine Gen 4++ aircraft. But to try to put it in the same league as the F-35 seems absurd -- especially as the price of the F-35 continues to decrease.


I fully agree!
Only someone completely delusional can claim that a 4++ fighter aircraft like the Rafale, Gripen NG, Typhoon, SH or Su-35 can have a chance against the F-35!
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 451
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 08:21

eloise wrote: Personally I think you should have recorded the interview, partly because you are a new member so it is harder for us to trust your words 100% nothing personal here, the skepticism apply to everyone, that how we keeps Picard and similar people from making this forum a mess, partly because some claims sound rather strange

The Meteor for the UK F-35 is a short version. So its has not the same range then the "normal" Meteor.

This make no sense, Meteor for F-35 is the clipped fin version, the diameter and length of the missiles body is the same with smaller fin, same amount of propellant. If there is any range variation the version for F-35 will have longer range due to reduced drag.

Because all Missiles have a shorter Range then the Radar.

Could be true with high RCS targets, but clearly not the case against stealth aircraft or in heavy jamming situations.

Iam not saying you are lying but it could be some misunderstanding between you and them


Thats ok for me eloise. I have to live with that as a newbe. :wink: As i said, im not expert. just i fan of military aviation.
And the friday was for me like a jackpot. To talk with all this guys.

I only quote what these guys said for sure. And it looks EF Pilot was wrong with the Meteor. The case with the Radarrange was defiantly no misunderstanding. Both the pilot and the Radaringenieur said Range is not the most imported thing at a AESA. And of course the EF is not a stealth Aircraft.

Abd i think the EF Pilot was very honest. He said also it is not possible, to do a 6 o,clock shot with the EF. He has to see the Target in his Helmet to shot the IRS-T. Also the Meteor is not capable of a 6 o'clock shoot because its to big.

He also said the 2 way Datalink its very useful. Normaly u have to rely on u sensors if the Missile seeker "sees" target at the endgame. And sometimes this is not correct. Because the is based on calculation of the bordsystem. But with the 2 way Datalink the missile "tells you" if she really has a lock on.

The resolution of the Captor-E in SAR Mod is under 10m and in category 2. What ever this means. :wink: And Range is over 200 Miles.

I talk with him also about the incident in Syria between the SH and the Su-22. And he confirm its is nearly impossible to fool a modern IR seeker. But still a modern Missiles, dosnt matter, it is a IRS-T or AIM-9X as from start a 80 % success chance.

He think there can be 3 possibilities. Malfunktion off the Missile. Or maybe the pilot can creat a "bubble" of chaff to gain time. But when the Missile comes from side the time gain is very small, because the fighter is moving very fast away from the bubble. Chance are better if the missile coms from the front and the bubble is behind the Plane. Or the SH was not in e good position to have a look on, and shot the missile to early.

The guy from Looked confirm they doing test for 6 internal AMRAAMS. He hope they can reach the IOC in a view years.
He also said a 6 o'clock shot for the f-35 is no problem on its own.

He said the engine of the F-35 has the best fuel consumption/thurst ratio out there. And there will be a version for the F-35 with several % more thrust.

I ask him also bout RCS comparison F-35 vs F-16, F-117 or Su-35. He said i understand that u trying, but no comment. :wink:
And he was fully aware was going on F-16.net. F-35 vs xy. :wink:

@ Ric. I don't ask what version of the F-35 they sell to swiss. But i think the A version. Swiss AF never had a VTOL Fighter.
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 918
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 08:48

eloise wrote:
gta4 wrote:So it is confirmed that a single Rafale cannot triangulate a target, while a single F-35 CAN :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Both should be able to perform single ship triangulation if the radar is on ground or stationary.
Neither should be able to perform single ship triangulation using their ELINT if target is airborne.
With that being said, short range(wvr) missiles generally don't need exact range for firing solution


So in a multi-vs-multi close air combat, if a missile is shot and turned 180 deg, it has the risk to lock onto a friendly aircraft, or even the launch aircraft itself.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2652
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 13:10

swiss wrote:@ Ric. I don't ask what version of the F-35 they sell to swiss. But i think the A version. Swiss AF never had a VTOL Fighter.


Ok, and again thanks for the reply and for sharing the feedback that you got during your conversations at the airshow.
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2652
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 13:25

gta4 wrote:
eloise wrote:
gta4 wrote:So it is confirmed that a single Rafale cannot triangulate a target, while a single F-35 CAN :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

Both should be able to perform single ship triangulation if the radar is on ground or stationary.
Neither should be able to perform single ship triangulation using their ELINT if target is airborne.
With that being said, short range(wvr) missiles generally don't need exact range for firing solution


So in a multi-vs-multi close air combat, if a missile is shot and turned 180 deg, it has the risk to lock onto a friendly aircraft, or even the launch aircraft itself.


If it's a Rafale doing the shot that seems to be clearly the case!
(but I don't think that the launch aircraft itself will be at risk)

Now with the F-35 that won't likely happen since the information about position/range on a target located at the rear arc ("6º clock") of the F-35 will come not only from ESM but also from DAS, so this means that even if the "6º clock" target turns off its radar or evades and as such turns its "radar cone" away from the F-35 (and thus its ESM won't be able to pick it up) this target will still be followed/tracked by DAS which means that updated and accurate data heading and range can be sent to the missile (thru data-link) and thus avoiding any "blue-on-blue" incidents or otherwise hitting a non-intended target. The Rafale doesn't have this capability (Note: This scenario is without AWACS or other "3rd party platform" present and sharing data).

Moreover note that in the scenario above I didn't even mention the sharing and fusion of data coming from other F-35s (wingmen for example) or AWACS/Other platforms. The scenario above is for a sole F-35 (independently of how unlikely that scenario will be in the future).
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline

cavok

Banned

  • Posts: 141
  • Joined: 11 Sep 2017, 19:52

Unread post17 Sep 2017, 17:53

updated and accurate data heading and range can be sent to the missile


The EODAS (aswell as Rafale DDM-NG, even if EODAS is probably more powerful) will have exactly the same triangulation issue as RWRs.

Another source of data could be the adverse radar libraries. Power recieved may be a good indicator of range.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests