F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Oct 2018, 20:33

swiss wrote:Well if the Russians can directly switch from a 4 to a 6 gen, no doubt the French/German can do this also. :wink:


You're joking, right? :wink:

Anyways, say what you will about the Russians but at least they have something that somehow resembles more to a 5th gen fighter aircraft (namely compared to any European fighter aircraft in existence) already flying even if it's still in a sort of a "prototype stage" (I'm obviously talking about the Su-57).


swiss wrote:The Model looks really nice. But there is a long, end especially expensive way to go for first Europe 5 gen.


Yeah, I fully agree here.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 07:43

ricnunes wrote:
swiss wrote:Well if the Russians can directly switch from a 4 to a 6 gen, no doubt the French/German can do this also. :wink:


You're joking, right? :wink:

Anyways, say what you will about the Russians but at least they have something that somehow resembles more to a 5th gen fighter aircraft (namely compared to any European fighter aircraft in existence) already flying even if it's still in a sort of a "prototype stage" (I'm obviously talking about the Su-57).


Yes. The Su-57 "looks" like 5 gen. But the only advantage, compare to the latest western 4 gen seems to be the internal weaponbay. Im really curious how the "story" goes on with the development of the Su-57.
Offline

mixelflick

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3446
  • Joined: 20 Mar 2010, 10:26
  • Location: Parts Unknown

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 14:43

It's been 8 years since the prototype first flew. They have around a dozen test birds, not all of them flyable. Talk early was of it being operational in 2013, then 14, 15 and 16. I think they stopped making predictions after that, given it was embarrassing every time they missed "IOC". Then, the big "combat deployment" to Syria of 2, maybe 4 birds for TWO days. Along the way, India pulled out of the program, so there goes a rather big chunk of funding. In 2018 they got the "stage 2" engine flying, and placed an order for 12 production aircraft the first of which is to be "operational" in 2019.

They also mentioned in their press release there would be no mass production. I take that to mean less than 100 aircraft, perhaps 50. But hey when you're taking a 4+++ platform and morphing it to 6th gen via magic, skipping over a 5th gen is just another trick to woo the audience.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post25 Oct 2018, 22:03

swiss wrote:The Su-57 "looks" like 5 gen. But the only advantage, compare to the latest western 4 gen seems to be the internal weaponbay.


You have to agree that's a very big advantage since it enables the aircraft to use it's RCS reduction in full while at the same time being combat relevant, no?

swiss wrote:Im really curious how the "story" goes on with the development of the Su-57.


Yeah, me too.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 14:50

ricnunes wrote:
swiss wrote:The Su-57 "looks" like 5 gen. But the only advantage, compare to the latest western 4 gen seems to be the internal weaponbay.


You have to agree that's a very big advantage since it enables the aircraft to use it's RCS reduction in full while at the same time being combat relevant, no?


Absolutely. Especially for a real stealth Aircraft. But i think its still not clear how many, and what kind of Weapons fit in this bays, something like 2000 lbs Jdam for example. Also no evidence for firing a R-77 from that internal bays. And problem is the Su-57 Prototyps have an average RCS of 0.5m. thats roughly the same RCS as a SH, EF etc have in a A to A mission. Because modern western AAM und EFT have a frontal RCS of under 0.1m2. Also in Avionics they are still behind ( IIR Sensor and AESA). I have no doubt, the Su-57 has the potential to be superior to every 4 gen out there. But im skeptical if the UAC have the money and technology to reach there goals. And at the moment its seem even unclear, if there is a Fleet of Su-57 in the Future.

BTW we should go back to topic. :wink:
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 18:09

swiss wrote:Absolutely. Especially for a real stealth Aircraft. But i think its still not clear how many, and what kind of Weapons fit in this bays, something like 2000 lbs Jdam for example.


The Russians claim that the Su-57 will be able to carry air-to-ground weapons and I see weapons up to 1,000lb mentioned (including cruise missiles). But how many and what weapons actually are, is yet to be seen.
I honestly doubt it will carry internally something like a 2,000lb class air-to-ground ordinance but this is only a personally opinion.

There's even this video of a Su-57 releasing a cruise missile but to be honest with you I'm a bit skeptical about it:



swiss wrote:Also no evidence for firing a R-77 from that internal bays. And problem is the Su-57 Prototyps have an average RCS of 0.5m. thats roughly the same RCS as a SH, EF etc have in a A to A mission. Because modern western AAM und EFT have a frontal RCS of under 0.1m2. Also in Avionics they are still behind ( IIR Sensor and AESA). I have no doubt, the Su-57 has the potential to be superior to every 4 gen out there. But im skeptical if the UAC have the money and technology to reach there goals. And at the moment its seem even unclear, if there is a Fleet of Su-57 in the Future.


For the most part I agree with you, except on the average RCS value regarding the SH, Rafale or Typhoon with Air-to-Air weapons.
So lets assume that the Russians get it right and the Su-57 can indeed carry what is projected to in terms of air-to-air weaponry, which is four (4) R-77 within the main internal weapons bay plus two (2) R-73 in the side (and small) weapon bays or resuming a total of 6 Air-to-Air Missiles.
In this case the Su-57 RCS (average of course) of 0.5 square meters is still maintained (compared to a clean aircraft) which is similar to the (also average) RCS of fighter aircraft like the SH, Rafale and EF but only when clean (and this is where my opinion diverges a bit with yours).
Now looking at the SH, Rafale and EF with a similar air-to-air loadout (6 air-to-air missiles) and doing a very rough math you'll have something like 0.5(clean aircraft)+0.6(6 air-to-air missiles with 0.1 square meter RCS each) which equals something like a RCS of 1.1. Yes, one can argue that the missiles probably have a RCS a bit lower than 0.1 but then again you need to have into account the pylon's RCS.
Ok, lets settle/round for a RCS of 1 square meter for the SH, Rafale or Typhoon when carrying 6 air-to-air missiles. That's already twice the Su-57 RCS of 0.5 square meters.
And the RCS of 1 square meter for the SH, Rafale, Typhoon, etc... will increase even further and quite so if External Fuel Tanks are to be attached (which in the case of these aircraft, usually are).

But I fully agree with you that everything about the Su-57 is still "yet to be seen".


swiss wrote:BTW we should go back to topic. :wink:


Why? To continuing to state the obvious when comparing the F-35 vs Rafale? :mrgreen:
(but yeah, I get your point)
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 20:50

Typhoon will carry four of its MRAAMs semi-recessed and Rafale and SHornet at least two. The pylons are probably not that bad head on because they are usually angled but obviously from the sides there is a penalty but then again so is the fuselage on 4th gen aircraft. Head on maybe 0.07 sq m for an aam/pylon combination ? The F-35 ones are even less as they are built for stealth.

I think even with 6 AAMs the western fighters are not at a big frontal RCS disadvantage to Su-57 if at all. Only if they are carrying fuel tanks/bombs/pods does the RCS start piling up over 1 sq m. Of course there is the drag issue too along with endurance. Perhaps with just semi-recessed missiles it's pretty even. Even the F-16 with just wing tip AMRAAMs is only around 1 sq m. Western 4th gen fighters are pretty good on the semi-stealthy front with only the Su-35 and Su-57 making a serious attempt on the Russian side.

On the plus side for those Russian aircraft are their big radars which for the N036 Belka the Russians claim is more powerful than the APG-77 e.g. RCS of 1 square meter detected at distances up to 300 km while they claim the APG-77 does the same up to 225 km. For targets with an RCS of 0.01 square meters, the Russian radar’s range is 90 km. So the Su-57 should still detect the Western 4.5 gens first on the radar alone even if the RCS configurations were in the same ballpark.
Last edited by marsavian on 26 Oct 2018, 23:58, edited 3 times in total.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post26 Oct 2018, 21:07

ricnunes wrote:
For the most part I agree with you, except on the average RCS value regarding the SH, Rafale or Typhoon with Air-to-Air weapons.
So lets assume that the Russians get it right and the Su-57 can indeed carry what is projected to in terms of air-to-air weaponry, which is four (4) R-77 within the main internal weapons bay plus two (2) R-73 in the side (and small) weapon bays or resuming a total of 6 Air-to-Air Missiles.
In this case the Su-57 RCS (average of course) of 0.5 square meters is still maintained (compared to a clean aircraft) which is similar to the (also average) RCS of fighter aircraft like the SH, Rafale and EF but only when clean (and this is where my opinion diverges a bit with yours).
Now looking at the SH, Rafale and EF with a similar air-to-air loadout (6 air-to-air missiles) and doing a very rough math you'll have something like 0.5(clean aircraft)+0.6(6 air-to-air missiles with 0.1 square meter RCS each) which equals something like a RCS of 1.1. Yes, one can argue that the missiles probably have a RCS a bit lower than 0.1 but then again you need to have into account the pylon's RCS.
Ok, lets settle/round for a RCS of 1 square meter for the SH, Rafale or Typhoon when carrying 6 air-to-air missiles. That's already twice the Su-57 RCS of 0.5 square meters.
And the RCS of 1 square meter for the SH, Rafale, Typhoon, etc... will increase even further and quite so if External Fuel Tanks are to be attached (which in the case of these aircraft, usually are).



Of course it depends what kind of numbers you assume.

I remember me on a post from Hornetfinn.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=53285&start=105

I think people often overestimate the RCS effect of external stores, especially modern equipment and weapons. Sure they will increase RCS of F-35 or F-22 by huge amounts, but not so much for 4th gen aircraft as their clean RCS is way bigger. I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters. I'd guess that with 2 EFTs, 2 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9X and 2 JDAMs it will probably (my WAG) be something like 1 square meter from frontal sector (but with very large spikes from sides).


That would mean under 1m2 only with AAM's and EFT.

But as you said its all theoretical also long the Su-57 is not in service.

Lets talk about F-35 vs Rafale. :wink:
Offline
User avatar

popcorn

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 7703
  • Joined: 24 Sep 2008, 08:55

Unread post27 Oct 2018, 00:04

swiss wrote:Lets talk about F-35 vs Rafale. :wink:

OK, back to apples and bananas :D
"When a fifth-generation fighter meets a fourth-generation fighter—the [latter] dies,”
CSAF Gen. Mark Welsh
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Oct 2018, 01:41

swiss wrote:Of course it depends what kind of numbers you assume.

I remember me on a post from Hornetfinn.

viewtopic.php?f=33&t=53285&start=105

I think people often overestimate the RCS effect of external stores, especially modern equipment and weapons. Sure they will increase RCS of F-35 or F-22 by huge amounts, but not so much for 4th gen aircraft as their clean RCS is way bigger. I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters. I'd guess that with 2 EFTs, 2 AMRAAMs, 2 AIM-9X and 2 JDAMs it will probably (my WAG) be something like 1 square meter from frontal sector (but with very large spikes from sides).


That would mean under 1m2 only with AAM's and EFT.

But as you said its all theoretical also long the Su-57 is not in service.



Obviously I don't disagree with Hornetfinn's post however I think we must look at his post into context.
First what he said with the first part that I put on bold and underline seems IMO to obviously compare the impact of external stores on non-stealth or semi-stealth aircraft being much less compared to stealth aircraft. That's obviously correct even because the RCS of a single air-to-air missile is lower than the RCS of a non-stealth or semi-stealth aircraft while the RCS of the same air-to-air missile is higher than the RCS of a stealth aircraft like the F-35.

So yes, the impact of external stores is much, much bigger on actual stealth aircraft compared to non-stealth or semi-stealth.

However here we're are basically discussing/comparing semi-stealth aircraft in which one of them can carry its weapons internally (Su-57) while the others (SH, Rafale, Typhoon) cannot. So independently of how much RCS a missile (or six missiles) will add in terms of RCS to an aircraft, this will always be an advantage that the Su-57 will always have over aircraft like the SH, Rafale or Typhoon.
Oh and EFTs should have a considerable impact on RCS, likely bigger than what you're assuming (they certainly have a quite bigger RCS than an air-to-air missile).

Regarding the other part that I put on bold and underline on Hornetfinn's post ("I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters"): At which aspect of the RCS is he referring to? I would say that 0.1 square meter is definitely a frontal RCS value and not an average value.
As such (and if this is the case) I don't think that it's fare to compare the average RCS value of one aircraft (Su-57 with 0.5 square meters) with the frontal RCS of the other aircraft (SH with 0.1 square meters). What I mean is that if we use the average RCS values (and we should because they are the most commonly known values) and if I'm not mistaken I remember to have read that in average the RCS of aircraft such as the SH, Rafale or Typhoon seems to be around 0.5 - and I even read 0.9 square meters for the SH - so and hence why I'm assuming that the average RCS of the Su-57 with internal weapons is the same or very similar as the average RCS of a clean SH, Rafale or Typhoon, if not a bit lower.



swiss wrote:Lets talk about F-35 vs Rafale. :wink:


Humm... nah :mrgreen: (this is more fun, LOL)
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post27 Oct 2018, 16:21

popcorn wrote:OK, back to apples and bananas :D


Thes question is who is the banana and who the apple. :wink: But i get your point.

ricnunes wrote:Regarding the other part that I put on bold and underline on Hornetfinn's post ("I'd say that a clean Block 2 SH has RCS of say 0.1 square meters"): At which aspect of the RCS is he referring to? I would say that 0.1 square meter is definitely a frontal RCS value and not an average value.
As such (and if this is the case) I don't think that it's fare to compare the average RCS value of one aircraft (Su-57 with 0.5 square meters) with the frontal RCS of the other aircraft (SH with 0.1 square meters). What I mean is that if we use the average RCS values (and we should because they are the most commonly known values) and if I'm not mistaken I remember to have read that in average the RCS of aircraft such as the SH, Rafale or Typhoon seems to be around 0.5 - and I even read 0.9 square meters for the SH - so and hence why I'm assuming that the average RCS of the Su-57 with internal weapons is the same or very similar as the average RCS of a clean SH, Rafale or Typhoon, if not a bit lower.


I agree with you that the RCS from the SH is from the front. I would guess the su-57 is also front. Because the engine faces of the Pak-Fa are still fully visible compere to Rafale, EF and SH. This is one of main sources to increase the RCS. And also According to a defence ministry official ( India) the Su-57 has a RCS of 0.5m compere to 20m2 RCS from the Su-30.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 074_1.html

And we know the frontal RCS of the Su-27/30 is 20m2.

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM

According this study postet from Hornetfinn (page. 43,44) the Frontal RSC of a EFT is under 1m2 (+/-60°)

http://www.thesis.bilkent.edu.tr/0002901.pdf



Combine with 6 AAM, 2 IR-missels (0.005m2) and 4 AMRAAM/Meteor ( 0.05m2) we have a frontal RCS increase of roughly 0.3m.

But i fully agree, from the side the Su-57 has the clear advantage has long he has no EFT's.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post27 Oct 2018, 21:49

swiss wrote:I agree with you that the RCS from the SH is from the front. I would guess the su-57 is also front. Because the engine faces of the Pak-Fa are still fully visible compere to Rafale, EF and SH. This is one of main sources to increase the RCS. And also According to a defence ministry official ( India) the Su-57 has a RCS of 0.5m compere to 20m2 RCS from the Su-30.

https://www.business-standard.com/artic ... 074_1.html

And we know the frontal RCS of the Su-27/30 is 20m2.

http://vivovoco.astronet.ru/VV/JOURNAL/ ... STELLS.HTM



Actually if you look at the diagram which you're basing your Su-27 RCS values and which is I'll re-post below you can see that 20 square meter RCS seems to actually be the Su-27's average RCS - The frontal RCS (0 degrees) seems to even spike up to 30 square meters (unless I'm reading the chart wrongly).
What this IMO seems to show is that the Su-27 designers didn't have concerns about reducing the aircraft's RCS, namely its frontal RCS which is basically a bit of the opposite regarding the Su-57 design where a reduced RCS was indeed a major concern and as such I believe that the Su-57 frontal RCS would get an even bigger attention (specially compared to the early Su-27 development).
And as such all of this leaves me even more convinced that the 0.5 square meter RCS value for the Su-57 is an average RCS and not the frontal RCS.

Image
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 430
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post27 Oct 2018, 22:56

ricnunes wrote:Actually if you look at the diagram which you're basing your Su-27 RCS values and which is I'll re-post below you can see that 20 square meter RCS seems to actually be the Su-27's average RCS - The frontal RCS (0 degrees) seems to even spike up to 30 square meters (unless I'm reading the chart wrongly).
What this IMO seems to show is that the Su-27 designers didn't have concerns about reducing the aircraft's RCS, namely its frontal RCS which is basically a bit of the opposite regarding the Su-57 design where a reduced RCS was indeed a major concern and as such I believe that the Su-57 frontal RCS would get an even bigger attention (specially compared to the early Su-27 development).
And as such all of this leaves me even more convinced that the 0.5 square meter RCS value for the Su-57 is an average RCS and not the frontal RCS.

Image


The frontal RCS is always the lowest. At least 20m2 is the frontal average RCS (+/-30°) of the su-27 (left side). On the right side the dotted line is a Su-27 coated with RAM with roughly 10m2. Like the Su-35. And as you can see, directly from the side the RCS is over 40 m2. So the average RCS of the whole aircraft is clearly higher then the frontal. Same goes for Su-57, SH, Rafale, F-35 or F-22.

The diagram in english

Image

And there was also thread here about this.

viewtopic.php?f=55&t=16457&start=435
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2168
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post28 Oct 2018, 01:46

swiss wrote:The frontal RCS is always the lowest. At least 20m2 is the frontal average RCS (+/-30°) of the su-27 (left side). On the right side the dotted line is a Su-27 coated with RAM with roughly 10m2. Like the Su-35. And as you can see, directly from the side the RCS is over 40 m2. So the average RCS of the whole aircraft is clearly higher then the frontal. Same goes for Su-57, SH, Rafale, F-35 or F-22.


The frontal RCS is "usually" (I wouldn't use the word "always" and this chart seems to be a good reason for it) the lowest for aircraft, specially for those where lower RCS was a consideration, yes indeed.

But I couldn't stop myself of being surprised that in the case of the Su-27 - namely the "baseline" Su-27 (the one without RCS reduction measures) - that its frontal RCS is actually not lower than the rest of the aspects except for a very, very narrow spike located at around 45 degrees (2 and 10 o'clock) and like you said, in the side areas at 90 degrees (3 and 9 o'clock respectively).

For the rest of the aircraft aspects, the RCS is basically the same or very similar to the frontal RCS, this again for the "baseline" Su-27. Actually there are parts between 4 and 5 o'clock and between 7 and 8 o'clock (120-150 and 210-240 degrees respectively) where the RCS seems to be considerably lower than the frontal RCS (and thus lower on average than the 20 square meters value). This I believe, can be clearly observed on the chart.

Also note that with the exception of that very, very narrow spike at around 45 degrees that the RCS spikes don't diverge much until they hit the sides areas at around 90 degrees, areas of which are also relatively narrow (more or less 10 degrees wide).

As as such, I'm more than willing to bet that the average all-around RCS of the "baseline Su-27" by taking into account the chart above is indeed those (or around those) 20 square meters. I almost have no doubts about this.
So I still maintain that the Su-27 average RCS (the "baseline one" without the RCS reduction measures) is indeed the 20 square meters that it's also - I grant - very similar to the average RCS of the aircraft's frontal sector.
And again, this was a bit of a surprise to me since I was indeed and initially also expecting a quite lower frontal RCS compared to other angles but this is clearly not the case with the Su-27.
A 4th/4.5th gen fighter aircraft stands about as much chance against a F-35 as a guns-only Sabre has against a Viper.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1266
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post28 Oct 2018, 02:27

Probably shows the influence of the engine fans head on.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests