F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 17:12

gta4 wrote:First thing first, if SH uses only the conformal pylons for amraams under its air intake there is not problem with canted pylons at all.

I don't get your point. Pylon cant is still there, causing drag and increasing fuel consumption.

Secondly, SH itself is not a draggy air frame. Low sweep wing means lower subsonic induced drag and higher Lift/Drag ratio, even though it may give you an impression of high drag. Remember a superhornet has better subsonic acceleration than a clean Flanker.

SH accelerates slower through the Mach than the legacy and the Viper.
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 17:20

gta4 wrote:First thing first, if SH uses only the conformal pylons for amraams under its air intake there is not problem with canted pylons at all.


So... a loadout of only two AMRAAMs? Well, that not very useful.

Secondly, SH itself is not a draggy air frame. Low sweep wing means lower subsonic induced drag and higher Lift/Drag ratio, even though it may give you an impression of high drag. Remember a superhornet has better subsonic acceleration than a clean Flanker.


Look at this performance chart below then tell me with a straight face that the SH isnt a draggy airframe. It can barely hit Mach 1.6 with two AMRAAMs under the air intakes and two Sidewinders on the wingtips and without any EFTs.

With a more realistic loadout, it struggles to reach Mach 1.2 and it can only do it above 30K feet...
Attachments
FA-18E-F Super Hornet TURN+LEVEL NATOPS PERFORMANCE DATA.gif
Last edited by Tiger05 on 23 Feb 2019, 17:25, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

Tiger05

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 91
  • Joined: 28 Apr 2005, 15:55

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 17:23

gta4 wrote:And, it is not correct to assume "what if I put XXX engine on XXX aircraft" without considering the airflow modification and weight penalty to the airframe. If you put F414 onto Rafale you need to enlarge the airintake for more airflow, strengthen the fuselage, making the airframe heavier, making center of gravity shift, so some ballast is required, and Rafale's wing loading is higher which makes the rafale even more vulnerable against a SH in a one-circle fight (the tightest turner in Indian MMRCA test is SH, not Rafale). There is a chain effect in every aspect.


I was daydreaming. It was not a serious proposition. Lighten up.

Btw the Rafale has flown with US engines before, namely the GE F404 from the F/A-18 which was used early in the Rafale A test program before the M88 was ready so there is at least one precedent.
Offline
User avatar

white_lightning35

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 401
  • Joined: 18 Sep 2016, 03:07
  • Location: Home of nuclear submarines, engines, and that's about it.

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 18:09

ricnunes wrote:And where's sources that state that a similiary loaded SH is much more draggy than a Rafale. Or, where is the source that state that a clean Super Hornet is much more draggy than a clean Rafale?

Because last time I checked both aircraft (Super Hornet and Rafale) had pretty much the same Top Speed ( Mach 1.8 ) when clean, so my guess would be that the drag diference between both aircraft shouldn't be that big as you seem to imply. So execuse my if I have my doubts about your rambling above.

Are pilot testimonies on the very high level of drag that is caused by external stores on the SH not enough? I'm pretty sure a link to that discussion has been posted on here before. What about SH performance charts? And I thought someone who has over 1700 posts on this forum would have seen by now the futility of comparing top speeds, which can be artificially limited, in order to determine overall kinematics.

ricnunes wrote:So I retort you the medication advise and now I advise you to check a doctor about your aparent memory loses :roll:


Ah yes, back to your old ways of telling people to take medication and see doctors. Truly a testament to your quality debating style.
And yes, I am aware that f4u7_corsair brought those things up first, which definitely makes it okay.
Offline

f-16adf

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 741
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2016, 17:46

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 19:08

Here is what a US Naval Super Hornet pilot had to say about Rafale (and yes, it's the heavier Marine version).

https://news.usni.org/2018/06/03/rafale ... per-hornet



“The Rafale is a rocket,” Lt. Brandon Rodgers from the Golden Warriors of Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 87 War Party said while speaking with the media aboard Bush.

In general, the Rafale and Super Hornet have about the same maneuverability, Rodgers said. While flying training missions and practicing engagements, Rodgers said the difference has really come down to which pilots know how to handle their aircraft best.

The Rafale is a lighter airframe but doesn’t carry the same type of armament as the Super Hornet. Still, when not fully loaded, Rodgers said the Rafale can pull some moves outside of the Super Hornet’s capabilities.

“When the Rafale is light, when nothing’s on it, it can pretty much stand on its tail and go straight up,” Rodgers said. “When you’re on the deck and watch them go straight up, you’re like, alright, I guess I can’t do that with you. It’s pretty cool.”







As 35AOA has said the SH is draggy. I've had an Australian pilot (who has flown both the legacy A model and SH) tell me the near exact same thing.

The SH can probably out rate/radius the Rafale from under .6IMN. From .7IMN and upward I'd bet the Rafale has a better turn rate/radius. And between .6-.7IMN being near similar(to equal) for both.





I'm American, and I believe Dassault makes very effective jets (Mirage III, Mirage IV, Mirage F1, Rafale). And glad that both our countries are great allies.
Last edited by f-16adf on 23 Feb 2019, 23:07, edited 1 time in total.
Offline

f4u7_corsair

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 132
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post23 Feb 2019, 19:21

f-16adf wrote:I'm American, and I believe Dassault makes every effective jets (Mirage III, Mirage IV, Mirage F1, Rafale). And glad that both our countries are great allies.

The Chesapeake deployment last year was a great moment of that alliance!
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 887
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 04:32

Tiger05 wrote:
gta4 wrote:First thing first, if SH uses only the conformal pylons for amraams under its air intake there is not problem with canted pylons at all.


So... a loadout of only two AMRAAMs? Well, that not very useful.

Secondly, SH itself is not a draggy air frame. Low sweep wing means lower subsonic induced drag and higher Lift/Drag ratio, even though it may give you an impression of high drag. Remember a superhornet has better subsonic acceleration than a clean Flanker.


Look at this performance chart below then tell me with a straight face that the SH isnt a draggy airframe. It can barely hit Mach 1.6 with two AMRAAMs under the air intakes and two Sidewinders on the wingtips and without any EFTs.

With a more realistic loadout, it struggles to reach Mach 1.2 and it can only do it above 30K feet...


I mean subsonic, not transonic.

A clean Flanker at 18920 kg flying weight has an average acceleration of 9.26m/s^2 at subsonic, while a 38000lbs Super hornet (definitely carries more fuel than a 18920 kg flanker) has an average acceleration of 9.77m/s^2
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2351
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 05:14

What F414-powered airframe really pushes past Mach 1.6?

The engines is not exactly meant for Mach 3 service.
Offline

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4544
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 06:39

madrat wrote:What F414-powered airframe really pushes past Mach 1.6?

The engines is not exactly meant for Mach 3 service.

The F404 and F414 are pretty much the opposite of the J-79s (where EVERYTHING was M2+).
"Spurts"

-Pilot
-Aerospace Engineer
-Army Medic
-FMS Systems Engineer
Offline

wil59

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 222
  • Joined: 05 May 2015, 09:50

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 10:33

Tiger05 wrote:
gta4 wrote:And, it is not correct to assume "what if I put XXX engine on XXX aircraft" without considering the airflow modification and weight penalty to the airframe. If you put F414 onto Rafale you need to enlarge the airintake for more airflow, strengthen the fuselage, making the airframe heavier, making center of gravity shift, so some ballast is required, and Rafale's wing loading is higher which makes the rafale even more vulnerable against a SH in a one-circle fight (the tightest turner in Indian MMRCA test is SH, not Rafale). There is a chain effect in every aspect.


I was daydreaming. It was not a serious proposition. Lighten up.

Btw the Rafale has flown with US engines before, namely the GE F404 from the F/A-18 which was used early in the Rafale A test program before the M88 was ready so there is at least one precedent.
///Yes.
Passer à la langue suivante : françaisThe ACX program was launched at the beginning of 1983, resulting both from an agreement between the Navy and the Air Force for a single aircraft, and at the same time the withdrawal of France from a European fighter program that would become the Eurofighter. At that time, two prototypes were planned. However, the order was reduced to one copy.
The construction began in March 1984 even before a contract was signed with the DGA and the prototype, registered F-ZJRE, leaves the factory in Saint-Cloud on December 13 or 14, 1985 with a few weeks ahead of schedule. forecasts. The M88 engines are not yet ready, or in any case considered sufficiently mature, and it is equipped with 2 General Electric F404-GE-400 engines of 4500 kgp (7250 kg with PC). It weighs 9.5 tons. It is then presented by Bruno Revellin-Falcoz to Marcel Dassault, who, seeing him, predicts "that he will fly well because he is beautiful". But Marcel Dassault will never see him steal: he died on April 17, 1986 ...
The prototype flies for the first time July 4, 1986 in Istres in the hands of Guy Mitaux-Maurouard, with 6 months ahead of schedule. This flight lasted one hour and the Rafale A exceeded Mach 1 (more exactly, Mach 1.32) in supercruising from this flight, as well as the altitude of 11000 meters and a load factor of 5G. It lands in 300 meters. On July 17th, on the 6th flight, he crossed Mach 1.8. It was presented to the public in Farnborough in September 1986, then at the Paris Air Show the following year. The evaluation by the CEV begins in November 1986.
It flies at Mach 1.9 to 15000 meters, Mach 0.95 at very low altitude, at least 180 km / h, and supports 8G continuously. At that time, Belgium, Denmark, Norway and the Netherlands are interested to consider a multinational project that never materialized ...
The Rafale A reached Mach 2 at its 93rd flight on March 4, 1987.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 771
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 12:24

madrat wrote:What F414-powered airframe really pushes past Mach 1.6?

Gripen E (M2).
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 12:53

white_lightning35 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:And where's sources that state that a similiary loaded SH is much more draggy than a Rafale. Or, where is the source that state that a clean Super Hornet is much more draggy than a clean Rafale?

Because last time I checked both aircraft (Super Hornet and Rafale) had pretty much the same Top Speed ( Mach 1.8 ) when clean, so my guess would be that the drag diference between both aircraft shouldn't be that big as you seem to imply. So execuse my if I have my doubts about your rambling above.

Are pilot testimonies on the very high level of drag that is caused by external stores on the SH not enough? I'm pretty sure a link to that discussion has been posted on here before. What about SH performance charts? And I thought someone who has over 1700 posts on this forum would have seen by now the futility of comparing top speeds, which can be artificially limited, in order to determine overall kinematics.


I never said that the SH has a similar level of drag compared to the Rafale, did I?
And I never said that the SH didn't have more drag than the Rafale, did I?

What I did say was that some people here often state that the SH has some brutal drag which I don't believe or else the aircraft wouldn't be supersonic for instance.
Yes, it is more draggy than a F-15, F-16 or Rafale for example, so what? Does this impair the Super Hornet from doing the same roles/tasks as those other aircraft? Definitely not!

white_lightning35 wrote:
ricnunes wrote:So I retort you the medication advise and now I advise you to check a doctor about your aparent memory loses :roll:


Ah yes, back to your old ways of telling people to take medication and see doctors. Truly a testament to your quality debating style.
And yes, I am aware that f4u7_corsair brought those things up first, which definitely makes it okay.



So if you are aware that "f4u7_corsair brought those things up first" why aren't you taking any of that accusations to him, or to him first?? Why did you come straight at me?
While previously I was starting to believe that you had something against me, now I'm pretty sure of this - this post/stance of yours clearly shows this.
I don't have any problems having a heated debates when all of us have strong convictions - such as the ones that I'm having with f4u7_corsair - but what you're doing here goes even further than simple personal attacks (it's almost a stalking behavior).

Anyway, I tried to reason with you in the other thread and I even tried to reason with you thru PM (private Message) which I didn't get any reply. So, this is the last time that I'll try to reason with you regarding such issues.
“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: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 13:11

Tiger05 wrote:While i think that the SH is probably more advanced than the Rafale M when it comes to radar and avionics, however there is no doubt in my mind that the Rafale M is a much more optimized design and successful compromise that the SH could ever be. An Americanized Rafale M with US radar and avionics, F414 engines, JHMCS and US weapons... Now that would be something. :)


Absolutely, and I fully agree with what you said above.

If you look back (and I invite other to it as well), what I meant from the start of this conversation was that I placed the Super Hornet and the Rafale in an even position as being the "second place" for the best (conventional - CTOL) carrier based aircraft (being the F-35C the first).

- The Super Hornet like you correctly said as the advantage over the Rafale in Radar and other avionics and carries more ordinance (this case more air-to-air missiles).
- The Rafale on the other hand has better performance, namely in terms of energy/acceleration compared to the Super Hornet. I also grant that SPECTRA may have an edge over IDECM.


Tiger05 wrote:
And you're saying that a SH loadout with 10-12 air-to-air missiles is unfeasible due to the drag and lack of endurance. Oh boy...


Not unfeasible but impractical, thats for sure.


Again look at one of my previous posts - the one that shows the SH armed with 10 x 1000lb JDAMs. That configuration was used in a real combat mission over Syria.
Yes, it's not a usual configuration I grant but it's definitely practical - practical enough to be used in actual combat.
So if a 10 x 1000lb JDAMs can be used in combat, surely the usage of a 10-12 air-to-air missile configuration would be much more practical and feasible, even because the a drag of any air-to-air missile (such as the AMRAAM) is much lower than the drag of a 1000lb JDAM.

Again, what I mean that if you have a Super Hornet and a Rafale similarly configured then the Super Hornet will have the edge in terms of the number of air-to-air missiles carried.
“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: 2243
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 13:58

f4u7_corsair wrote:
ricnunes wrote:(links)
The first two state ">60 nautical miles" (more than 60 nautical miles) while the later states "about 80nm", this of course for the APG-73.

Good enough?

No, because it does not state what kind of target this figure is valid for (RCS). Confirms that you just pulled numbers of your hat for your APG-79 vs RBE2 guesstimation on the basis of biased APG-73 data interpretation. But I'm used to that coming from you.


Most of the detection range values from US Radars seem to use the F-16 (or a similar RCS sized target) as the reference point for radar detection range figures which puts the target in the same 30 square foot ballpark as per the RBE PESA radar specs.
Anyway, I don't believe that detection range of the APG-73 is against a target with a bigger RCS than 30 square foot.
Moreover even if both the APG-73 and RBE PESA have basically the same/similar detection range against the same target, this proves that the APG-79 has a longer detection range than the RBE AESA since the former has a detection 2 to 3 times bigger than its "predecessor" (APG-73) while the later has a detection range somehow lower than 2 times the predecessor (RBE PESA).

Even if the above is somehow a "guesstimate" it is nevertheless based on some facts/sources while "RBE AESA having the same range as the APG-79" is not even there!
Or resuming, the "RBE AESA having the same range as the APG-79" claim doesn't even seem to be based on any tangible source.
So it's funny that you seem to doubt that the APG-79 has a longer detection range than the RBE AESA as compared to having the same/similar detection range.


f4u7_corsair wrote:Point taken, apologies for the poor wording. You're seriously overreacting though.


Ok, apologies accepted.

Yes, I admit that I may have overreacted, so apologies from my part as well.


f4u7_corsair wrote:Where the hell did I say that the METEOR was fielded in bigger numbers than the 120D?


You didn't directly said that, however you said this:
f4u7_corsair wrote:Qualification is a thing, widespread use is another. It's probable that most USN units keep a majority of AMRAAM Cs in their inventories. AMRAAM Ds are expensive, and the Cs have probably some years of shelf life ahead of them to justify a massive order of its successor.


When there was a discussion ongoing between a tentative Super Hornet armed with AIM-120D versus a Rafale armed with Meteor which afterwards unfolded like that:
1- A poster asked if the US Navy already fielded the AIM-120D which I replied with source, that yes.
2- Then you came up with the comment above in the sequence of the same conversation.
3- Then I pointed out that the AIM-120D was at the same stage but likely more advanced (including number of missiles fielded) compared to the Meteor within French Forces.

So yes, IMO you were clearly implying that the Super Hornet wouldn't currently use the AIM-120D due to "low availability" of the weapon (which I actually and partially agree), so what I did was to point out that the same issue would also affect (and likely even more so) the Meteor usage on the Rafale.

f4u7_corsair wrote:I spoke about qualification, in case you have reading comprehension difficulties.


So, above you apologize for your "wording" above but now you're again at it?!

"poor wording" again?? :roll:

Guess, that it's not me who's having some "comprehension difficulties"...

And then you (and "apparently" white_lightning35 as well) wonder why I "overreact", go figure why! :roll:
“Active stealth” is what the ignorant nay sayers call ECM and pretend like it’s new.
Offline
User avatar

marsavian

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1331
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2018, 21:55

Unread post24 Feb 2019, 15:25

ricnunes wrote:Now the APG-79 AESA radar is said to have 2 to 3 time more the detection range compared to the APG-73 MSA radar!

Who is saying this ?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests