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: 129
  • Joined: 27 Apr 2015, 17:28

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 12:58

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xua3049KJg

31:20 for supercruise capability.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 13:59

swiss wrote:
Hello Ric. :)

I talked only bout the Air to Air domain. Were the EF scored with 3 and the SH with 2.

No doubt, the SH is the better multirole fighter than the Typhoon.


Hi Swiss,

Could you share (or do you have a link to the) document that states that score above?
Note that I'm not doubting you. I'm asking this because I couldn't find that source (despite trying to look for it).

By the way and in the sequence of one of your previously posts, it is important to once again to mention and notice that I'm not saying that Super Hornet is better (or not) than X or Y fighter aircraft like the Rafale or Typhoon in the Air-to-Air domain in "overall terms".
What I'm saying that in an eventual air-to-air confrontation between a SH and a Rafale, the SH would have the advantage in terms of Radar (again this is what we're discussing here, not the aircraft's general capabilities) and the number of air-to-air missiles carried while the Rafale would have the advantage over the SH in other features.


swiss wrote:Agreed, according to this article you were right. But this article was written in January 2005 bevor the APG-79 completed formal operational evaluation (OPEVAL) testing in December 2006. And after that the DOT&E reported:

assessing it as not operationally effective or suitable due to significant deficiencies in tactical performance, reliability, and BIT functionality.


And

operational testing does not demonstrate a statistically significant difference in mission accomplishment between F/A-18E/F aircraft equipped with AESA and those equipped with the legacy radar.


So sorry, i can not believe after such statements, the APG-79 have 2 or even 3 times better Range than the APG-73. They clearly talk also about performance.

We will defiantly not find an agreement here. :wink:


Independently of what we choose to agree or believe (or not), I don't think that you can directly relate the "APG-79 not meeting some requirements" with achieving or not the 2 to 3 or more than 3 times the detection range compared to the APG-73 since if this was actually to be a requirement for the radar, it would only be one among many, many others.

I believe that hornetfinn pretty much summed it up in the following part:

hornetfinn wrote:It might be that AN/APG-79 has not met requirements whereas RBE2 AESA has, even if AN/APG-79 was more capable system. I do think that all these AESA radars offer very significant performance and reliability improvements over the previous MSA/PESA systems.


Anyway and trying my best to complement what hornetfinn mentioned above, there's a lot of other reasons why the APG-79 couldn't have met some of the requirements on that 2006 OPEVAL which may not involve in any way the detection range.
I venture to mention/speculate a few:
- For example I remember that one of the APG-79 requirements was to operate with both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes simultaneously specially when fitted on the F/A-18F. Perhaps this could have been a requirement that wasn't met (or fully met) during that OPEVAL.
- And/or the APG-79 could have had a requirement to be able to track a certain number of air-to-ar targets simultaneously but only a lower number was demonstrated during that same OPEVAL.
- Or like I previously said, the APG-79 during that same OPEVAL needed more maintenance man/hours compared to requirements.
- etc...

So as you can see, none of the above is in any way related to Air-to-Air target detection but could have been more than reasons to be mentioned on that OPEVAL report as the "APG-79 not meeting (some) of its requirements".

Moreover and like you said, that OPEVAL happened in 2006 but we are now in 2019.
So many things have happened in the meanwhile namely such as likely the fix of many/most of the issues reported on that same OPEVAL.



swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Moreover, there's also what marsavian correctly said:
- The APG-79 has more T-R modules than the RBE AESA.
(this makes a very diference regarding AESA radars, which both RBE AESA and APG-79 are)


This is correct. As far as i know. If they are technical on same level and trouble free. :wink:


Well, we know (and we can read on hornetfinn's post) the APG-79's processor was updated several times while according to the information that we have, currently the RBE AESA is the same (with the same backend) as the RBE PESA but with an AESA antenna.
Sure that the RBE is scheduled to receive upgrades on its backend but then again is the APG-79.
As such, I would say that if one of the two radar (APG-79 or RBE AESA) is in an "upper" or more "advanced level", that would be the APG-79.
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

sprstdlyscottsmn

Elite 4K

Elite 4K

  • Posts: 4535
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2006, 01:24
  • Location: Phoenix, Az, USA

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 15:04

marsavian wrote:
gta4 wrote:Super hornet is a strange example if you notice the acceleration boost around 500kts (it accelerates from 520kts to 550kts in just 1 second.)


Dynamic thrust ? Drag curve having a pronounced trough ? Or a combination of both ?

rounding error?

EDIT: For example, if any time there could be -.5 and +.49 then the range of possible times could be as follows (black line represents a "normal" looking acceleration line that fits within the boundaries)

Capture.PNG
"Spurts"

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

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 16:08

ricnunes wrote:Hi Swiss,

Could you share (or do you have a link to the) document that states that score above?
Note that I'm not doubting you. I'm asking this because I couldn't find that source (despite trying to look for it).


Sure np.

Here is the Danish original Report. EF is on Page 56. SH on Page 58. There are also very close overall in mission effectiveness 2.6 vs 2.4.

https://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Docum ... 160509.pdf

Image



ricnunes wrote:I believe that hornetfinn pretty much summed it up in the following part:

hornetfinn wrote:It might be that AN/APG-79 has not met requirements whereas RBE2 AESA has, even if AN/APG-79 was more capable system. I do think that all these AESA radars offer very significant performance and reliability improvements over the previous MSA/PESA systems.


Anyway and trying my best to complement what hornetfinn mentioned above, there's a lot of other reasons why the APG-79 couldn't have met some of the requirements on that 2006 OPEVAL which may not involve in any way the detection range.
I venture to mention/speculate a few:
- For example I remember that one of the APG-79 requirements was to operate with both air-to-air and air-to-ground modes simultaneously specially when fitted on the F/A-18F. Perhaps this could have been a requirement that wasn't met (or fully met) during that OPEVAL.
- And/or the APG-79 could have had a requirement to be able to track a certain number of air-to-ar targets simultaneously but only a lower number was demonstrated during that same OPEVAL.
- Or like I previously said, the APG-79 during that same OPEVAL needed more maintenance man/hours compared to requirements.
- etc...

So as you can see, none of the above is in any way related to Air-to-Air target detection but could have been more than reasons to be mentioned on that OPEVAL report as the "APG-79 not meeting (some) of its requirements".


Moreover and like you said, that OPEVAL happened in 2006 but we are now in 2019.
So many things have happened in the meanwhile namely such as likely the fix of many/most of the issues reported on that same OPEVAL.




Of course you can be right. Its my opinion, that so many issues effect also the Range. And yes reports stated there is an improvement of the APG-79. But they are still some troubles. And i'm agree on Paper the APG-79 should be the better system at least in Range.





ricnunes wrote:Well, we know (and we can read on hornetfinn's post) the APG-79's processor was updated several times while according to the information that we have, currently the RBE AESA is the same (with the same backend) as the RBE PESA but with an AESA antenna.
Sure that the RBE is scheduled to receive upgrades on its backend but then again is the APG-79.
As such, I would say that if one of the two radar (APG-79 or RBE AESA) is in an "upper" or more "advanced level", that would be the APG-79.


Yes as i mentioned above, the APG-79 should be the better system. When it reach its requirements. And both are constantly upgraded. I would say it's difficult to assume which system has the edge know. So i still think they are close in capabilities. Same gos for the APG-80.

And no doubt the APG-63(V)3, APG-81 and APG-82 have more Range than this 3 systems.

@Hornetfinn: Thanks for you answer. I always appreciate your inside view in radar technology.
Offline

loke

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 769
  • Joined: 14 Nov 2008, 19:07

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 16:26

Regarding the Danish eval: I found an error in the posting I made a few pages back, for some reason I could not edit the posting; I believe these are the correct scores:

Typhoon Survivability:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day____5____4____3_____3____1____2
Score - cloudy_5____5____4_____3____1____2
Average______5.0___4.5__3.5___3.0__1.0___2.0
Total average: 3.2

Super Hornet Survivability:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day____5____4____4_____3___1_____1
Score - cloudy_5____5____5_____3____1____1
Average______5.0___4.5__4.5___3.0__1.0___1.0
Total average: 3.2

F-16 Survivability:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI___S/DEAD
Average______5.0___5.0___2.0___1.0__1.0___1.0
Total average: 3.2

Typhoon Mission effectiveness:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day___3____3____3____3_____2____2
Score - night__3____3____3____3_____2____2
Score - cloudy_2____1____2_____3____2____2
Average______2.7___2.3__2.7___3.0__2.0___2.0
Total average: 2.4

Super Hornet Mission effectiveness:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI__S/DEAD
Score – day___4____4____4____2_____2____2
Score - night__4____4____4____2_____2____2
Score - cloudy_2____1____2_____2____2____2
Average______3.3___3.0__3.3___2.0__2.0___2.0
Total average: 2.6

F-16 Effectiveness:
Mission____NTISR__SCAR__CAS__DCA__AI___S/DEAD
Average_____2.3___2.7___2.3___1.0__1.0___1.0
Total average: 1.7
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 17:33

It will be interesting to see whether the Swiss manage another leak since they've called for every fighter to be tested there this summer.

Air2030: Dates and Other Information on Flight and Ground Trials in Payerne
(Source: Swiss Dept of Defense, Civil, Protection and Sports, issued Feb. 28, 2019)
(Unofficial translation by Defense-Aerospace.com)
BERN --- The flight and ground trials with the five fighter aircraft candidates will take place in Payerne from April to June. The aircraft capabilities will be checked at the military airfield there in alphabetical order. The dates for media creators and spotters are also already fixed.

For each candidate, a total of eight missions with one or two combat aircraft will be conducted during four days of flight. The capabilities of the aircraft and the information from the submitted offers are checked. Beforehand, the providers have the opportunity to familiarize themselves with another flight with the specific procedures in the Swiss airspace. One flight will take place at night. For this, the starting times of the season must be adjusted accordingly, with the flights always ending before midnight. During bank holidays, no trial flights will be made.

The candidates are tested in alphabetical order according to the name of the manufacturer:
-- Airbus, GER, Eurofighter: in calendar weeks 15 and 16
-- Boeing, USA, F / A-18 Super Hornet: in calendar weeks 17 and 18
-- Dassault, FRA, Rafale: in calendar weeks 20 and 21
-- Lockheed Martin, USA, F-35A: in calendar weeks 23 and 24
-- Saab, SWE, Gripen E: in calendar weeks 25 and 26

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/articl ... rials.html

I wonder which Gripen E Saab is going to send. They have only one (39-10) that has representative equipment to the production model. That and two others are all E's that exist, and they are crucial for the test program.

Finland has a surprisingly similar test scheme during spring 2020. Same 2 weeks for each, totaling 10 weeks. Some fighters might not display all of their capabilities in Finland, in that case that capability will be tested out of country.
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 18:23

Yes i'm excited. The airfield is also open for spotters. So i hope i can get a slot. And i will have a close look at least from the F-35.
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2204
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post05 Mar 2019, 20:18

swiss wrote:
ricnunes wrote:Hi Swiss,

Could you share (or do you have a link to the) document that states that score above?
Note that I'm not doubting you. I'm asking this because I couldn't find that source (despite trying to look for it).


Sure np.

Here is the Danish original Report. EF is on Page 56. SH on Page 58. There are also very close overall in mission effectiveness 2.6 vs 2.4.

https://www.fmn.dk/temaer/kampfly/Docum ... 160509.pdf


Thanks swiss :thumb:
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

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 02:43

No JF-17, J-10C, nor FC-31!? Must not be able to meet requirements in such an open competition.
Offline

wrightwing

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3309
  • Joined: 23 Oct 2008, 15:22

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 06:25

f4u7_corsair wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xua3049KJg

31:20 for supercruise capability.

He didn't mention the configuration, though.
Offline

magitsu

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 431
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2015, 22:12

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 09:17

madrat wrote:No JF-17, J-10C, nor FC-31!? Must not be able to meet requirements in such an open competition.

Fighter jet is a strategic system that can't be bought without considering the big picture. It's going to connect to everything. Thus if you aren't buying the rest from China or Russia, and want to seek geopolitical clout from there in general, you can forget about them. Just accepting one into the competition would be handing a major PR win for the Chinese since you could then claim they are considered comparable solutions. Having a Russian one in the comp wouldn't be quite similar breaking news, but still makes no sense geopolitically.

Western countries want to be Nato-compatible whether they are in the alliance or not. Because it ensures maximum compatibility with whatever's on the market.
Offline

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2337
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post06 Mar 2019, 14:18

If China could meet requirements they would have a candidate.

Don't undersell how much monetary clout China targets at Swiss banks.
Online

hornetfinn

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2845
  • Joined: 13 Mar 2013, 08:31
  • Location: Finland

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 12:40

swiss wrote:Yes i'm excited. The airfield is also open for spotters. So i hope i can get a slot. And i will have a close look at least from the F-35.


Great, hope you can get there and report to us! :D

Very interesting times ahead with Swiss and Finnish competitions!
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 991
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 13:22

wrightwing wrote:
f4u7_corsair wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Xua3049KJg

31:20 for supercruise capability.

He didn't mention the configuration, though.

1.4sc and 1.8ab ..it really has to work hard to get the extra 0.4. It takes a 50% increase in power and 2-3 times the gas.

wiki. Maximum thrust: 50 kN (11,200 lbf) and 75 kN (16,900 lbf) (with afterburner)
Fuel consumption: 3,977 kg/h and 12,695 kg/h (with afterburner)
Specific fuel consumption: 22.14 g/kNs and 47.11 g/kNs (with afterburner)
Thrust-to-weight ratio: 5.68:1 (dry) and 8.52:1 (with afterburner)

Far be it for me to say 'it aint so' but it would be nice to have someone else confirm this. Like official dassault, french gov. and FMS customers, comps or evals? "One of the reasons we chose the Rafale, was because it could super cruise at mach 1.4"
Aussie fanboy
Offline

swiss

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 442
  • Joined: 10 Jan 2017, 14:43

Unread post11 Mar 2019, 14:44

hornetfinn wrote:
swiss wrote:Yes i'm excited. The airfield is also open for spotters. So i hope i can get a slot. And i will have a close look at least from the F-35.


Great, hope you can get there and report to us! :D

Very interesting times ahead with Swiss and Finnish competitions!


I will try. :wink:

Yes i really hope both evaluation will be published. Would be very interesting to compare. :thumb:

@ Optimist:A few pages before, there are two links to a document and booklet from Dassault about supercuise and in what configuration.
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot], notkent and 3 guests