F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

zerion

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 641
  • Joined: 25 Jan 2014, 01:47
  • Location: Everywhere like such as...

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 17:50

Thanks Viper12.
Offline

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 18:01

ricnunes wrote:If you want to believe in BS such as the F-35 was designed having 90's requirement solely in mind and being only designed to shield/hide from systems that existed in the 90's (and not current and above all FUTURE systems) then I have some bridges to sell you or you might as well believe in Santa and his Leprechauns :roll:

First: it works much better to win people over through well founded evidence, as some users have managed to do already in my brief personal experience here, than trying to intimidate them into submission or self censorship with bad manners. Not going to work with this one, I tell you.

Second: of course requirements evolve over time. And coherently with what we are trying to explain, next fighter platforms in US military plan to address fundamental issues related to higher end kinematics. No use in denying it, as well as all the reasons that have been provided to justify this decision. Reasonable users here understand there is no plane capable of doing everything and understand implicit design limitations of F-35 and stealth technology, some others have bought too much into claims that serve mainly marketing purposes. My sincere advice: check out how the military air campaigns from DS to our days have been planed and executed, you will see that euromaster's bottomline holds essentially true. I maybe don't endorse his ardent support of Eurofighter or Meteor but I may be wrong there and, in the end, European, US and Russian military planers all agreed that supercruising and high operating ceiling were critical requirements of the 5th gen. This was marketed as game-changing when the F-22 was the product to be promoted, now the mission is to sell the F-35, SA and stealth is everything. Well, sorry to point it out, but it is not.
Hence why STEALTH is VITAL for the SURVIVABILITY of future aircraft in future conflicts, NO??
The only way a combat aircraft will be able to survive in such integrated air defense system/grid is if it can hide from that same system/grid. As such I have a news flash for you: The only way to achieve this with STEALTH!

It seems like you don't want to understand that it is essentially a suicide to send planes into such environments. Massive amounts of stand-off weapons (either discrete low flying CMs or supersonic / hypersonic missiles) would be used first of all in order to degrade the IADS before sending your guys in, if nuclear weapons would not be used straight away. I am talking of the big players here like China and Russia of course. For less developed militaries other approaches may work, depending on risk avoidance advisable in any particular situation.
Second flash news: 4/4.5th gen fighter aircraft like the Typhoon, Su-35, whatever... won't be able to hide from such integrated air defense systems and as such to survive in such environment! Unless there are F-35's (in the case of NATO/Allied aircraft) around to save their sorry a$$'s.

How are F-35s going to evade PCL or OTH? How are they going to operate in RF silence, if the AWACS that guide them are kept out of the airspace, the communications interfered and the radars jammed? Such considerations cannot be simply ignored you know.
Whether or not you believe it (and it really doesn't matter in what you believe or not), the fact is that STEALTH is here to stay and just revolutionized aerial warfare just like jet engines and guided missiles/ordinance did before it (stealth)...

Nobody is denying the many advantages of F-35's stealth. What cannot be stated, based on known facts, is that it allows to have a walk unsupported inside a full blown, modern IADS and destroy it with impunity.
Finally, I echo optimist words: I'm also done "preaching" to a few poping up "new members" (many/most of whom have Troll like behavior) just like playing a Wack-a-Mole game and repeating the same facts over and over again and as such, I'm also done with this! :roll:

Well, we are in a forum so excuse me for thinking this is a place for opinions exchange. If disagreeing is perceived as trolling just let me know, I don't have the slightest interest in bothering you or losing my time with futile discussions either.
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 18:58

@southerncross
You are free to believe what you wish, but the proof is in the pudding. F-117s and later B-2 were able to operate with impunity over some of the densest SAM systems since Vietnam and basically dropped LGBs over the centers of Baghdad and Belgrade. No nonsense with flying at below 100 m to have a single whisper of a chance at penetration, just careful mission planning and taking it easy at altitude. Result? One loss over several thousand high risk missions. Right into the lion's den!
While SAMs have definitely gotten more dangerous since then, stealth has moved on as well. Publicly published numbers imply an F-35 will be able to get within say SDB-II / JSOW / AARGM range even when faced with the latest and greatest (HQ-9 or S-400) without getting detected. That is without taking into account the capabilities of the ASQ-249, various MALD variants, Growler+NGJ support and so on.
I am not saying the F-35 can just waltz into a SAM willy nilly and expect no consequences, but by Jove, if balls-of-steel Wild Weasels of Vietnam were able to perform SEAD against SA-2s in their F-4s then the F-35 can do it as well!
have a walk unsupported inside a full blown, modern IADS

Why would any airforce ever send their high value assets anywhere unsupported, especially on literally the most dangerous mission in the entire store of USAF acronyms?
Russia stronk
Offline

euromaster

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 21
  • Joined: 25 Mar 2009, 15:42

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 19:10

ricnunes wrote:with all these facts at hand you still claim that the F-35 is an "inferior aircraft"


When you say "with all these facts", you are not aware of what information I have access to. There are many things as I have covered and informed you on that make the F-35 an inferior aircraft to the Typhoon and will be for a long time to come,the gap will become even larger once the red tape is cut on Captor-E, since sensors is one thing the Typhoon is not quite close to matching on the F-35, which is why the F-35 is an excellent sensor support plane to the Typhoon combat capability. This support is true for the F-22 that fly alongside F-35's and enjoy the force multiplier advantage.

All these companies are trying to beat


They are developing a later generation craft that has future next generation capabilities beyond both the Typhoon AND F-35/F-22 in terms of weapons (DEW), sensors, emerging technology (potentially nano healing composites, drones and artificial intelligence etc) and kinematic performance. There would be little use in developing yet another stealthy legacy air-frame when a lot of those nations, including the UK have already bought some.

I think the true reason you seem to want to claim these 6th generation projects are only 5th gen is national pride, knowing full well that the UK and Europe may be closer to high end 6th generation aircraft long before the US. Indeed, looking at recent projects the US may take another decade to even match Meteor as an air to air missile. Course everyone in the know understands why in military circles, Lockheed has a silver tongue. You can see it in the F-35, a mostly low spec aircraft that has now swallowed up a huge portion of the US spending (not to mention other failed US projects) while maintaining a fleet of legacy aircraft that should have been retired a decade ago. This has strangled the US capability in warfare which is sad to see.

It's funny to see/read people mentioning that UAVs will be used as the "definitive" targeting platform against Air-Defense systems but they forget that UAVs are far more vulnerable to these same Air-Defense systems compared to STEALTH manned aircraft (such as the F-35).


Since were sharing our humors what I find very funny is that some people make excessive comments about cost effectiveness yet apparently do not appreciate the loss of a relatively cheap unmanned vehicle is far better than the risk of losing a Jet, pilot and all that goes with it. That and by firing on it the SAM has kind of given itself away and expended a potentially large/expensive SAM in the process. Again, this is just a case of some people here not understanding how military warfare works, the use of UAV's etc. Fortunately those people will never be in a command position or leading ops :D

If you want to believe in BS such as the F-35 was designed having 90's requirement


Bear in mind the US does not know exactly what capability next generation systems have. Stealth is a new technology and is in its infancy, you have to walk before you can run. bear in mind even the F-22 (a higher spec plane) is still requiring updates every few years to keep up to date, but what you cannot so easily update is stealth. Which I was telling you earlier, the capabilities to defeat stealth are far easier to develop than the stealth itself. In both time, cost effectiveness, R&D etc.

NO other nation has managed to reach and develop aircraft


There is nothing wrong with being proud in a nations accomplishments but this;

In the end putting into question the role of Stealth nowadays would be akin to putting into question the role of the Jet Engine in the late 1940's


Is quite absurd. You seem to have been convinced stealth is quite special but it is no more unique than the weapons/protection development cycle that has been going on for decades and is no more unique than the change explosive reactive armour made to armoured warfare, which was quickly countered by tandem charges and so on. Stealth is merely the counter to radar, which is in turn being countered by developing Radar, IRST and other radar band systems and stealth has a cost in limitations, as the F-35 and F-22 have shown us.

I understand your rage at your nation having slipped a few with its military developments. The rest of the world has continued in other directions, e.g. missile and naval technologies where the US is still in the late 90's early 2000's and is a good decade or so behind Europe, and at this stage is behind the east in many ways as well. This is mostly because of how the defence industry in the US works, not based on operational capability but political needs. The system that gets the brunt of the US budget is the one that has the best sales pitch, not the one that is most capable. It is why the former US isolationist approach of not buying from outside the US has failed it, and is now why it is, more and more looking to Europe to defend it with higher end technologies. Mostly thanks to BAE and its subsidiaries but others too. Maybe the US will be modernized eventually but it has a long way to go.

just like playing a Wack-a-Mole game


Check your form Ricnunes, just slandering people because they are trying to inform you of something that you probably know (but hate to admit) is right is not going to help you. You should not turn down free education. Military discussion may be casual fun to some but its a serious business to the personnel who have to be on the line. Every suggestion that you make that seems to dismiss the use of other assets just because you want to continue the claim that the F-35 is somehow undetectable and that pilots should be sent without consideration into the weapon ranges of even the latest SAM's/aircraft with despite inherent limitations that are known even to you (despite what you claim to belive) proves you are not discussing realistic warfare scenarios.


Can be deployed in 15 minutes



As per the rest of your post, I didn't even bother reading it.


If you had, you would have seen I covered the potential set down times of an S-400. And how 15+ minutes is not enough. It would need to be able to set down and move free from the area (all systems, as any being knocked out could render the complex less effective, if not mostly neutralize it) in minutes.

This is fine Ricnunes I am not sure your quite on my level of knowledge to discuss or understand this subject. As such unless you post something interesting I will not waste either my time responding or indeed your time pretending to have read my posts.

Fact is, the F-35 is seen as a disgrace of an aircraft by ex-serviceman and all those who are in the know. Not just the F-35 but a lot of the newer US developments in other services, e.g. Zumwalt, Littoral combat ship (navy) and the older hellfire missile that has not seen a replacement for the army. These projects have to put it bluntly ignored national interest or military effectiveness for the sake of, well you know what, I am not interested in discussing US politics and how their defense industry treats your budget. The US has a budget larger than those of the next few developed nations combined yet instead of being ahead it sits as if it lost its teeth after the cold war and just wants to rock on the porch. Its too much when claims that other NATO nations are not pulling their weight come out then you look to the US and its a decade behind almost every developed system UK and even Europe has brought to the table. Its embarrassing and frightening that the US, which is the largest western economy may not have a military to match eastern aggression that may crop up over the next decade.

juretrn wrote:One loss


I would not parade about that. Out of the very few aircraft actually lost in that campaign one of them was a stealth aircraft. It does not say much for stealth honestly.

Publicly published numbers imply an F-35 will be able to get within say SDB-II / JSOW / AARGM range even when faced with the latest and greatest (HQ-9 or S-400) without getting detected.


This is not the case because I know for a fact the F-35/F-22 are not cleared to travel into those threat zones. Its simply not the case as I have stated several times and I have no idea what sales pitch may be the "publicly published" information but I suspect at best it is merely vague jargon to confuse those not in the know into supporting the F-35.

I tell you what the US has taught the military environment to its own cost is that stealth is not sustainable currently. The F-22 has sat in hangars atrophying for years, licking its lips hungrily at other raptors, its become quite the cannibal and has had to to survive. After countless embarrassing issues with this project and the F-35 and the mass unrest to the program that some on here may have been too young to witness before a lot of censure was put in place its surprising the F-35 survived at all. It is supposed to be the low spec equivalent to the "high cost/low cost" approach to its air-force the US doctrine follows, like the F-15 to the F-16. Yet it turned out through all its issues to reach a colossal scale in costs and the US air-force of the future will have extremely limited air-frames that do not share parity with even legacy systems in many cases and that rely on stealth.

Which for the record is not useless, no more so than explosive reactive armour was useless when it first developed as I mentioned earlier. And yet, was cheaply countered. Thing is, ERA to continue with this analogy is still relatively cheap to develop, while stealth is not. Radar/IRST and software that enhances the effectiveness of even older systems to search for Stealth aircraft and their emissions (as all planes have) is cheaper still (just code, if anyone has little clue of military software its no different from modern software in computing, you can get a new development every month).

The biggest impact of stealth on an aircraft at this stage can be seen by everyone, atrophy and maintenance costs that can twist the arm and bend the back of even the US logistics to the limit of breaking. Most F-22's have sat in hangars since their inception, struggling to operate at even 50% or above, often in single digits. The F-35 has not seen much better, as is inherent in stealth designs the coating, skins and parts are extremely costly to replace/repair. Sometimes days per flight hour in maintenance, not hours.

This is not new information, the US itself knows this, hence why as I said quite correctly although stealth will play a role, it will play second fiddle to other capabilities in the next generation (if and when the US gets there, maybe the UK will tell them about it, we have a special relationship after-all). We should not be fighting folks, you cannot let media fanfare and sales pitches to come before American lives. And, in the future, the Freedom of western states what with the growing eastern (mostly Chinese) capabilities.

Currently China is perhaps 10-15 years behind the west in many systems (stealth, electronic maturity/miniaturization, sonar capability and almost 20 years behind in submarine quietness) but its economy is building fast and the sleeping dragon will likely awaken over the next years. Its no good just the UK and some European nations being on the technology cutting edge, building 2020's and beyond technology to outperform China if the US pours its income into Lockheeds coffers while fielding tech 10 years behind Europe.

southerncross wrote:Well, we are in a forum so excuse me for thinking this is a place for opinions exchange. If disagreeing is perceived as trolling just let me know, I don't have the slightest interest in bothering you or losing my time with futile discussions either.


Do not take it personally, you only have to read a few of his previous posts to know he does not take the "courtesy" guideline of the forum to heart and seems to have an emotional investment in the F-35.
Last edited by euromaster on 13 Aug 2019, 08:04, edited 1 time in total.
Offline
User avatar

botsing

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 826
  • Joined: 05 Dec 2015, 18:09
  • Location: The Netherlands

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 19:47

euromaster wrote:When you say "with all these facts", you are not aware of what information I have access to.

Riiiiight, and you are allowed to showcase that "information" on a public internet forum. :doh:

Just another troll to put on the ignore list. :roll:
"Those who know don’t talk. Those who talk don’t know"
Offline

juretrn

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 411
  • Joined: 31 Jul 2016, 01:09
  • Location: Slovenia

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 20:15

Guys, if you want to discuss effectiveness of stealth in general or effectiveness of F-35 vs SAMs, then I would suggest moving to a different topic as this topic is "F-35 vs Rafale".
example: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=55959
Not that the former topic wasn't done to death already and arguing never convinced anyone anyway.
Russia stronk
Offline
User avatar

ricnunes

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2110
  • Joined: 02 Mar 2017, 14:29

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 22:35

Not that it matters to the guys above, this I'm pretty sure of but about the "subject at hand" I found a very interesting article which is written in Portuguese. However for those that don't understand Portuguese, I'll post below the site translated to English (the translation seem to be quite spot on - probably it was on data in English):

https://translate.google.pt/translate?h ... do-f-35%2F

The article above is IMO well written and backed up with excellent information and sources and it's IMO extremely easy to understand to the point that anyone with more than two (2) brain cells will surely understand it and with it the HUGE advantages that Stealth gives and it also shows other F-35 features (such as the RCS page) which gives the F-35 an even bigger and tremendous advantage over any opposing fighter or ground-based air defense system.

The site above is doubly interesting because I don't have to waste my time looking for sources and evidence to provide to the discussion (something that I've done to the death in the past!), something of which would in the end be a useless waste of time, this I'm sure of...
At the same time, I believe it could provide a very interesting insight to anyone who's really willing to learn something about it (and that it's not a troll)

By the way, the original page above (in Portuguese) is here:
https://tecnomilitar.wordpress.com/2017 ... s-do-f-35/
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

southerncross

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 100
  • Joined: 23 Jul 2019, 17:09

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 22:55

juretrn wrote:Guys, if you want to discuss effectiveness of stealth in general or effectiveness of F-35 vs SAMs, then I would suggest moving to a different topic as this topic is "F-35 vs Rafale".
example: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=55959
Not that the former topic wasn't done to death already and arguing never convinced anyone anyway.

:thumb:
Offline
User avatar

blindpilot

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1215
  • Joined: 01 Mar 2013, 18:21
  • Location: Colorado

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 23:27

southerncross wrote:
juretrn wrote:Guys, if you want to discuss effectiveness of stealth in general or effectiveness of F-35 vs SAMs, then I would suggest moving to a different topic as this topic is "F-35 vs Rafale".
example: viewtopic.php?f=38&t=55959
Not that the former topic wasn't done to death already and arguing never convinced anyone anyway.

:thumb:


:applause: concur. I almost replied a few times but the bottom line is the core statements of euromaster (F-35 not a multi role fighter, only safe targets, need support aircraft or not, etc.) are in error, so everything else is a worthless discussion. This and other debates belong elsewhere.

MHO
BP
Offline

optimist

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 984
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia
  • Warnings: 1

Unread post12 Aug 2019, 23:29

ricnunes wrote:Not that it matters to the guys above, this I'm pretty sure of but about the "subject at hand" I found a very interesting article which is written in Portuguese. However for those that don't understand Portuguese, I'll post below the site translated to English (the translation seem to be quite spot on - probably it was on data in English):

https://translate.google.pt/translate?h ... do-f-35%2F



Seeing this is Rafale thread, from the article and it doesn't Say if they are talking block I or II. I still like seeing this comparison in print.
"Dassault Rafale, in the 1-3m² range. The F / A-18E / F, which Boeing says employs the most extensive RCS abatement measures of any non-poaching, is reported at 0.66-1.26m²."

This doesn't specify it's actual load but it still isn't shabby

Image
Aussie fanboy
Online

madrat

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2267
  • Joined: 03 Mar 2010, 03:12

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 00:15

botsing wrote:
euromaster wrote:When you say "with all these facts", you are not aware of what information I have access to.

Riiiiight, and you are allowed to showcase that "information" on a public internet forum. :doh:
Just another troll to put on the ignore list. :roll:


/two thumbs up!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 02:01

euromaster wrote:
When you say "with all these facts", you are not aware of what information I have access to. There are many things as I have covered and informed you on that make the F-35 an inferior aircraft to the Typhoon and will be for a long time to come,the gap will become even larger once the red tape is cut on Captor-E, since sensors is one thing the Typhoon is not quite close to matching on the F-35, which is why the F-35 is an excellent sensor support plane to the Typhoon combat capability. This support is true for the F-22 that fly alongside F-35's and enjoy the force multiplier advantage.


Absurd claims and you clearly have no idea what your talking about.


Honestly, you need to cut back on the Medication. As it will lead to your undoing......... :shock:
Offline

gta4

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 859
  • Joined: 17 Oct 2010, 19:10

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 02:37

An F-35 struggles to maintain supersonic for more than short periods of time. The Typhoon can cruise, and can climb to some of the highest altitudes under a spyplane/MiG-35 class of fighter. The F-35's single engine is of no comparison to higher end twin engine fighters such as the F-22/Typhoon etc.


However, F-35 out-fly lots of twin engine aircraft, such as Su-27. Do you mean Su-27 has moderate kinematic performance?
Offline
User avatar

XanderCrews

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5951
  • Joined: 16 Oct 2012, 19:42

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 02:47

euromaster wrote:The F-35 seems more of a sensor/force multiplier plane than a warrior. I would not put it up against any other plane in an Air to Air role, unless it sacrifices its primary ace (Stealth) it limps along with only a couple of the old AMRAAM (Meteor still not fitted in the UK, not until the 20's last I looked) on its own. Sending pilots against other aircraft with only 2-4 missiles is going to get pilots killed. Especially if the adversary has IRST/modern developing radars. Besides, the F-35 has about the kinematic performance of a 3rd gen air-frame. Its low/slow flight makes it better for strike against undefended targets while higher performance aircraft such as Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 (if flying still) would be taking the shots at long stand-off range (meteor).

Thankfully, that seems to be the role most nations are going with the F-35, its more of a support/sensor plane to support more capable combat aircraft.

Pretty sure stealth is taking a back seat on 6th Gen fighter designs in lieu of weapons and speed/performance etc after seeing the limitations in those areas for Stealth aircraft. That and their maintenance issue.



its APA and 2009 all over again folks...
Choose Crews
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 5646
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post13 Aug 2019, 03:14

XanderCrews wrote:
euromaster wrote:The F-35 seems more of a sensor/force multiplier plane than a warrior. I would not put it up against any other plane in an Air to Air role, unless it sacrifices its primary ace (Stealth) it limps along with only a couple of the old AMRAAM (Meteor still not fitted in the UK, not until the 20's last I looked) on its own. Sending pilots against other aircraft with only 2-4 missiles is going to get pilots killed. Especially if the adversary has IRST/modern developing radars. Besides, the F-35 has about the kinematic performance of a 3rd gen air-frame. Its low/slow flight makes it better for strike against undefended targets while higher performance aircraft such as Typhoon, Rafale, F-22 (if flying still) would be taking the shots at long stand-off range (meteor).

Thankfully, that seems to be the role most nations are going with the F-35, its more of a support/sensor plane to support more capable combat aircraft.

Pretty sure stealth is taking a back seat on 6th Gen fighter designs in lieu of weapons and speed/performance etc after seeing the limitations in those areas for Stealth aircraft. That and their maintenance issue.



its APA and 2009 all over again folks...



I just want to know what he is smoking??? :shock:
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

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