F-22 vs Rafale dogfight results - French souce

In fact I don't care who won. I just care who has better maneuverability.

French air force has admitted F-22 is better at nose pointing and energy retention:
viewtopic.php?f=33&t=45625

So energy-wise, and angular-wise, F-22 is more maneuverable.

No, in fact, the french air force never admitted that.

This is a comment of a journalist, not a quote. And moreover, it is said the Raptor can handle "most" of the delicate situations in dogfights.

It doesnt mean: "against the Rafale".

Bad translation.

The phrasing is then extremely poor, since it's talking about the Rafale at the beginning of the sentence.

Unfortunatly, my english isn't good enough to explain it clearly, but the phrasing is good and don't suggest the Raptor surpass the Rafale in a term of agility.

It just mean " according to French standards ( the Rafale), the F 22 is surprisingly agile for it's weight".

French people tend to be more literary and less direct than americans.

The phrasing suggest, perhaps, a doubt. But not " the Raptor is better than the Rafale in manoeuvrabilty". Different words would have been used.

Like: " En dépit de son poids supérieur, le Raptor SURPASSE le Rafale en manoeuvrabilité".

In fact, this simply reflect the french opinion about Rafale vs Raptor in dogfight : they are very close and this is all about the pilots.

( And i don't want to restart this controversy, but just to make it clear for the record: l'armée de l'air NEVER admitted anything about that).

0K, to finish that once and for all, will try to clarify my point about that sentence ( and sorry for my terrible english, hopefully, my french is better )

"Même s'il est bien plus lourd que le Rafale, le F 22 A conserve une manoeuvrabilité redoutable qui lui permet de se sortir de la plupart des situations en combat tournoyant."

The translation of gta4 was quiet correct, but he missed the main point in his interpretation. The two main words are the verbs "conserve" and "permet".

Not cause of their fundamental meaning, but cause they are conjugated at " Le présent de l'indicatif", wich here, is like your present simple.

So, at this tense, it could mean 3 very different things:

1) The F22 is not superior in any circumstances to any opponents, which strongly suggest in the context, not against the Rafale.

2) The F 22 is superior to the Rafale ( so exactly the contrary...), considering, altough the sentence itself is not specific, the whole article is about the Raptor defeating the Rafale 1-0 at the ATLC.

3) The author of the sentence is intentionally unclear cause he can t answer the question ( or he doesn't want to).

For me, here, it's clearly the third possibility. It's a way to say: at the ATLC, it was "too close to call".

The fact that the Rafale had no wins, should indicate that the F-22 isn't inferior. What configuration were the Rafales in? Were they slick, like the German Typhoons?

No, in fact, the french air force never admitted that.

This is a comment of a journalist, not a quote. And moreover, it is said the Raptor can handle "most" of the delicate situations in dogfights.

It doesnt mean: "against the Rafale".

Bad translation.

I think this text is more convincing if you translate it entirely?


"At least twice, Raptor and Rafale were entangled in close range dogfights, and raptor scored gun kill each time without much difficulties"

The fact that the Rafale had no wins, should indicate that the F-22 isn't inferior. What configuration were the Rafales in? Were they slick, like the German Typhoons?

Not sure, but yes, i guess slick.

No, in fact, the french air force never admitted that.

This is a comment of a journalist, not a quote. And moreover, it is said the Raptor can handle "most" of the delicate situations in dogfights.

It doesnt mean: "against the Rafale".

Bad translation.

I think this text is more convincing if you translate it entirely?


"At least twice, Raptor and Rafale were entangled in close range dogfights, and raptor scored gun kill each time without much difficulties"

It's an intriguing part of the story.

This is a short, unsourced and early report in the same magazine. Very close from the US version. It was heavily criticized in France. Later, the magazine in question ( Air & Cosmos) produced a long article, the one you translated which match the french air force version.

A version who never changed:

- No BVR exercise.
- 6 WVR encounters
- 1-0 for the US air Force.

So what's the truth? Sincerly, i don't know, feel free to make your own opinion, i just pointed out the fact your claim about the french air force itself admitting the F 22 superiority was a wrong interpretation.

The whole article with an english translation here:

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/rafales- ... in.181014/

This is on Pakistan defense, the translation isn't perfect, but at least they do the job...

If what is said is true, the merge and the first turn could be the weak point of the F22 against Rafale or Typhoon, but after that, it's very good at regaining energy.

Which perhaps explain why in the vid of the encounter, the French pilot got a so agressive first turn.

Another intersting point is about the TVC, could be an asset, but if not used perfectly, it would cost too much energy in high incidence maneuver.

This is maybe one of the reason some said it need 7 or 8 years to perfectly handle that beautifull bird.

Hello Niafron,

I have a question. Do you happen to know if the French Rafales that fought against Saudi F-15C Eagles were clean or did they have fuel tanks on? Also, I am guessing the Rafales and Mirage 2000-5 flew cover for the Mirage 2000D's in this exercise (Green Shield 2014 @ Nancy).

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-an ... le.330385/



The RSAF is kinda known for not having the most skilled pilots. While ADA pilots are some of the best. So pilot skill aside, and if they were both fighting clean; Rafale (at least on paper) is superior to F-15C in nearly every WVR metric (maybe not climb rate, acceleration)and BVR. Yet aging F-15C seemed to perform pretty good vs ADA Rafale. Also, do you know if these Saudi Eagle "kills" were all WVR?

Actually these links said DACT and interception:
http://www.theaviationmagazine.com/airs ... d_2014.htm

http://www.touchdown-aviation.com/repor ... 3-2014.php

http://www.milavia.net/specials/green-s ... 133-nancy/

There are also pics of F-15C's with centerline external tanks on (very draggy condition) and single seat Rafale's with 2 tanks on, the Rafale B have 3 tanks. Although that doesn't mean all WVR exercises were flown in that specific load out for both jets.



edit: F-15C with one Centerline tank (plus its pylon) and 2 wing pylons has a DI of 22.1. F-15C with 2 wing tanks (plus their pylons) has a DI of 17.6. So if the RSAF Eagles fought in that condition (one CL tank), they would have more drag than if they flew with 2 EF tanks.


Here is a youtube vid of it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... kuF3ixDgNQ

OK, here is what French pilots have admitted finally in a later publication of air&cosmos, if that could shut you up:

Translation for non-french speakers

There are mainly two things that give Raptor advantage in dogfight: its thrust vectoring and the immense power given by its two engines, which delivers almost twice as much thrust as that of M88! Even though it is significantly heavier than the Rafale, the F-22A retains a formidable maneuverability which allows it to succeed in most of the dedicated BFM situations. Even though it loses lots of energy in very high AOA maneuvers, the energy is quickly recovered.

However, the french pilots are reluctant to consider F-22 as invincible: "when facing a F-22A, the Rafale could be put into a fire position, but it must to it very quickly, otherwise F-22 gains an upper hand if the battle drags on"

-------------------------

1. F-22 is better angular-wise (high AOA nose authority)
2. F-22 is better energy-wise (energy retention)

So how come they are evenly matched?

OK, here is what French pilots have admitted finally in a later publication of air&cosmos, if that could shut you up:

french comments on raptor.jpg

Translation for non-french speakers

There are mainly two things that give Raptor advantage in dogfight: its thrust vectoring and the immense power given by its two engines, which delivers almost twice as much thrust as that of M88! Even though it is significantly heavier than the Rafale, the F-22A retains a formidable maneuverability which allows it to succeed in most of the dedicated BFM situations. Even though it loses lots of energy in very high AOA maneuvers, the energy is quickly recovered.

However, the french pilots are reluctant to consider F-22 as invincible: "when facing a F-22A, the Rafale could be put into a fire position, but it must to it very quickly, otherwise F-22 gains an upper hand if the battle drags on"

-------------------------

1. F-22 is better angular-wise (high AOA nose authority)
2. F-22 is better energy-wise (energy retention)

So how come they are evenly matched?

Sorry, but still not...

First of all, these comments aren't from the french pilots, but from Air & Cosmos, which isn't the magazine of the french air force... i don't know how it work in the USA, but in France, the press is independent...

"give Raptor advantage in dogfight" : in general, not especially against the Rafale.

" Even though it loses lots of energy in very high AOA maneuvers, the energy is quickly recovered.": Exactly what i pointed out, the F22 is excellent at recovering energy, not at keeping it. So perhaps, thanks to the TVC, it could have an excellent instantaneous rate of turn, but maybe not a good sustained turn. The Rafale for is part, thanks to it rear placed Delta, is very good at keeping energy ( but probably not at recovering it cause it lack of power).

" the french pilots are reluctant to consider F-22 as invincible": one more time, "are reluctant" isn't a good translation for " se gardent bien de qualifier", a typical french expression. I would say: " They take great care to do not say that...", in French, such a long sentence could be considered as ironic. One more time, our language is more twisted and literary.

And now, the quotation of a french pilot ( according to A&C):

You translate " sous peine de" by "otherwise". "Sous peine de" mean "there's a risk of". So even if the battle drags on, it doenst mean necessary the F22 will be victorious, just it's in a good configuration to win. Prove of it: 5 ( or 4 according to the US version) draws mean probably 5 long fights.

Hello Niafron,

I have a question. Do you happen to know if the French Rafales that fought against Saudi F-15C Eagles were clean or did they have fuel tanks on? Also, I am guessing the Rafales and Mirage 2000-5 flew cover for the Mirage 2000D's in this exercise (Green Shield 2014 @ Nancy).

https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/saudi-an ... le.330385/



The RSAF is kinda known for not having the most skilled pilots. While ADA pilots are some of the best. So pilot skill aside, and if they were both fighting clean; Rafale (at least on paper) is superior to F-15C in nearly every WVR metric (maybe not climb rate, acceleration)and BVR. Yet aging F-15C seemed to perform pretty good vs ADA Rafale. Also, do you know if these Saudi Eagle "kills" were all WVR?

Sorry, no french report about that. Many things about the exercise, but there's no mention of the "score". In fact, even in english, this "article" is the only one i found to speak of it...

Honnestly, i don't believe it. But well, i could be wrong... Let's say the source don't look very serious to me.

Do the Rafale carry tanks in exercise? I guess yes for they are suppose to do it in operation! The Rafale is designed for long range and Low altitude penetration without support of air superiority fighters.

A typicall scenario is to penetrate an hostile airspace and if needed, to treat opponents fighters and ground targets in the same time ( including SAM launchers), thus, at distance of security. With the tanks still attached.

( This is also why there's no great deal to make about the ATLC, cause a Dogfight involving F22 and Rafale is very unlikely. Either the F22 could shoot the Rafale at long range, either, provided the F22 is in his frontal sector, the Rafale will detect and identify it at let's say 20 or 25 NM with the OSF... Well, if the F22 is on the flanks of a Rafale, Radar turned off and same for the Rafale, and if no other sources could give them any informations, perhaps, perhaps a WVR encounter is possible... and i'm not even sure of that, cause both of them got 360 degrees sensors...)

The Rafale for is part, thanks to it rear placed Delta, is very good at keeping energy

1) We have numerous evidence showing that tail-plane configuration is better than rear placed Delta in energy bleeding (higher lift/drag ratio in maneuvering).

" Even though it loses lots of energy in very high AOA maneuvers, the energy is quickly recovered.": Exactly what i pointed out, the F22 is excellent at recovering energy, not at keeping it.

When making comparison, remember to do it with the same standard.

Every jet loses lots of energy if put into high AOA. If Rafale is put into this high AOA it bleeds energy even higher than Raptor. It does not bleed as much because it is not capable of handle high AoA.

2) Rafale in fact features worse energy characteristics even compared to UAE F-16s, so there is no way that Rafale bleeds energy slower than Raptor under the same condition.

Well, according to this youtube vid, it looks like an exercise to me:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_cont ... kuF3ixDgNQ


And on the first website I provided it says the RSAF F-15 had 3 wins vs 3 losses against Rafale.

"Two weeks into the exercise, the Saudis have grown into the Nancy environment and are giving the French a hard time. Camille Jolly, a weapons systems officer (‘wizzo’) from Nancy, flew against the Saudi pilots in the backseat of a Dassault Rafale B in the morning. “We were actually killed by them, but we did take out some of their aircraft too. I think the score was an equal 3-3.” According to Jolly the general goal of a Green Shield mission is to force a hole in air defenses by using offensive air, so that Mirage 2000D strike aircraft can move through to hit their targets"

There are also a few Arabic sites that do confirm that exact kill ratio (3-3).


My point is (and I have said this all along) it is not so much the aircraft in the fight, but the quality of the guy in the cockpit that matters the most.

And in fact, the article I provided is clearly biased by French media, because they all attribute the tight turn capability of raptor to its thrust vectoring, as if rafale could have the same capability if it is equipped with the same gadget.

We all know later that Raptor does not rely on the thrust vectoring to do all that tight turns. We have lots of images showing that the nozzle does not deflect at all when F-22 is making a hard turn. Using aerodynamics instead of thrust vectoring is better at preserving energy.

So it is a matter of aerodynamic design instead of thrust vectoring that limited the nose authority of Rafale.

And, according to the first french article I provided, raptor did not win 2 out of 6 fights. It won all:
"Close range dogfights took place at least twice, and the Raptor scored a gun kill each time with out much difficulty"