Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

Forum Veteran Joined: Apr 16, 2005 - 03:16 PM Posts: 800

I don't want to answer for toan, but from what I read the rafale is very impressive. Its growth potential is amazing. The M-88-3 engine will have 9+ tons of thrust for an empty weight of 9.1-9.5 tons. Plus the AESA radar soon. Very advanced counter measure systems. Advanced FLIR. Dassault wants to increase maximum take-off weight to 60000lbs. And very good a/a missiles ( soon meteor + MICA IR + MICA-EM). And Low RCS.

I don't think it has much to envy from the EF.

F-16.net Sponsor

Forgive me for not being clear on this, but the Su-30's pilot's view to the rear is blocked, so if the F-16 comes from behind it could sneak up on the Su-30 without being detected, and also the F-16 is much smaller and is harder to see. That's what I meant about the F-16 not being detected.

Mica EM? I've never heard of that configuration of the Mica missile; I think that the Typhoon's only advantage is agility because of its canards

I've heard of Mica IR and Mica RF

Su-30 has IRST and radar

Man I cannot believe I read this entire Thread.. 122 posts... and not one mention of "GAS" no matter how good the Radar, Pilot, Missile's ETC... when your playing in a Dog Fight.. eventually your going to have to pull up somewhere to refuel? AWACS wont be the only sitting ducks in this pond...

Hog

Well, if you want to talk about range, the Su-30 outdoes the F-16, but that is not a major factor when these two meet each other head-on, the aircraft won't have to use much fuel if you enter BVR combat

Last edited by toan on Jun 24, 2005 - 08:27 AM; edited 1 time in total

Both EF-2000 and Rafale have a lot of beautiful dream and promise for the future:

# Engine's Improvements:

a. EF-2000:
1. EJ-200's full potential: 21,375 ~ 22,495 Ib / 15,520 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
2. EJ-230 (post-2010?): 23,280 ~ 23,620 Ib / 16,200 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
3. EJ-270 (post-2015?): 27,000 ~ 27,350 Ib / 17,550 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
4. Studies of reduction of engine's weight and SFC (15~20%)
5. Studies of TVC, including 2-D and 3-D configurations

b. Rafale:
1. M88-3 (post-2010): 20,000 ~ 20,500 Ib / 13,500 Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
2. M88-4 (post-2015?): 23,620 ~ 24,7500 Ib / ????? Ib (AB thrust / Maximal military thrust)
3. Study of elimination of after-burnner.

# Radar and IRST improvements:

a. EF-2000:
1. Captor AESA radar (post-2014?): 1,200~1,500 T/R, > 75% improvement of detective range.
2. Upgrade of Pirate IRST (post-2014?): Multiple targets identification, and engagement.
3. Studies of AESA radar + mechanical motor and Conformal Smart Skin AESA Array.

b. Rafale:
1. RBE-2 AESA radar (post-2010?): 1,000~1,100 T/R, > 50% improvement of detective range.
2. FSO IRST + data-link + MICA IR (post-2007): capability of “Passive” BVR combat.

# Stealthy improvements:

a. EF-2000:
1. Study of internal weapon-bays’ insertion.
2. NG stealthy skin and RAM.
3. Study of IR signal reduction.

b. Rafale:
1. Stealthy techonology of active cancellation.
2. “Cocoon” stealthy weapon.suitcase.
3. Project of Rafale D: Stealthy upgrade of Rafale.

However, to make the beautiful dream and promise is one thing, to realize them is quite another. All what I can say now is that it seems that Frenchmen have more willing and determination to realize their dream and promise………….

dimik wrote:

Mica EM? I've never heard of that configuration of the Mica missile; I think that the Typhoon's only advantage is agility because of its canards

I've heard of Mica IR and Mica RF

Su-30 has IRST and radar

1. MICA EM = MICA RF

2. Both Typhoon and Rafale have canards, but in different configuration. The designations of Typhoon's canard (long range-couple) and main wing are more favorable for high acceleration and high speed combat in the high altitude.

3. The instability of Eurofighter (>= -35% MAC) is also higher than Rafale, which should make Eurofighter to be more maneuverable and agile than Rafale theoretically. However, the more instable the fighter is, the more difficult for writing the program of the fighter's FCS will be, and this may be the partial reason why the progress of Tyhoon's project is much slower than Rafale.

hmm, who would have thought that the French would "outdo" the Germans, Spaniards, Brits and Italians all at once(no offence)

but, toan, why would you say that the French have more determination?

hmm, Rafale D, I'll do some research on that

wow, so many questions, okay, i'll put them into numbers

1.in the near future, which aircraft do you think will be better with the expected improvements in IRST, radars, engines that you stated etc.

2. why would the French have more determination than thsoe worknig on the Typhoon?

3.will the Rafale D incorporate these new technologies?

4.What did you mean by the "cocoon" weapons suitcase

only the Rafale M has the canards, correct?

wrote:

hmm, who would have thought that the French would "outdo" the Germans, Spaniards, Brits and Italians all at once(no offence)

but, toan, why would you say that the French have more determination?

Four countries mean four different opnions, and according to the contract, before anything (procurement, upgrade, introduction...) can be adopted by Eurofighter, it must acquire all of the four countries' agreements at first, which is the one of the main reasons why the project of Eurofighter has been delayed so seriously now.

Most of the future promises for EF-2000 I mentioned above will not be realized until the introduction of EF-2000 Tranch III at least. However, it is more and more likely that UK government is trying hard to find out a good excuse to cancel the production of this Tranch in order to save money now.

As for French Rafale, at least up to now, I haven't heard the news that French government is preparing to reduce its productive number.

wrote:

hmm, Rafale D, I'll do some research on that

You can find it in the newest IDR.

wrote:

wow, so many questions, okay, i'll put them into numbers

1.in the near future, which aircraft do you think will be better with the expected improvements in IRST, radars, engines that you stated etc.

Most of these improvements may not incorporated into EF-2000 and Rafale if the customers don't want buy them. If every improvements I mentioned above can be incorporated into the EF-2000 and Rafale one day, I think thier comparison will still be the same as the comparison between them today: EF-2000 is better at the skills of Air-to-Air combat, while Rafale is better at the skills of Air-to-Ground (or sea) striking missions.

wrote:

2. why would the French have more determination than thsoe worknig on the Typhoon?

More members
= More different opinions
= More chance of time-delaying and cost-arising
= More difficulty to keep the project progressing.

wrote:

3.will the Rafale D incorporate these new technologies?

IDR declared that the plasma stealthy techonology maybe one of the choice.

wrote:

4.What did you mean by the "cocoon" weapons suitcase?

It is a kind of container with stealthy design that can carry the external weapons in it and incorporated them into the fighter's body that is can reduce the RCS from external weapon load significantly (Although its effectiveness may not be as good as internal weapon-bay, however, its main advantage is that it can provide a certain amount of stealthy cover for the external heavy weapon load).

It is said that LM although prepare to use this kind of stealthy techonology to the project of F/B-22...

wrote:

only the Rafale M has the canards, correct??

Wrong. All of the members in Rafale family (RAFALE-A/B/C/D/M/N) have the canards.

Oh, yes, that is true, how many aircraft will each tranche deliver? 48?

I found out the hard way lol, nearly no information on the Rafale D, although I did hear some comparisons between it and the Rafale M

Oh, thanks for your diagnosis, in your opinion, who do you think will win the tender for Singapore, F-15K or Rafale(which version?)

Plasma stealth technology? Wow, so the French are doing research into that as well, there are many problems with PST, what do you think, a viable stealth technology?

Oh, that is what America planned for their F-22, allowing it to carry weapons on the outside, yet retain the stealth, I thought that they would make changes to the racks etc.

I was only aware that there were three versions of the Rafale: C, B, and M

Just one more question; why would you say that the Eurofighter has a better A2A role, while the Rafale has better A2G role?

wrote:

Oh, yes, that is true, how many aircraft will each tranche deliver? 48?

http://www.eurofighter-typhoon.co.uk/Eu ... story.html

http://www.eurofighter.com/News/Article ... t.asp?n=37

EF-2000 Tranch I: 148 fighters (1998~2006)
EF-2000 Tranch II: 236 fighters + 18 fighters for Austria (2006~2013)
EF-2000 Tranch III: 236 fighters (2014~2020 perhaps, the contract won't be confirmed until 2007 at least)

wrote:

I found out the hard way lol, nearly no information on the Rafale D, although I did hear some comparisons between it and the Rafale M

The plan of Rafale-D is just a thought and a possibility now, its information should be hard to find.

wrote:

In your opinion, who do you think will win the tender for Singapore, F-15K or Rafale(which version?)

I'll bet F-15T ~ The USA should have much, much more political, economical, and military influences on Singapore than France.

wrote:

Plasma stealth technology? Wow, so the French are doing research into that as well, there are many problems with PST, what do you think, a viable stealth technology?

All I can say now is that many countries such as Russia, USA, UK, French, and so on are doing the research of PST now. Personally, I think it shall be a choice of electronic warfare to block out the enemy's radar wave during the emergent time in the future.

wrote:

I was only aware that there were three versions of the Rafale: C, B, and M

Rafale A: the techonological demonstrator for the Rafale plan (1986)
Rafale B: double-seats' fighter for French air force.
Rafale C: single-seat's fighter for Frecn air force.
Rafale M: single-seat's fighter for French navy.
Rafale N: double-seats' fighter ofr French navy. However, French navy cancelled its development two years ago in order to save mony (Rafale N is about 10% more expensive than Rafale M).

dimik wrote:

Just one more question; why would you say that the Eurofighter has a better A2A role, while the Rafale has better A2G role?

The EF-2000 have better T/W ratio, better SEP, more sweeping backward main wings, and long-couple canards. All of them make EF-2000 to have better performance in supersonic cruise, climbing, acceleration, and maneuverability, which are all very important criteria for BVR combat, than Rafale.
The EF-2000 is the most unstable fighter (> or = -35% MAC) in the world, which should make it more agile and maneuverable than Rafale theoretically.
Although it is still a tradional mechanical radar now, the EF-2000's radar (CAPTOR) is extremely powerful. According to the declaration of UK pilot, it can "track" the targets of MIG-29 class (RCS = 5m2 class) 161~185 km away~even the AN/APG-71 of F-14D may not have such a performance.
RBE-2, the radar of Rafale, doesn't have such a capability in long-range detection (It's maximal air-to-air detective range for the target of standard fighter is about 130~148 km). However, with the help of passive ESA, it can perform radar modes of A-A and A-G at the same time, and it has a very good capability in terrian-following (With the help of RBE-2, Rafale can fly in the speed of Mach 0.9 and perform 5.5 G maneuver at the height of 300 fts above the ground, or 100fts above the sea). Both of these capabilities are still deficient for Captor radar today.
Rafale has the better maximal external weapon load (9,500 kg+) than EF-2000 (7,500~8,000 kg). Its empty weight (9,500~10,000 kg) is about 1,000 to 1,500 kg lighter than EF-2000 (10,995~11,150 kg for the single seat's fighter, and 11,700 kg for the double seats' fighter), but its MTOW (24,500 kg) is 1,500 kg heavier than EF-2000 (23,000 kg). In addition, Dassault is going to increase the MTOW of Rafale to 27,200 kg in the near furture, if the customer needs.

So, you're saying radar wave cancellation is the way to go, France is interested in this, and if I'm not mistaken, was not America involved in some research regarding this concept, but was cancelled?

"supersonic cruise, climbing, acceleration, and maneuverability, which are all very important criteria for BVR combat"

Really? I never thought that maneuverability was critical in BVR combat, perhaps you mean BVR/WVR, like air combat in general

When measuring a T/W ratio, do you use normal takeoff weight, or MTOW?

Do you mind me asking where you get all your information from?, for instance:

"2. The EF-2000 is the most unstable fighter (> or = -35% MAC) in the world, which should make it more agile and maneuverable than Rafale theoretically."

I'd be greatly interested in reading all of the information, perhaps, it is a few websites, would you mind giving me the URL's?

Thank You, and sorry for all of the questions.

dimik wrote:

So, you're saying radar wave cancellation is the way to go, France is interested in this, and if I'm not mistaken, was not America involved in some research regarding this concept, but was cancelled?

It is said that the EW system of B-2A stealthy bomber has the capability of active cancelleation, and even PST, but the USAF doesn't confirm it, of course.

dimik wrote:

Really? I never thought that maneuverability was critical in BVR combat, perhaps you mean BVR/WVR, like air combat in general?

The supersonic maneuverability is also very important in BVR combat. The fighter with the fastest supersonic turn rate without losing speed will have the best chance to get rid of the effective range of enemy's BVRAAM and SAM.

The UK pilot declared that EF-2000 can make 5G turn at the height of 45,000 fts and speed of Mach 1.6 without losing speed, and the F/A-22 can perform the 5G maneuver at even higher speed and altitude without losing speed. The previous generation fighter like F-15 and F-16 can only perform 2~3G maneuver at the speed of above Mach 1 and height of above 30,000 fts.

Comparing with the traditional fighter (such as F-16) which can firing AIM-120 with the cruise speed of 0.8~0.9 Mach (by maximal military thrust), the same AIM-120 firing from EF-2000 with the supercruise speed of Mach 1.2~1.3, or F/A-22 with the supercruise speed of Mach 1.5~1.7 will have 25~40% (from EF-2000), or 60~75% (from F/A-22) more effective range.

And the supersonic maneverability and supersonic acceleration for F/A-22 and EF-2000, on the other hand, will reduce 25~50% effective range of enemy's AAM and SAM.

dimik wrote:

When measuring a T/W ratio, do you use normal takeoff weight, or MTOW??

I usually use the standard air-combat weight for a fighter: Empty weight + 50~60% internal fuel + BVRAAM*4~6 + WVRAAM*2 + pilot*1 + weight of gun shells.

dimik wrote:

"2. The EF-2000 is the most unstable fighter (> or = -35% MAC) in the world, which should make it more agile and maneuverable than Rafale theoretically."

I'd be greatly interested in reading all of the information, perhaps, it is a few websites, would you mind giving me the URL's???

Magazine of IDR, 1998, APRIL, Page 5

A. Empty weight:

EF-2000: 10,995~11,150 kg, single seat
EF-2000: 11,700 kg, double seats
Rafale B: 9,670 kg
Rafale C: 9,400 kg
Rafale M: 9,900 kg

B. Internal Fuel:

EF-2000: 4,600~4,996 kg, single seat
EF-2000: 4,240 kg, single seat
Rafale B: 4,240 kg
Rafale C: 4,500~4,700 kg
Rafale M: 4,500~4,700 kg

C. Wing Surface Area:

EF-2000: 50.00 m2
Rafale: 45.70 m2

D. Normal take-off weight for air-interception:

EF-2000, single seat: 4,600~4,996 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + ASRAAM*2 + weight of pilot & gun shells
EF-2000, double seats: 4,240 kg internal fuel + AIM-120*4 + ASRAAM*2 + weight of pilot
RAFALE C/M: 4,500~4,700 kg internal fuel + MICA EM*4 + MICA IR*2 + weight of pilot & gun shells
RAFALE B : 4,240 kg internal fuel + MICA EM*4 + MICA IR*2 + weight of pilot

E. Air-combat weight:

EF-2000, single seat: 16,650~17,200 kg
EF-2000, double seats: 16,960 kg
RAFALE B: 14,800 kg
RAFALE C: 14,800~15,000 kg
RAFALE M: 15,300~15,500 kg

F. Wing-load (E/C):

EF-2000, single seat: 333.0~344.0 kg/m2
EF-2000, double seats: 339.2 kg/m2
Rafale B: 323.9 kg/m2
Rafale C: 323.9~328.2 kg/m2
Rafale M: 334.8~339.2 kg/m2

G. T/W ratio, sea-level(AB thrust / Maximal military thrust):

EF-2000:

EF-2K: 1.068~1.103 / 0.712~0.736 (EJ200, peace time, 20,250 Ib / 13,500 Ib *2)
EF-2K: 1.127~1.164 / 0.819~0.846 (EJ200, the war time, 21,370 Ib / 15,525 Ib *2)
EF-2K: 1.175~1.214 / 0.819~0.846 (EJ200, small revision, 22,275 Ib / 15,525 Ib *2)
EF-2K: 1.218~1.259 / 0.854~0.883 (EJ230, post-2010?, 23,100 Ib / 16,200 Ib *2)
EF-2K: 1.424~1.490 / 0.923~0.954 (EJ270, post-2015?, 27,000~27,350 Ib / 17,500 Ib *2)

Rafale, M88-2, nowadays:

RAFA B: 1.034 / 0.689 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib / 11,245 Ib *2)
RAFA C: 1.020~1.034 / 0.680~0.689 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib / 11,245 Ib *2)
RAFA M: 0.987~1.000 / 0.658~0.667 (M88-2, nowadays, 16,870 Ib / 11,245 Ib *2)

Rafale, M88-3, post-2010:

RAFA B: 1.225 / 0.816 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib / 13,500 Ib *2)
RAFA C: 1.209~1.225 / 0.806~0.816 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib / 13,500 Ib *2)
RAFA M: 1.170~1.185 / 0.780~0.790 (M88-3, post-2010, 20,250 Ib / 13,500 Ib *2)

Forum: F-16 versus XYZ

F-16 vs SU-30