F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

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

SpudmanWP

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 8408
  • Joined: 12 Oct 2006, 19:18
  • Location: California

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 06:33

F's plus pods do not make a G.

The F's did not get pre-wired and since they still have their gun, they did not get the Avionics Pallet either that adds a lot of the extra ESM or the wingtip pods.

Image
"The early bird gets the worm but the second mouse gets the cheese."
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26207
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 07:06

This is weird. This link is to the Commander Naval Air Forces wants more F/A-18s thread explaining the situation:

viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=391255&hilit=Growler#p391255 amongst other it says:

There is a LONG ANAO screed which youse can read: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=391253&hilit=Growler#p391253
&
Oz may further upgrade Growlers NOT just NGJ: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=52254&p=391263&hilit=Brown#p391263
Australian Growlers spell out future of electronic attack
24 Feb 2016 Combat Aircraft Magazine

"...Origins of the RAAF Growler
Just months after the last four RAAF F/A-18Fs arrived in Australia in late 2011, Australia voiced interest in acquiring 12 additional Super Hornets and exercising its option to upgrade 12 of the pre-wired F/A-18F+ aircraft into EA-18Gs. Of the original 24 Super Hornets purchased by Australia, the last 12 (beginning with A44-213) were built with EA-18G wiring and waveguides installed out to the wing-fold, blanked antenna cut-outs, and structural provisions for equipment racks.

A formal request for 12 EA-18G modification kits was announced in May 2012, with plans to convert six Super Hornets into Growlers beginning in 2015, and then to convert the remainder in the early 2020s. Within a year of that announcement, however, the Australian government changed course and decided to retain its 24 Super Hornets and acquire 12 new-build Growlers. Notification of sale was announced on February 28, 2013, with an estimated cost of $3.7 billion (US). The sale further included AGM-88 High-speed Anti-Radiation Missiles (HARMs) and the new AGM-88E Advanced Anti-Radiation Guided Missile (AARGM)...."

Source: http://www.combataircraft.net/2016/02/2 ... ic-attack/

One day all of this GROWLER in Oz may end up in the Oz Thread but 'such is life' (Ned Kelly last words - apocryphal?).
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 07:27

monkeypilot wrote:
ricnunes wrote:
mixelflick wrote:The Rafale appears to be the "next best thing" to the F-35, at least in terms of western aircraft exports.


Well I disagree with this as well.

I believe that some of the latest pages of this thread have some pretty solid evidences that the Super Hornet is potentially better in Air-to-ground roles.

Now if you say that the Rafale is the best "Eurocannard" then I would agree!


Actually probably not. Until SH is able to self locate ennemy radars, self prtotect using smart jamming, gain range.. . Which it isn't afaik (may be with block III, future will tell). But saying a plane is "the best" in anyway is often misleading. An airraft is designed to fit more or less into a tactical system, doctrine etc.
Much will depend on context, operational structures, RoEs. There is no "magic tool".

Nonsense, reading articles hasn't helped, I'll let you google up a power point on how the fa-18ef avionics systems locates radar and also uses it's own radar as EW/EA, as well as other systems . The basics aren't a secret and well detailed, even on wiki.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 07:58

SpudmanWP wrote:F's plus pods do not make a G.

The F's did not get pre-wired and since they still have their gun, they did not get the Avionics Pallet either that adds a lot of the extra ESM or the wingtip pods.

I think you will find that you can wire the super hornet for a growler conversion and still have the gun. I'd have to check to be certain, but it would have stuck if 12 of our supers didn't have a gun. It's on conversion that the gun is removed. pre wiring is needed as it would be a big/impossible job to try and run the needed stuff later.
Aussie fanboy
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 08:10

element1loop wrote:
All G are F, if you take the pods off, to use them as F. But the reverse is also true, you get 24 G, or 36 F. Any of the 24 can be a Gs.


You have to pre wire during the build, you can't take a super and convert to a growler, it's cheaper to buy a new plane. Once a prewired super is converted to a gowler, it can't be used a super in a mission again. it really does change a lot of stuff. The RAAF actually got sticker shock at the additional cost to cover the 12 prewired to growler, it finished up a lot more than was thought/indicated by boeing, when they were wired.
Aussie fanboy
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26207
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 08:47

optimist wrote:
element1loop wrote:
All G are F, if you take the pods off, to use them as F. But the reverse is also true, you get 24 G, or 36 F. Any of the 24 can be a Gs.


You have to pre wire during the build, you can't take a super and convert to a growler, it's cheaper to buy a new plane. Once a prewired super is converted to a gowler, it can't be used a super in a mission again. it really does change a lot of stuff. The RAAF actually got sticker shock at the additional cost to cover the 12 prewired to growler, it finished up a lot more than was thought/indicated by boeing, when they were wired.

Good call 'optimist' - and no one has done it (Shornet to Groaner) either before IIRC/AFAIK - here be dragons. FUD

http://www.genesispark.com/wp-content/u ... ragons.gif
Attachments
HereBeDragons.jpg
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1804
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 09:14

Ok, I'll clarify.

"All G are F"

This is true, the G is built from the F as its basis.

" ... if you take the pods off, to use them as F ..."

As I understand it, F capabilities remain within the G, and the G software is integrated over the top of the full F software.

" ... But the reverse is also true, you get 24 G ..."

i.e. if you add pods to the 12 pre-wired and to the 12 Gs, you get 24 G.

" ... or 36 F. ..."

Meaning, if you take off all the G pods, you have the equivalent capabilities of 36 F, because all the F software is still there and functional.

"Any of the 24 can be a Gs."

i.e. the "24" consists of the 12 pre-wired + 12 ordered G = 24G

The "24" did not refer to all of the NACC "F" SH.

I was NOT talking about using the 12 actual BkII F.
Last edited by element1loop on 26 Mar 2018, 09:21, edited 1 time in total.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26207
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 09:21

As the quote above says: "...Of the original 24 Super Hornets purchased by Australia, the last 12 (beginning with A44-213) were built with EA-18G wiring and waveguides installed out to the wing-fold, blanked antenna cut-outs, and structural provisions for equipment racks...." Elsewhere the discussion centred around the wing difference: GROWLER to Super Hornet. I guess I have to find that now eh. So in strict terms a Super Hornet can ONLY be modified to an ersatz Growler standard - not the full cigar - but close. No one has done it hence difficulties envisaged. Due to line cited to be closed in 2015 Oz opted for twelve new Growlers and damn the expense/uncertainty. I'll look for the wing diff now....

BTW here is the 5 page Growler article with quote: download/file.php?id=21747 (0.7Mb)
Last edited by spazsinbad on 26 Mar 2018, 09:26, edited 1 time in total.
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1804
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 09:24

spazsinbad wrote: ..." Elsewhere the discussion centred around the wing difference: GROWLER to Super Hornet. I guess I have to find that now eh. So in strict terms a Super Hornet can ONLY be modified to an ersatz Growler standard - not the full cigar - but close.


Thanks spaz, I thought it was at plug and play level already.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26207
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 09:30

For me it gets complicated. Why? Because I'm ONLY interested in the F-35 with NavAv the focus - all the rest is peripheral.

Should have found this before now...: viewtopic.php?f=58&t=24027&p=303063&hilit=Growler+wing+modification#p303063
Cost of ‘Growler’ jets blows out to $1.7b
07 Aug 2012 David Ellery

"The cost to the taxpayer of converting 12 RAAF Super Hornets into $250 million electronic warfare warriors, or “Growlers”, has increased almost six fold from $300 million to $1.7 billion ...."

Source: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nationa ... =text-only

$200m refit to give fighter jets growl
22 Feb 2012 Ian McPhedran

“THE Federal Government will spend more than $200 million to transform six air force fighter jets into hi-tech electronic warfare planes. The RAAF purchased 24 Boeing Rhino fighters under a $6 billion deal with the US Navy to fill the gap between the retirement of the F-111 fighter bomber and the expected delivery of the first batch of 14 Joint Strike Fighter stealth jets later this decade.

Defence Minister Stephen Smith will announce the decision to upgrade the jet fighters early next month to EA-18G models known as "Growlers" to plug an emerging air combat capability gap. The G-model entered service with the US Navy in 2008 and it allows attacking forces to detect and jam enemy radars to protect friendly aircraft from all known surface-to-air missile threats. The Growler is the launch platform for the "Next Generation Jammer" that uses advanced radar technology from Northrop Grumman to conduct precision jamming.

Australia purchased 12 Rhino fighters wired for the Growler upgrade during the production process at a cost of $35 million. Retro fitting has never been attempted before and will cost between $200 million and $300 million. News Limited understands that the first aircraft will be converted at the Boeing factory in St Louis and the remainder at Amberley RAAF base near Brisbane. Meanwhile, Mr Smith is facing criticism from air force brass for his move to buy 12 more Rhinos to cover the likely delay into service of up to 70 Australian JSFs. A decision is due by September this year, but the RAAF is arguing against more Rhinos because they fear that will leave less funds for Joint Strike Fighters.

"The RAAF doesn't want to run two types of fighter jets," a source said....”

Source: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/nati ... 6277576058
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

spazsinbad

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 26207
  • Joined: 05 May 2009, 21:31
  • Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀¯\_(ツ)_/¯
  • Warnings: -2

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 09:41

This is the full article as 'text only' which shows how HEADlines can be misleading - cost blows out because GROWLERs...
Cost of 'Growler' jets blows out to $1.7b [DUH! JEDI MIND TRICK :doh: ]
07 Aug 2012 David Ellery

"The cost to the taxpayer of converting 12 RAAF Super Hornets into $250 million electronic warfare warriors, or ''Growlers'', has increased almost six fold from $300 million to $1.7 billion. By the time they are expected to come on line around the end of the decade, the planes' jamming pods will be close to their use-by date.

The United States government has had to accelerate its ''next generation jammer'' program to counter problems with its own Growler fleet and the results of that research could be operational by the early 2020s. Australian critics say Defence wants to spend top dollar for technology that dates back to 1971, was used on F-111s over Baghdad during the first Gulf War, has ''survivability issues'' in a combat environment and that America hopes to replace sooner rather than later.

Although the Australian government will not commit to Growler until next month at the earliest, it has already spent $55 million on the capability which has been strongly championed by members of the ADF senior leadership group. Of this, $35 million was allocated in February 2009 to hardwire 12 of the 24 Super Hornets ''for but not with'' the Growler package. A further $20 million was allocated by Defence Minister Stephen Smith in March this year to fund ''long lead items''.

Joel Fitzgibbon, the then defence minister, said on February 27, 2009, that Australia's Growler project would ''require an additional investment of around $300 million''. What he did not say was Australia wasn't planning to buy the ALQ-99 electronic warfare pods, just the systems and hardware to allow them to be fitted on an ''as required'' basis.

''Subsequently the US Defence Security Cooperation Agency advised the US Congress last May 22 of a potential sale of the [12] Growler[s] to Australia at an estimated cost of $1.7 billion,'' a Defence spokesman has explained. ''The initial proposal that underpinned the 2009 cost estimate would have provided a lesser capability than Defence now proposes to acquire''.

The pods would have had to be obtained from the United States Navy whenever Australia wanted them, a source said. The US would have retained absolute control over the RAAF's use of the Growler technology. To buy the pods for 12 planes outright will cost an additional $1.4 billion, just $100 million short of the 2012-13 Australian budget surplus target.

The ALQ-99 pods have been criticised as unreliable by the US Government Accountability Office which said in 2010 the US Navy had identified ''seven major deficiencies'' and that the Director of Operational Test and Evaluation found the electronic attack suite ''degraded'' the aircraft's radar performance. ''The new plane [the Growler] is carrying aged ALQ-99 jamming pods into a future where they will be woefully inadequate,'' US analyst Loren Thompson says.

The Australian Growler project, listed in last month's revised Defence Capability Plan as Project Air 5349 Phase 3 and costing ''between $1 billion and $2 billion'', is well insulated from the current round of Defence budget cuts. ''If [the] government decides to acquire the Growler, the expenditure would be spread over a number of years, noting the modification kits and other mission and support systems would be produced later this decade,'' a Defence spokesman said.

Under the new arrangement, which will give Australia its own pods, there will still be constraints on their use. ''It is extremely unlikely the RAAF would be allowed to use its Growlers while there were American aircraft in the air [in the vicinity],'' we were told.

The cost blowout raises questions about transparency and value for money. Andrew Davies, a senior analyst at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, supports the shift from capability access to capability ownership - even if there are operational constraints. ''I think there is more of an upside than a downside,'' he said.

Carlo Kopp, of Air Power Australia, disagrees: ''There are some major survivability problems with the Growler,'' he said."

Source: http://www.canberratimes.com.au/nationa ... eType=text
A4G Skyhawk: www.faaaa.asn.au/spazsinbad-a4g/ & www.youtube.com/channel/UCwqC_s6gcCVvG7NOge3qfAQ/videos?view_as=subscriber
Offline
User avatar

element1loop

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1804
  • Joined: 31 Dec 2015, 05:35
  • Location: Australia

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 09:43

spazsinbad wrote:For me it gets complicated. Why? Because I'm ONLY interested in the F-35 with NavAv the focus - all the rest is peripheral.


Understand, no worries, cheers.
Accel + Alt + VLO + DAS + MDF + Radial Distance = LIFE . . . Always choose Stealth
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 10:54

Actually probably not. Until SH is able to self locate ennemy radars, self prtotect using smart jamming, gain range.. . Which it isn't afaik (may be with block III, future will tell). But saying a plane is "the best" in anyway is often misleading. An airraft is designed to fit more or less into a tactical system, doctrine etc.
Much will depend on context, operational structures, RoEs. There is no "magic tool".

Nonsense, reading articles hasn't helped, I'll let you google up a power point on how the fa-18ef avionics systems locates radar and also uses it's own radar as EW/EA, as well as other systems . The basics aren't a secret and well detailed, even on wiki.[/quote]

As yo usay, these are basics. APG78 is an excellent radar, but not 360°. No peripheral AESA antennas to geolocate/jam etc. Again, both these planes are excellent performers, but they were designed with different context/doctrine. Please before calling my quotes nonsense and ask me to read articles, why don't you do it?
Offline

optimist

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1387
  • Joined: 20 Nov 2014, 03:34
  • Location: australia

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 12:30

monkeypilot wrote:
Actually probably not. Until SH is able to self locate ennemy radars, self prtotect using smart jamming, gain range.. . Which it isn't afaik (may be with block III, future will tell). But saying a plane is "the best" in anyway is often misleading. An airraft is designed to fit more or less into a tactical system, doctrine etc.
Much will depend on context, operational structures, RoEs. There is no "magic tool".

Nonsense, reading articles hasn't helped, I'll let you google up a power point on how the fa-18ef avionics systems locates radar and also uses it's own radar as EW/EA, as well as other systems . The basics aren't a secret and well detailed, even on wiki.

As yo usay, these are basics. APG78 is an excellent radar, but not 360°. No peripheral AESA antennas to geolocate/jam etc. Again, both these planes are excellent performers, but they were designed with different context/doctrine. Please before calling my quotes nonsense and ask me to read articles, why don't you do it?


It's probably time I had a rest from this nonsense, clueless and dumb things being said. I did ask you to educate yourself a bit. It is simply wrong to say that the fa-18 can't geolocate a radar and jam it. google ALR-67 for a start, then add the other stuff, including the towed array.
and it's a digital system and not analogue like the rafale
why would anyone want to radiate a jam in a 360deg field? That's a big sign 'here I am kill me'. That really is ancient tech, it sounds like that is what the rafale still does, with the thing under it's vertical stabiliser
Aussie fanboy
Offline

monkeypilot

Banned

  • Posts: 187
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2017, 09:35

Unread post26 Mar 2018, 13:30

optimist wrote:
monkeypilot wrote:
Actually probably not. Until SH is able to self locate ennemy radars, self prtotect using smart jamming, gain range.. . Which it isn't afaik (may be with block III, future will tell). But saying a plane is "the best" in anyway is often misleading. An airraft is designed to fit more or less into a tactical system, doctrine etc.
Much will depend on context, operational structures, RoEs. There is no "magic tool".

Nonsense, reading articles hasn't helped, I'll let you google up a power point on how the fa-18ef avionics systems locates radar and also uses it's own radar as EW/EA, as well as other systems . The basics aren't a secret and well detailed, even on wiki.

As yo usay, these are basics. APG78 is an excellent radar, but not 360°. No peripheral AESA antennas to geolocate/jam etc. Again, both these planes are excellent performers, but they were designed with different context/doctrine. Please before calling my quotes nonsense and ask me to read articles, why don't you do it?


It's probably time I had a rest from this nonsense, clueless and dumb things being said. I did ask you to educate yourself a bit. It is simply wrong to say that the fa-18 can't geolocate a radar and jam it. google ALR-67 for a start, then add the other stuff, including the towed array.
and it's a digital system and not analogue like the rafale
why would anyone want to radiate a jam in a 360deg field? That's a big sign 'here I am kill me'. That really is ancient tech, it sounds like that is what the rafale still does, with the thing under it's vertical stabiliser


It is called a security bubble (I just learned that educating myself, I cannot help transmitting you). Rafale can jam over 360° It uses with coherent signals precisely emitted towards the target to be jammed. Nothing to do with "white noise" used by FA/18 G. That is why half a dozen of AESA antennas are placed all around the airrcraft allowing an intelligent jamming (deception, rage gate pull off etc.) A FA 18 is strictly unable to use with the same efficiency and precision..."and it's a digital system and not analogue like the rafale" source? . How would you qualify the signal received by the RWR? Digital or analog?
PreviousNext

Return to F-35 versus XYZ

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests