F-35 Lightning II vs Dassault Rafale

I’m not so sure what is “suspect” about the Rafale’s Supercruise claim. It is stated in Fox 3, Dassault’s trade magazine. The specific quote from above refers to two aircraft from flottille 12f. These were Rafale-M. Does not state supercruise speed with 4 AAM and a centerline. The Mach 1.4 figure is stated for the Rafale-C.

You have several pilots stating the said Mach 1.4 supercruise capability (including the pilot on fighter pilot’s podcast). I see people quote pilot statements as fact here constantly, why discount the statements of a French Rafale pilot?

LOL Boeing claims the F-15 Eagle has a Top Speed of Mach 2.5 Yet, in the real world it never reaches remotely close to that speed.........So, spare me what Fox 3 claims about the Rafale.

Max speed of M1.8 is more of an inlet design limitation than an airframe drag or lack of thrust limitation.

Also, the RPL 711 were designed for supersonic flight for a reason. And yes, M1.7 with three of those. Featured on tape on a Rafale QA test flight on French news report. I believe the Eurofighter can reach quite high speeds with its also supersonic-capable fuel tanks.

LOL Boeing claims the F-15 Eagle has a Top Speed of Mach 2.5 Yet, in the real world it never reaches remotely close to that speed.........So, spare me what Fox 3 claims about the Rafale.

Does that mean it can't?

Just because it seems not eveybody is up to date on the Rafale fuel tanks, on the left is the supersonic tank (330 gal), on the right the subsonic (530 gal).

Max speed of M1.8 is more of an inlet design limitation than an airframe drag or lack of thrust limitation.

Also, the RPL 711 were designed for supersonic flight for a reason. And yes, M1.7 with three of those. Featured on tape on a Rafale QA test flight on French news report. I believe the Eurofighter can reach quite high speeds with its also supersonic-capable fuel tanks.

We only care what happens in the "Real World". Again the F-15 in theory has a Top Speed of Mach 2.5. Yet, never does so in the real world of air combat.

So, even "if" the Rafale could reach Mach 1.7 with three external fuel tanks. It would "exhaust" all of it's fuel in meer minutes. In short it's not a practical capability in the real world.

Does that mean it can't?

A combat loaded F-15C will never reach Mach 2.5. That is "can't" in the "Real World". What don't you understand???

I’m not so sure what is “suspect” about the Rafale’s Supercruise claim. It is stated in Fox 3, Dassault’s trade magazine. The specific quote from above refers to two aircraft from flottille 12f. These were Rafale-M. Does not state supercruise speed with 4 AAM and a centerline. The Mach 1.4 figure is stated for the Rafale-C.

You have several pilots stating the said Mach 1.4 supercruise capability (including the pilot on fighter pilot’s podcast). I see people quote pilot statements as fact here constantly, why discount the statements of a French Rafale pilot?

LOL Boeing claims the F-15 Eagle has a Top Speed of Mach 2.5 Yet, in the real world it never reaches remotely close to that speed.........So, spare me what Fox 3 claims about the Rafale.

Spare me your chauvinism. You discount the doc from le bourget, the pilot’s, the official statements inn Dassault’s own magazine. Please.

I’ve no reason to pump the performance of the Rafale. I just find it disingenuous to dismiss official (and unofficial) statements because you find it inconvenient to your “opinion”.

The quote about Mach 1.7 with three eft comes from this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ... RVQw1vRgZY

It’s a news report with a journalist on a backseat ride in a Rafale. Good luck, it’s in French. P.S. the Rafale is FCS limited to 750 knots/Mach 1.8. Similar to the F-35 KCAS/Mach limit. Does not mean it’s thrust/drag limited to Mach 1.8.

Not very hard to believe, an F-16C block 52 can.reach Mach 1.3 with a DI of 150 and over Mach 1.6 with a DI of 100.

Just because it seems not eveybody is up to date on the Rafale fuel tanks, on the left is the supersonic tank (330 gal), on the right the subsonic (530 gal).

Even the smaller "supersonic tanks" would still have considerable "drag". Nothing is "FREE".....

The 2000 could also reach quite high speeds in the supersonic regime with the centerline RPL 522 (1300 L/345 US. gal.) while not being as streamlined as the Rafale supersonic tanks.

"Nothing is free".

Yes I know. But it can be cheap, especially when, as FBW said, the M1.8 max speed is not a hard limit, and it's thus not too surprising to see the Rafale approaching that speed with adequate loadouts (i.e. supersonic optimized stores, including fuel tanks).

But I guess some opinion and a Mk.1 eyeball drag-o-meters and opinions are legit enough to question that!

EX-F-15E pilot says she has 'never flown faster than M 1.5 in the F-15E even though it is faster than M 2' or words like that.

F-35A Lt.Col MAU Range & Speed Quotes 'Views from the Cockpit' https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDRVDdBpc0c

There are several docs and several pilots (including Até who is not serving anymore) accrediting this M1.4 SC capability. I know that there is a certain primary skepticism about anything non-LM here, but come on.

I don't doubt 1.4M SC. I doubt some of the loudouts stated to be used in said SC. Four MICA? Sure. Four MICA and a CL tank, ehhh... Six MICA? ehhhh... 1.3M with six MICA and a CL tank? That is sounding like too much.

And for the record I get on people who inflate LM planes too. When a poster says the F-35C hit 1.2+M with the six GBU-31s, I corrected them that it was only credited with "supersonic", 1.0+M.

It is said the drag and weight of an External Fuel Tank. Is so high that it consumes half of the fuel in said tank. (just to overcome it) In addition Jon Beesley said that even Amraams have a big impact on performance. I honestly doubt the MICA are any better....


Which, is why I to think the claim is "suspect".....

It doesn't help that eurofighter claiming the US definition of mach 1.5. They claim supercruise 1.5 under the air superiority role. I doubt it would have tanks and have only the missiles that are let into the profile of the frame. To reduce drag.
https://web.archive.org/web/20090815004 ... /td_lu.asp
The high power surplus of the EJ 200 engines enables high acceleration, which is important for long-range and supersonic aerial combat. Even without afterburner use is a cruise with about Mach 1.5 possible (Supercruise).

EX-F-15E pilot says she has 'never flown faster than M 1.5 in the F-15E even though it is faster than M 2' or words like that.

Well too bad for her? I'm not sure I see the point here?

Spare me your chauvinism. You discount the doc from le bourget, the pilot’s, the official statements inn Dassault’s own magazine. Please.

I’ve no reason to pump the performance of the Rafale. I just find it disingenuous to dismiss official (and unofficial) statements because you find it inconvenient to your “opinion”.

The quote about Mach 1.7 with three eft comes from this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ... RVQw1vRgZY

It’s a news report with a journalist on a backseat ride in a Rafale. Good luck, it’s in French. P.S. the Rafale is FCS limited to 750 knots/Mach 1.8. Similar to the F-35 KCAS/Mach limit. Does not mean it’s thrust/drag limited to Mach 1.8.

How many times have we heard the F-15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5??? Yet, as I have already said over and over again. That is not what it is capable of in the real world under combat conditions...

So, for sake of argument load up your Rafale with three external fuel tanks. Then take off and climb to your top speed of Mach 1.7. Guess what happens a hundred miles out you exhaust all of your fuel! Hell, you can't even make it back to base! I guess you can find a "tanker" hopefully???

So, explain to me and the other members a mission profile. In which the Rafale could reach Mach 1.7 under combat conditions and make it back to base....

The point? What is the point about all this argy-bargy about top speed when real pilots consider it irrelevant. My Point.

EX-F-15E pilot says she has 'never flown faster than M 1.5 in the F-15E even though it is faster than M 2' or words like that.

Well too bad for her? I'm not sure I see the point here?

Point here is "claimed" capabilities vs "real world capabilities"!

EX-F-15E pilot says she has 'never flown faster than M 1.5 in the F-15E even though it is faster than M 2' or words like that.

Well too bad for her? I'm not sure I see the point here?

Point here is "claimed" capabilities vs "real world capabilities"!

The point? What is the point about all this argy-bargy about top speed when real pilots consider it irrelevant. My Point.

Operational envelope is just a subset of the total flight envelope.

Whether an F-15E (or.. that specific pilot) doesn't hit M1.5+ or a Rafale will never need to reach M1.7 in combat with 3 supersonic EFT is irrelevant. It's about the latter here - actual flight envelope and capability. Not employment.

BTW Corsair63: a single pilot feedback mentioning something she hasn't do with the plane doesn't mean that the said-plane cannot do it...

Spare me your chauvinism. You discount the doc from le bourget, the pilot’s, the official statements inn Dassault’s own magazine. Please.

I’ve no reason to pump the performance of the Rafale. I just find it disingenuous to dismiss official (and unofficial) statements because you find it inconvenient to your “opinion”.

The quote about Mach 1.7 with three eft comes from this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?time_contin ... RVQw1vRgZY

It’s a news report with a journalist on a backseat ride in a Rafale. Good luck, it’s in French. P.S. the Rafale is FCS limited to 750 knots/Mach 1.8. Similar to the F-35 KCAS/Mach limit. Does not mean it’s thrust/drag limited to Mach 1.8.

How many times have we heard the F-15 has a top speed of Mach 2.5??? Yet, as I have already said over and over again. That is not what it is capable of in the real world under combat conditions...

So, for sake of argument load up your Rafale with three external fuel tanks. Then take off and climb to your top speed of Mach 1.7. Guess what happens a hundred miles out you exhaust all of your fuel! Hell, you can't even make it back to base! I guess you can find a "tanker" hopefully???

So, explain to me and the other members a mission profile. In which the Rafale could reach Mach 1.7 under combat conditions and make it back to base....

First off, I’m not sure why you keep bringing up the F-15C and Mach 2.5, maybe you should have checked the flight manual.

Second, I don’t have to “explain” anything to you. You’ve doubted that the Rafale can super cruise despite official statements otherwise and that it cannot reach Mach 1.7 with 3 eft. The news story above states otherwise, and it’s plausible. If the F-16 can reach Mach 1.3 with a DI of 150, it isn’t that surprising that the Rafale could reach Mach 1.7 in that configuration. Obviously, the range would be severely impacted, but that’s not the question at hand is it?

Why don’t you explain to all us members here why the Rafale cannot super cruise despite dassault and pilot’s stating it can and demonstrate why it can’t rrach Mach 1.7 “dirty” when it seems completely reasonable when you compare F-16 block 50.