Second, no i am not naive enough to think that the Rafale is that dominate over the Typhoon… sure it has certain flight regimes where it may be able to perform better but there are always tactics to counter these.

No need to be naive but ignorant of Rafale performances and RCS is generaly enough.

I repeat, they (our MN pilots) stated that they detect Typhoon 50% further than another Rafale, this would apply in the case of Typhoon pilots too.

So BWR, a Rafale will detect a Typhoon earlier than the opposite and this with the PESA RBE2.

Then:

WVR i’m sorry to say but if you engage a Rafale below M 1.6 with a Typhoon you’re playing in its field and if you had known whatever about what is thaught as ACM in the west you would see that logicaly you wouldn’t try to do so.

These photos shows clearly two things:

1) The Typhoon isn’t flying fast enough to escape the piper of the hunter, it doesn’t have the energy to do so.

2) The closing speed won’t be higher than 150 kt so you can fairly say their speeds difference are not higher than the valid closing speed for a gun kill.

3) At these speeds and up to 500 kt, the Rafale can out-turn everything, it would accelerate passed 9.0 g at 15.000 ft easely.

You are really really biased to the point where its annoying and it would be better to just ignore most of your post.

Don’t accuse people to do what YOU are doing yourself please…

Typhoon does not pull 11.0 g in instantaneous with 2 AAMs (nor any other fighters up to now for that matter), Rafale does (and the B btw which is one of the heaviest versions).

FACTS:

Typhoon is FAR from being as safe at lower speeds than Rafale; it is known that it can depart at speeds around 50 kt, a close-coupled canard doesn’t DEPART, demonstrated combat speed of a maneuvring Rafale is 18 kt.

On the Rafale soft limit (visual and sonore clue) only their respective corner speed is the same, take Rafale higher Maximum structural load (1.86 vs 1.5) into account to compute turn rates and the Rafale corner speed is way higher, as would be its instantaneous and sustained turn rates (providing it have the necessary thrust in the case of the later).

These are known facts and NO, definitely, by denying them YOU are the one who is biased here.

Your French Bias and hate for anything else is more transparent than almost everybody else here.[/

WOW! This is all very technical but is it all you got?

Thanks for the qualificatives regarding myself and my posts: cool:

As you are the 2nd to misunderstood it, this was related to speed with AB, not supercruise. Appologise if it made a different impression.

No need for appologies Scorpion, i was more replying within the context then to your post in particular but i effectively thaught you were mentioning S/C.

I just think it is time people start to realise that there are limits and that accuracy would dictate that we know them before posting figures, whatever they are.

You are not the on braging in this topic.

Originally Posted by Sintra

And if Rafale is superior to Typhoon, then so is Jaguar, as RAF Jaguars are known to have had Rafale ‘bang to rights’ just like this too

What is known as a fact is where this information comes from…

Kovy
Rank 5 Registered User Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: France
Posts: 789

So what we have so far ?

1- Two rafale fanboys claiming rafale vaste A2A superiority over the typhoon without proof.

Proofs of this in some of their respective flight envelops are there for everyone to see…

Kovy
2- The entire Bae marketing/lobbying team claiming Typhoon vaste A2A superioty over the rafale based on a 15 years old simulation.

This is commercial and marketing braging, analysing is as you say, getting us elsewhere.

Here’s the summary in real English. :p

[*] Rafale beat Typhoon 4-0 the first time, then 3-1 the second time. Missile performance was artificially limited on the French side, more so the second time.

[*] Rafale lost only once to the F-22, out of “several fights”.

[*] Rafale was also able to detect SAM sites that F-16CJs had missed

[*] Rafale launched 3 AAMs and 6 AASM bombs within less than a minute, with a UAE pilot in the backseat 😉

[*] Overall, Rafale’s reputation was much enhanced among UAE pilots

Source: French Rafale pilot. This French journo is actually one of the more credible in France, since he is unofficially blacklisted by the French MOD due to his reports on French weaknesses in Afghanistan.

Thanks, it looks very good but you know, i wouldn’t be taken by surprise and proven wrong sometimes in the future on this one after having been fighting hearsays and forum legends that hard.

I don’t want to to the same, i will not suggest that this journalist is doing it either though, so yes it looks and sounds REALLY good! 😀

bloodshot
So what was the outcome of the other engagements then ? …

Either tie or win(s) for Rafale logically but F-22 suffered no losses, conclude by yourself.

bloodshot
Does this not contradict what has been stated already by the F-22 pilot in the clip posted above ?

Where did he say Rafale?

He said opposition, if they killed 8 aircrafts and 1 Rafale among them then it fits his comments perfectly.

If the F-22 suffered no losses, and the Rafale faced the F-22 several times in visual range combat but only once came within the crosshairs of the American fighter then what was the outcome of the other engagements … a tie ?

I would say so, Rafale have an incredible instantaneous turn rate demonstrated to be 11.0 g, try following this with a gun piper for sport.

“In every test we did, the Raptors just blew the competition out of the water,” Pilch said. “Their stats were off the chart.”

Considering that it was designed for the purpose and the cost of it, it would be a pitty if it havent been the case.

On the other hand…

The first account reports made this morning by a French Rafale pilot reported a superiority of the French fighter Typhoon RAF during confrontations made in recent weeks, the UAE.

The first confonfration committing four against four Typhoon Rafale ended with a 4-0 in favor of French.

Despite, explains it, the carriage of air-air weapons fictitiously degraded, says one. After a little degraded even arming, the Rafale has yet won, 3-1.

The Rafale has faced several times in F22, but in a limited visual combat air to air.

It would have been in the crosshairs of the American fighter only once, it is said too.

The Rafale, it is understood, has greatly improved its reputation, especially among drivers UAE.

It thus several time repeatedly demonstrated its superiority in all the spectacular missional in detecting sites of ground-air missiles that had not been updated by U.S. F-16CJ.

Furthermore, the front sector optronics (OSF) has also enabled the detection and identification up to 40 kilometers an asset which prevents the aircraft exposed for visual identification at 3-4 km, which is Necessary for most other types of aircraft.

Similarly, within a minute, a Rafale has fired six AASM on as many targets, at ranges of several tens of kilometers, while also firing three missiles air-air Mica. Back up, that day, a UAE driver …

Question of choise and cost. :diablo:

I am not inventing anything.

You keep doing it, KPPs (we all know hat they are), definitions of the word Cruise (as if USAF service and L-M were writing them) etc.

:diablo:

Originally Posted by pfcem
My agenda is the truth & exposing the falsehoods some what others to believe is the truth.

Your agenda seems rather to be self-gratifaction (forgive my Frenglish) trying on a day to day basis to imply that people known to be those who write the standards doesn’t know what they are talking about.

Q: Since when does US manufacturers and Services uses THEIRS instead of that of the Flight Test Centers?

Answer: Since YOU decided that it was convenient to turn Maximums into KPPs; otherwise said Minimums.

Very ego boosting but as remote to reality as the asteroid belt is from planet hearth.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

while downplaying any advantages in avionics capability that exist.

That’s exactly what you are doing yourself, by lack of information on actualy funded developements i guess.

I can’t see how F-35 have any advantages in avionics and systems today or will in 2015, it’s a wishlist for the Block 4 and other blocks you have right now, not a reflection of reality…

In reality as programe costs increased, blocks capabilities decreases.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

but are the raw performance advantages such, that they are game changing?

What a question! Yes according to every F-22 pilots they ARE.

In short kinetic energy plays a large role in every aspect of air combat for BOTH offensive and Defensive maneuvers reason for some to invent new meaning to known standard definitions and inflate datas from hearsays and “supposed to have been made by” comments.

But you guys keep pointing out F-22 speed advantages in both S/C and Max Machs while denying that the same principles of basic physics applies to others.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

Based upon remarks of those who’ve flown the plane, its neither sluggish in acceleration or in handling, and it has very good high alpha performance too.

It’s performances even in PSMs are way lower, i’d like to see F-35 pulling 11.0 g with two AAMs or come anywhere close to an A0A of 90* which was demonstrated by Gripen long ago.

Not mentioning the Herbst maneuvers, 100*+ AoA/40 kt negative speed demonstrated by a Rafale which btw was flown at controled speeds as low as 18 kt in mock combat vs Mirage 2000s, it doesn’t even need TVC…

Typhoon does, but they already are developed as are the new M 88, including 20.000 lb versions.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

Combined with its other advantages,

The only advantage it have is a lower RCS, systems/avionics-wise, comes its sceduled service entry, it won’t be more than level-to-inferior.

It will take a new generation of engines technologies and and two of IR sensors for the USA to achieve superiority.

F-35 already have a large kinetic energy disadvantage, its aerodynamics doesn’t allow for turn rates needed to beat the Typhoon Rafale or Gripen NG, its wingload is higher, TWR lower, IR signature higher than most etc.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

that has to count for something both in BVR and WVR.

NOT in WVR and yes it does count for something both in BVR and WVR, and not to the advantage of F-35.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

Shortly after entering service it will have a 6AAM stealth carriage for AIM-120s,

Meteor will be entering service and the next generation of multi-colour IRST as well and what is scheduled as development for these 6 AAMs is far from been acquiered today.

When these developement will have been funded and integrated is yet another story.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

as well as stealthy pylons for external -9xs.

It wont help vs long range passive detection and these types of pylons (and warloads) are also been studied in Europe.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

Yes it’s possible to keep upgrading the avionics on the Typhoon and Rafale, but the question is will the owners have the budget to put all of the latest gee whiz features on,

No, the question is a lot more relevant to F-35, considering its developement costs and the budgets already available for some European manufacturers today.

Originally Posted by wrightwing

which the F-35 will have from the start

Like what? Single bandwidth/single channel IR vs dual channel/multi-colour IR?

AESA vs AESA?

Long range camera vs medium range video channel designed primarily for A2G and unusable in A2A while using EOTS in the A2G mode?

IR reduction measure vs the hotest running engine in the world with NO reduction of its IR signature?

You are not telling it as it is, all those newer technologies (than that of F-35) are already being funded in the case of Rafale at least.

European fighters are NOT US legacies and have far better performances where it really matters.

They are way superior to F-35 in the kinetic energy game, accelerate, climb, fly faster and higher even with their full load of AAMs, they also are more maneuvrable at all altitudes and speeds.

As for F-35 L.O, it’s nowhere near enough to beat their sensor fusion and IR detection.

dynamo
The F 35 will be in the same situation with F 18 (i.e. “clean”) even if it carry 6 AAMs inside. And all fighters have to be in “full burner” and “high up” in order to reach 1.8 M, including EF, Rafale, F 15, F16, Su xx, and yes, even the F 22 has to use it (although this one has to use only MIN. AUG. not MAX AUG. as the others).

That’s also a wishlist, not reality.

So now you’re going ot explain how a design optimised for lower Machs and altitudes, and for a totaly different role is going to meet meet requierements made for the LWF, comparing F-35 to what you don’t know is not making your point at all.

You seems to lack a lot of information on the F-35 engine/inlets design optimisation as well as F/A-18 aerodynamic layout (and the origins of it), looking at their respective sweep angles without knowing a lot more than this is way insuffiscient.

Just a clue; it all comes down to DRAG vs THRUST, and when an engine runs out of puff at the altitude where another one can still beat drag, the difference shows, thus celling are as imp[ortant as wingsweep when it comes to real performances.

For your info, Typhoon like Rafale are designed to carry their full load of AAMs 0.2 Mach faster than the Maximum designed Mach of F-35, and have DASH Mach (with at least 2 AAMs) still 0.4 M higher.

You guys are trying to pass a strike aircraft for something designed around LWF requierements and it’s simply laughable.

Originally Posted by Scorpion82
My bad overread that. The Typhoon has actually demonstrated it, even M 1.6 with 3 external tanks.

Typhoon never flew at M 1.5 in S/C it is said to be “possible” without actually saying “with an increase thrust of 15%.

EJ-200 pressure recovery limit is 1.3 and anything higher is pushing the engine lifespan down, what Europjet and their customers are curently looking for is a decreased TBO not an increase in performances; we’re done with the “stupid figures” war…

Jwcook
I have been told the Typhoon could achieve M1.5 without afterburner only if it was low on fuel and running away from the fight – this is on present engines.

So you also know under which conditions and what the engine limits are; these figures are not representative of operational limits, just as that given for the F-22 at M 1.7 aren’t.

dynamo
Registered User

First, I didn’t mention the F 22 peak speed anywhere in my posts. AFAIK it’s classified. The SC speed is OTOH official and it’s ~ 1.7M.

Not it’s NOT an “OFFICIAL” figure, it’s a figure given in non Ops conditions and we know what the USAF officialy say about the KPP for the Raptor S/C is and what exces of M it achieved in optimum conditions, thus it is easy to figure what its ops Max military power is.

You guys all (both Typhoon and F-35 supporters) rewrite the very definition of the word CRUISE to come up with maximum Mach in full Military power (which is NOT cruising), be it over the engine pressure recovery limit in some cases and this is becoming simply ludicrous.

dynamo
Look, no one denies the advantage (not so big the EF fans would like) the EF has over the F 35 at high speed/high altitudes, when EF is with a few AAMs, no EFT. .

Sorry, i dare to correct you there, Typhoon have a significant kinetic advantage over F-35 in A2A configuration (exept external tanks perhaps) at ALL altitudes, and the number of AAM is not a “few” but actually 4 more than the F-35 block 3 would carry.

The same applies in the case of Rafale although the standard AdlA/MN A2A configuration includes only 6 AAMs.

After all, that’s why in the charts regarding speed and acceleration, the F 35 was compared to Rafale, Gripen, J 10 and Su 30 MK, in order to look good, but not to EF

Good luck accelerating an airfoil with superior t/cs, inferior wingsweep and TWR as fast as the Rafale and Gripens NG, even with 6 AAMs attached to them, you’d be better off understanding that by “Legacy” the USAF think F-16 (with limits dues ot is pylons and smaller size) and that the Vipers are considerably out-performed by these two aircrafts already…

@ Cola1973: Thanks for the link, I taught you were talking about Typhoon btw (hence my question).

I ran out of credit for my modem Tuesday morning and messed up my posts as well, I had prepared this topo which I wanted (but couldn’t) post in an internet cafe.

I got similar values from my docs, (Jane’s world Aircrafts and others) plus; taper ratio: 0.169, leading edge anhedral: 3.25*, root twist: 0.5*, tip twist: -31*.

When exporting a good mesh of the wing from CATIA to FLUENT, it is possible with these values to figure a lot of things…

Originally Posted by Cola1973

if thickness has been the same.

Originally Posted by Cola1973

if thickness has been the same.

I double checked, Raptor’s theories are all wrong, read my reply to him on his comments.

Typhoon wing profile is a modified NACA 66 and the aircraft supersonic drag issue is known and quantified (*).

F-22 supercritical wing profile makes the passage to transonic easier and smoother (TVC reducing AoA does as well) and they both are transonic from M 0.98.

F-22 drag rise is up 0.11+ from the supercritical with 42* sweep, lower than the modified NACA 66 53* sweep but it might have a smoother transition to the transonic region.

L-M previous Delta wings experience and DRYDEN work on the subject of supercritical wings helped make some important design choices and F-22 didn’t encounter a pitch-up moment issue.

Typhoon get out of the transonic zone M 0.03 M earlier and its supersonic drag polar is also dropping faster.

In fact I should have said “Typhoon has a lower transonic drag pick and lower supersonic drag values” rather than a “higher Critical Mach” taking the effects of the wing profiles into account.

Originally Posted by LmRaptor
that a single percent change in t/c has more effect on critical mach than a single percent change in sweep angle

That’s actualy FALSE passed 40* sweep at the actual t/c values and i wonder how you can dare posting stuff like these and then comment on people’s “ignorance”.

A t/c reduction of 1.0 for 402* sweep is far from resulting to the same increase in Critical Mach as a sweep angle increase from 42* to 53*, actually the resulting gains changes proportionally inversely and btw F-22 values are higher than that of Typhoon.

Originally Posted by LmRaptor
Also don’t confuse the mach angle (when the aircrafts geometry falls outside the shock generated by the nose) with critical mach – because supervelocities will be experienced well before you get to the required mach.

I am NOT Dwight Looi.

What i find hilarious though, is that you dare qualifying of “High speed” Typhoon M 2.0 design features and still try to validate the hearsay about F-22 1.600 mp/h.

Dismissing skills you cannot or refuse to develop (in particular that of researchers or analysts) doesn’t mean you can assume you know better, and in many cases I’m sorry to say, you simply don’t.

Now please leave me the hell alone and return to your homework…

Cheers.

My primary study findings (Still some work to do to refine these datas but i’m getting closer by the days)…

Estimated Mach transitions comparison:

Typhoon supersonic @ M 1.05.

Rafale supersonic @ M 1.065.

F-22 supersonic @ M 1.08.

F-16 supersonic @ M 1.15.

E-35 supersonic @ M 1.18.

Based on figures from archived documentation, in particular Jane’s Worlds Aircraft and other reputable sources including services documentation.

F-22 t/c: Wing root. 5.92%, wing tip. 4.49%.

According to sources close to L-M, F-35 have similar t/c value than F-22 and its sweep in NOT 35* but approximately 33* (Jane’s).

These t/c values are actually higher than in the case of Rafale and Typhoon for both ends of the wings.

Is we take into account the whole of the aerodynamic arrangements:

Both F-22 and F-35 suffers from similar buffet loads issues due to incontrolable vortexes departure.

F-22 is far better documented than the most recent F-35 but there is this L-M official doc.
0900_Manders_L-M_PDF

Now that’s what Raptor called “novative” aerodynamics to justify the theories about F-35 “superior” maneuvrability and performances in F-16.net…

We know that F-22 and F-35 aerodynamic problem are caused by the combinations Inlets/LEX/Wingroot vortexes, Inlet/Strakes vortexes departing from the boundary layer at AoA superior to roughly 16*.

As Cola1973 was pointing out, boundary stream requirements are involved as well, F-22 flaps are proven to result on fin buffet as well, the elevators does not.

How much these affect the drag Coefiscient from 0* to 16* AoA is not quantified by the doc in my possesion but F-35 will be affected a great deal more than F-22 having NO TVC to help reduce this (nor trim drag) in supersonic.

F-22 beneficiates greatly from TVC and not only for PSMs, for level flight performances and conventional maneuvring as well.

In F-22 case i know that in level flight, a weight of 56.450 lb, 45.000 ft and a minimum Mach 0.8 its AoA would be 4* Min on aerodynamics alone, TVC MUST reduce this by at least 50%.

As i was saying, a Typhoon would see its performances greatly improved by using TVC too (*):

Quote an interesting archive:

Daniel Ikaza, ITP project manager – nozzles, says Dasa’s study shows that a Eurofighter flying at 30,000ft (9,150m) and a speed of M1.8 requires a 4° upward flaperon deflection to maintain level flight. A 5° upward nozzle deflection instead would enable the aircraft to fly “clean” and reduce the required engine thrust by 3%.

Under the same conditions, but in a sustained turn, where the pitch element of the control surface deflection was 6° up, this could be reduced to 2° combined with a 4° nozzle-up component. In this configuration lift coefficient would be increased by 14%, translating into a 9% improvement in turn rate. Take-off distance could be cut by at least 25%.
DATE:23/05/00
SOURCE:Flight InternationalEJ200 thrust vectoring backed
Andrew Doyle/MUNICH

So here goes, we can say safely that F-22 owes its superior performances to the combination of optimised F-119 and TVC, take TVC away from it and its perfs looks rather more common at once due to drag.

As for the US school of thinking about European designs (as illustrated by LMRaptor backward visions of Typhoon aerodynamics; Rafale datas would get his hairs erected permanently), it still has some to learn from the rest of the world.

Looks like European designers knows something about structural and aerodynamic design the US doesn’t, on the other hand, Europe got to catch up in the departement of engines performances and L.O.

See you, i got to go back to work.

F 18 C has a 24 deg wingsweep and also, its TWR is inferior to the F 35. Yet it can go 1.8M and later block with F404-GE-402 Enhanced Performance Engine (EPE) can supercruise when clean.

But you are sure that F 35 can’t go over 1.6 M…

I think that firsrt you have to revise your figures to lower ones, then have a look at the history of Northrop to understand what is the design behind the performances for the 24* wing of the S/H.

Q: At which Mach does the last block of F/A-18 fly in Mil power?

“Passed M 1.0” is NOT being supersonic, you need to figure its Critical Mach and when it reaches its supersonic zone.

To be specific and accurate i should dig tons of infos (benn focusing on other airrafts than the SuperBug and it takes a lot OF RESEARCH WORK and ANALYSIS) but there are good reasons for F-35 lower performances i have quoted a few:

Design points: Inlets and engine optimisation (celling/Mach/Maximum output altitude for the STVOL), pressure recovery limits, wing profile, wing area, optimisation of its aerodynamic for lower Mach in view of its primary role.

F/A-18 is derivated from the LWF programe, otherwise said, it is a navalised and later optimised for A2G role) air superiority fighter which design is derivated from the YF-17, not originaly designed for the A2G role and lower ceillings.

Interess yourself to these points, history of the programe, role, design points, optimisation and resulting performances, with enough informations, datas and the rest you will be able to figure what makes sense and what does not, (with a lot of understanding of the aerodynamic principles behind the designs that is)…

snafu352
Oh dear.
The lack of independent thought processes you are admitting to is rather sad.
Do you genuniely think the USAF/DOD/LM/JSF Program Office have shared anything with you that is not already not only known but well and truly understood by other manufacturers / programs?
If you do then you are being very naive.

It’s no naivity, it could be though, either plain deshonnesty or delusion.