Politics. Industrial base. Spare parts prices.

Yeah i overlooked the last one…

And you believe that just the Rafale ever lost out on political grounds and bad marketing? Quite naive.

Really?

And which other reasons would you call since it won virtually all its competitions on technical aspects appart perhaps the Dutch competition?

More smear anyone? :diablo:

I personally don’t believe that there is a big difference between the Rafale and the Typhoon in terms of dogfighting performance and the statement from “Benco” and that of the JG 74 guys seems to confirm just that.

What we can believe is that you interpret and report falsly what was said by Banco. Granted.

Aspis
I agree, this is why i put it only as hypothesis. I didn’t say there MUST be a problem. It is quite impressive, because of the difference in thrust.

Aspis, to obtain HIGH instantaneous turn rates you need:

High Lift Coefiscient.

Low wingload.

High structural load.

High Air density.

Sustained turn rates are then computed using the results of this equation and adding Drag vs Thrust.

In the three first datas needed, Rafale is superior to Typhoon (although the margins are low in all cases), it gives Rafale the advantage in instantaneous turn rates and Typhoon sustained at higher Mach and altitudes.

This *should* be Mirage2000. The similarities are striking and the altitude on the right in the Rafale is in a circle..

Look again;the “circle is a range recessing scale, the square is a target designator clue and this is a Rafale HUD vs a F/A-18 at longer range, hence the near-full scale of the gun range indicator.

This HUD read Bingo Fuel (right-low) and the target is within the square above it for the time being it is doubled by a circle which might change when in range as it did in the original photo because it clues something else than the target itself.

And Typhoon doesn’t have a problem with turn rates it is simply not designed to compete with Rafale in a gun fight at these speeds but optimised for higher sustained turn rates above M 1.6.

[/You all guys are really something, either truly professionals or enthusiasts with deep knowledge.
This Egyptian pilot maneuver intrigued me also so I found out in cited book, how it was possible. It was unexploited capability, out off flight manuals, probably incidentally discovered, in the class of MiG-29, F-15/16 but with limits. I have heard that in mock combat in the US, F-15 has hard times with 21 at low speeds, because of latter’s pitch pointing ability. Of course, that was not available to MiG-21 users ie manuals.
I think 21’s real limitation is only pilot’s forward and side field of view. You can read in 21F’s manual that it can sustain 5g at 5 km altitude !? Limited range, wing span..had most it’s generation fighters. Other’s gyro-gunsights also toppled at ~3g, some like F-4C/D didn’t have it at all for podded canon, AIM-9 and radars had officially similar restrictions…

I didn’t post that…

And btw you should take Russian or rather eastern block pilot training in consideration when mentioning accident rate.

Appart for the engine having much shorter TBO and being less reliable (than some the opposite can also be tue), the Mig-21 was a much safer aircraft than many western counterparts with less viscious flight characteristics, every aircraft have a coffin corner….

Well, since the topic is F-22 Raptor & F-35 JSF? , i think following official statements are appropriate, especially concidering the popularity of those, and to point out critical differences.

Originally Posted by Brigadier General Burton Field
While a fine bomb-hauler and (one hopes) a good multi-service airframe,
the F-35 is a mediocre performer.
Said 1st Fighter Wing commander Brigadier General Burton Field,
“The problem with the F-35 … is speed. It doesn’t have the capability to supercruise.
Speed lets us get inside the decision cycle of the bad guy.”

For the most dangerous air battles and attack missions,
F-35 squadrons will rely on F-22s for support.
That’s an unavoidable state of affairs when you design an airframe to replace
slow- and low-flying Lockheed Martin A-10 Warthogs and Boeing AV-8B Harriers
as well as light and flexible F-16s and Boeing F/A-18 Hornets.
The F-35 is a compromise. Potentially a very successful compromise, but still …

Originally Posted by Metz:

Supercruise is vital to the entire concept of a stealthy fighter.
Stealth alone does not make you ‘invisible’ , only very small.
Speed confounds the enemy’s problem by reducing the time
allowed to detect, lock on, launch and have the missile or gun rounds reach your aircraft.
Taken to its extreme, a fighter that could travel at the speed of light
could probably survive on its speed alone.
By the time you saw your speed-of-light fighter, it would be long gone.
The F-22 has yet to conquer warp speeds but the high sustained supercruise speeds are a
distinct advantage in evading the enemies weapons.

Originally Posted by LM
Some of the advantages of supersonic flight are obvious and generally understood,
like the extra energy imparted to a missile launch, the speed to get somewhere quick,
and the ability to reduce enemy reaction time.
These advantages are magnified if high-speed flight can be prolonged.
The F-22 can significantly prolong supersonic flight,
making it a tactical practicality by sustaining it without a gas-guzzling afterburner.
Lt. Col. David “Doc” Nelson, the first operational test pilot for the F-22,
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi…esp/index.html

Originally Posted by LM
Cruising to the merge at supersonic speeds without afterburner will increase lethality,
reduce vulnerability, and shorten enemy reaction time.
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi…f22_bio1.html#

Originally Posted by LM
A high-speed Foxbat making a ten-degree check turn can ruin an interceptor’s day.
Lt. Col. David “Doc” Nelson, the first operational test pilot for the F-22,
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi…esp/index.html

Originally Posted by LM
“At subsonic speeds, the Raptor would not offer any real advantage over an F-117
in terms of stealth.
At supersonic speeds, the Raptor is already out of range by the time a radar system might see it.”
422nd Test And Evaluation Squadron Defines The Raptor
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi…ace/index.html

Originally Posted by LM
“We don’t expect to get slow with the F/A-22.
We will be flying at high speeds and high altitudes,
taking long-range shots with air-to-air missiles or precision-guided munitions
422nd Test And Evaluation Squadron Defines The Raptor
http://www.codeonemagazine.com/archi…ace/index.html

🙂

Otherwise said, how we see twisted truth and facts in a permanenty basis in order to make of F-35 what it is not designed to be. :diablo:

When someone said it was a stealth, supersonic A7, the F-35 fans were all shocked just forgeting that the A7 was the most advanced striker of its time which is what F-35 is designed to be.

So here go, we have guys like Pierre Sprey who suddently are senile and doesn’t know what they are talking about and Boyds energy theories are gone down the gutter not applying anymore (how grateful is that to the guys who ave the US the F-16), Maximum designed Mach, Operational cellings and other datas for predicted performances sudently becomes minimas etc.

Hang on, we all know Gripen NG is designed for M 2.3 isn’t it? And Rafale perfs are in realiity classified it CAN supercruise at M 1.6 with 3 X 1.250 l external tanks and 8 X AAMS, As for Typhoon it is M 2.5 and S/C at M 1.75 no less.

LOL!.

As a complement, according to Jean-Dominique Merchet, The Rafales and F-22 engaged in combat six time, the Rafale losing only once. No informations about the actual kill ratio, though…

http://secretdefense.blogs.liberation.fr/defense/2009/12/carton-plein-pour-le-rafale-lors-dexercices-aux-emirats.html

The other, still non validated rumour is that the final score is 1/1. :diablo:

There is more recent information available, that more accurately reflects reality, but you conveniently overlook it. That chart doesn’t have the current weight after reduction, the accurate thrust (43K+ lbs), etc…

What you guys are conveniently overlooking is the real empty weight of the aircraft and the fact that it goes up with systems integration and redesigns.

This has been posted many times before, but just in case you missed it.

I didn’t miss anything; i stick to what is officialy posted for some very good reasons, the first one is that these figures are also designed goals as for the finished product with all systems integrated, what they do now with the airframe is only to try to make it happen because just in case YOU missed it, the redesign of some structure and systems cost weight.

Btw i was the first to post the related chart if a similar topic some time ago. 😎

Now cut the nonsense with the mantra that the F-35 is an A-7,F-105, type aircraft with modern avionics(that are less advanced than those of late model 4th Gen aircraft).

NO. You cut the nonsense trying to make of F-35 A2A mission its primary, it is OBVIOUS that it is NOT and that if it had been, its design would be drastically different.

You might not comprehend what aircraft design points are, what design features are and what requierements are but it is no reason to pretend that they do not results in a given set of performances.

When you know a lot more about it, come back and try again, i’m sure your PoV will a little different by then.