Tu22mDJC – Rafale also has some standoff with AASM and the cruise missile option, while the F-35 – unless bombing on GPS coords or moderately accurately by radar – has to descend to where its midwave-IR-only EOTS can be used effectively. Stealth is an advantage until the adversary goes VHF.
Do you have a source for the spectrum used by EOTS?
Also, the radar seekers in the missiles use high frequencies, so a stealth fighter should have less trouble jamming them than a 4th gen… even through the improved efficiency regarding “stealth” is debateable when the ac is banking heavily.
Tu22mSo future fighter studied. Should be imo a revamped Rafale.
That would take care of the carrier problem (good luck adopting Tejas for a carrier with that large delta and no canards)
Tu22m3 months.
Det tager cirka tre måneder at producere et Gripen, der bevæger sig på fire arbejdsstationer gennem produktionen.
It takes roughly three months to produce a Gripen, it passes four stations through production
http://ing.dk/artikel/saab-ny-gripen-er-hoejteknologi-til-lavpris-166750
It’s in Danish
Tu22mIt looks like the number of western fighters available to air forces is going to shrink soon.
F/A-18 inc Growler
Boeing is reported to be in a position where it needs to order long lead components in the next month to assure continued production. There are, however, no orders to cover these long lead items. Boeing is already working on reducing the production rate to buy more time for possible extra US orders.
So… will US politicians take up the cause urgently by rushing through a decision to order some more aircraft? If they don’t prospects for orders from Malaysia and Denmark look bleak.http://finance.yahoo.com/news/boeing-may-slow-f-18-plane-output-keep-185324261–sector.html
F-16
The article from December 2013 mentions that there was 1 aircraft for Egypt being built, 12 for Oman and 36 for Iraq. I do not see how a plant can reduce output from 30 a month to 1 a month without an increase in the cost of producing each aircraft, jeopardising the chance of any further orders.
So… it looks like F-16 will not be available much longer.Typhoon
IIRC production will end 2017/2018 unless further orders are forthcoming. Allowing 2 years for long lead items, that would mean further orders needing to be placed within 18 months or so. Fortunately Saudi Arabia may order more within that time frame.
Otherwise… Typhoon may not be available much longer.All in all it seems likely that by 2018 the number of western fighter candidates for orders will drop from 6 to 3: F-35, Gripen E and Rafale. That would not be so interesting. Would be good news for Dassault and SAAB, though – no similar competitor to have to compete with on price.
I think you are forgetting KAI T 50, it is rapidly maturing with improved envelopes more weapons etc and now there is also a 5th gen project materializing.
But apart from that… do we have F35, F15SE, Typhoon in the highest price class and then Rafale, Gripen and T 50.
Personally i feel that just like Gripen E is what Gripen should have been from the start the Adv Super Hornet is what the super Hornet should have been. Unfortunately it seems that the Adv Super Hornet won’t be around. 🙁
Tu22mI could not see the date of that pdf ?
Feb 20 2014 as seen in the URL
20feb4.pdf
Tu22mHopsy, dont talk about “lets check reality” and post pictures of models and CGI. Its very cute. I stated clearly that I ignored twin pylons. Rafale has no problem incorporating it. In real life, not only CGI. Here is triple pylons for guided AGM.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226045[/ATTACH]
Or this one
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226046[/ATTACH]
These are actual flights. When will the F35 fly with full load?
On the Rafale C you could swap centerline tank for 2 AAM.
This is what it can fly with in reality.
But if needed one could compare CGI to CGI. How about this one?
[ATTACH=CONFIG]226047[/ATTACH]
What do you estimate will fit in the boxes?
Can you explain it with the very drunk and stupid smileys you always use? Oh, and keep up the insults. Its very professional of you.
Tu22mI see you are back… are you ready to retract your erroneous claims about the Rafale’s carrying capacity relative to the F-35?
Oh wait, I just remembered that you are immune to education and will instead just cook up a new argument when proven wrong. :eagerness:
But the Rafale has more payload capacity. You just resort to calling ppl simpletons because they argue that 10 pylons is less than 14, or that 8,1 tonnes is less than 9,5 tonnes. If you have such a unique interpretation on the order of numbers.. how can I explain to you that 14 is more than 10?
Just as an example, the Rafale can carry AA missiles on *drums* 10 pylons (twin pylons not included here). And it will still have 4 pylons for AG munitions. That is exactly 40% more weapons in an airframe weighing 29% less.
What they can carry (example, counting number of munitions):
AAAAAAAAAAGGGG <— Rafale capacity
AAAAAAAAGG <— F35 capacity
Difference in weight:
lllllllllllllllllll <— Rafale weight
lllllllllllllllllllllllllll <— F35 weight
I made a graphical comparison since you tend to have a pretty odd understanding of algebra. But as you can see, the Rafale weighs less and has the capability to carry more.
The Rafale also has higher MTOW/Empty weight ratio with the C at 2,58:1, Rafale B at 2,51:1 and the F35A at 2,39:1. FYI, 2,51 is larger than 2,39. At least according to wiki.
Tu22mwe’re lucky to have you around here hopsalot… when I think about all those guys who complicate their lives with stuff like air refueling, AWACS, pilot training, combat tactics learning…
they should all engage you to get easy and simple lives… shouldn’t they? 😀
Only F35 pilots can use tactics to their advantage. Didnt you know that?
Tu22mThe Poland competition wasn’t transparent at all…
This was a political decision.
As always pretty much all fighters pass the bar. After that it’s costs and politics that matter.
Tu22mHave you validated any testpoints from any official data reg the F35?
Apart from that question… Amazing job.
Tu22m(f-16, f-15, Su-27, Mig-29) in turn rate ( Su-27 maneuverability threads got them up) assuming the 2 degree superiority rule (which matters for sh*t with high off bore sight weapons). Lastly, this is the one data point there is, largely deficient to make informed conclusions on how maneuverable the F-35 is.
Well, the less energy the missile has to waste in the turn the better range it will have.
Tu22mLow Observable, did you read my post? I think the point of it was the effect of external stores. The rule of thumb is roughly 50% of the fuel in an external fuel tank goes to offset increased drag.
Come on FBW, even you know that is a bit of a stretch. At least for Gripen E the loss in effectiveness per gallon of added fuel is about 37% or about a third. And that is a small bird with large tanks. A large ac with relatively smaller tanks would have a better ratio… and all modern fighters are heavier and larger than Gripen.
If the JSF cannot beat the runt of the “4th gen” litter, then there is something shockingly wrong. As it is, its just seriously wrong.
I expect you will reply with the fallacious argument that equivalently laden F-16s/F-15s cannot turn better than the F-35, completely ignoring several basic facts:
1. If a (for example) F-16 had only 4 AAMs prior to the fight beginning, it would have fired off at least 1, probably two, prior to entering a turning engagement.
2. The same F-16 would have dropped any external fuel tanks prior to entering the turning engagement.
That’s the statement I have in my signature for a reason. 😉
Tu22mHopsy, external payload for the F35 is 8100 kg, the much lighter Rafale can carry 9500kg.
The closest current fighter in weight, the F15e, carries 10400 kg. So looking at payload and comparing to lighter or equally heavy aircraft it gets clear that payload is pretty low for the F35.
Depending on who you ask you will get different answers on what capabilities are important. Until you understand that it will not be possible to have a serious discussion.
But by all means, throw in another couple of drunk or stupid smileys. It just serves to prove my point.
I find it amusing though how the goalposts move all the time. Why are the technical solutions on the F35 always better when similar or sometimes more modern systems are or will be fielded on competing platforms?
Tu22mApart from perhaps Tu22m I don’t think anybody here thinks that the Gripen NG is anywhere near the F-35 in terms of capabilities.
Depends on what capabilities we are talking about. But we can throw in the Rafale for the sake of it.
The Rafale outranges the F35, it has superior speed, it is superior in maneuvering etc.
When we look at tech the datalinks are similar in capability (ie what Rafale has today), both have 360 deg MAWS and target acquisition (already installed on Rafale btw), both have AESAs (Rafale maybe with GaN?), the Rafale carries more weapons (has 14 instead of 11 stations) etc.
Apart from BVR-situations where one ac acts as a missile hauler (and hopes for the best) or on medium alt day 1 strikes i cant see how the F35 offers better capabilities than the Rafale either.
There are two areas where the F35 is superior.
There are plenty of areas where it is inferior.
What is best in the end depends on what the priority is. If the main purpose of the airforce is to join forces with US strike packages… well. Then the F35 is the best choice. If you want a one trick pony to fend off the Russians at medium range, well. The F35 would probably fair well. If you want an airforce you can afford, high sortie rates over time, enough speed to intercept a blackjack then probably any fighter is better. If you want an airforce that is affordable in sustained operations (even day one strikes included) then the F35 is not at all a good choice because of the low payload capacity, sortie rate and high costs.
I have no bias towards the Gripen in particular. Personally I like the Rafale more as a multirole aircraft but the economics, logistics and the sustainability of the Gripen are unfortunately unrivaled and in the real world that does matter. The F35 is also a fantastic aircraft, but its like LED lights on a Ferrari, nice to have but in the end it offers very little value.
Especially when we consider that most “technical marvels”, like the datalink that just happens to be… nothing new at all. Or the 360 system where the only new feature is the helmet, others use HMDS and get pretty much the same functionality. The last “marvel” was the ATDL. This is a system that already is fielded.
The weapons
control configuration provides the means
to control remote units to engage enemy
forces. It allows air and ground-based
air defence assets to be controlled using
electronic data messages transmitted
via the Tactical Data Link network – no
voice communication is required.
The ability to hand over control of tracks
and targets is vital when coordinating
engagements within the Tactical Data
Link network.
This is whats possible with currently fielded systems. The same datalink can handle everything from live videostreams, weapon delivery, target tracking etc. But I guess it will also be so much better when it is made in US some day in the future.
Tu22mWell, that is really cool. But isnt the radome a little bit small?
Sign In
