How will Lockheed know exact range when no 600 Gallon fuel tank has actually been designed for the F-35? And when no CFT’s have been designed (yet) and tested? Only thing they can talk about is a pair of 428 gallon tanks…IAI and ELTA are working on EFT’s and CFT’s which will come later. When those designs are completed and information released we’ll know what the range extension is.

So LM can’t calculate drag and the range gain of using drop tanks… that does explain a lot. Like how they have such troubles with simple tasks like making an arrestor hook assembly that works.

Its reasonable then to assume that its CRAP…Especially when performance of modern AIm-120C5/7 D varients is not even known

We know burn time, we know max G and we know how hard it is to hit targets even for missiles that can pull 50% higher Gs.

We also have historical data on how that usually goes. What you assume is a one sided development, history shows that development happens on both sides and that because of physical restraints the missile will always be the weak point.

The upgrade path for the F-35 is very very bright…Not only are there going to be service (s) funded programs but also plenty of industry funded programs. Weapons are going to be far easier to integrate, and Development programs are already being funded ( ABC-Laser turret, DIRCM-NG Funded, AETD_Engine- USAF/DOD Funded)…Common radar software for F-35 and F-16 fleet means plenty of economy of scale for software and hardware development. To suggest that the F-35 is going to be upgraded as frequently as the Raptor is rediculous when everything has been designed to make it easier to do so…The F-35 already IOC’s with plenty of capability compared to the raptor..

Yup, because when airforces barely can afford operation they buy upgrades. Thats exactly how it’s done.

It is very much relevant here, when folks are posting supposed technical analysis on the two jets, and others claiming that the rafale can go farther…

I ask again : What is the combat radius of the rafale in LO, Internal Fuel, Recessed weapons payload.

It’s irrelevant. Just as irrelevant as asking if the ranger in the picture can run the obstacle course with the backpack when in fact that is the first thing he drops when in or near combat.

In the end the question is if you can get from point A to point B and get the job done.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]220811[/ATTACH]

case closed 😉

I know 2 members who would say that the Lockheed marketing numbers are modest while your Rafale numbers are a fantasy… Im not one of them. 😉

Based on One video? Is this the level of proof you need to base your beliefs? Its ok if you do, than use the same yardstick for all other weapons systems including US ones. While the Rafale can well hold its own vs the Raptor, where is the evidence that suggests that it wins hands down against a F-35 in BFM? The F-22 does not have HMD, the F-35 does..The F-22 does not have IRST..The F-35 Does…The rest is up to the tactics and handling performance in WVR…None of that is avaialble to us. Do tell me in which area is the rafale superior to the F-35 in close range WVR combat?

Are you baiting or are you trolling? I can’t really tell. You want to compare a bomb truck with high wing loading (410kg/m^2 with 50% fuel) to an aircraft that has a low wing loading (310kg/m^2 with 100% fuel or 260kg/m^2 with 50% fuel)?

The Rafale does keep up with the best, in many cases even surpassing them in maneuverability. In a dogfight you need good energy management which comes from large wing areas (lower drag/lift ratio) as well as power. Rafale has both in abundance. When it comes to the ability to optain a lock on using passive systems both are probably adequate.

There in lies your problem..You believe almost religiously that the F-35 would waste its missiles because the current BVR setup would not end up killing the rafale…The Rafale with SPECTRA and omni-manuverability will dodge 4 AMRAAM’s and will be waiting with its IR weapons for the F-35 to arrive before it eats it up for lunch…Your belief is so rigid that you are willing to even question the wisdom of folks that chart out things like red flag, as if they are retards who have no idea of what modern air combat is and how it is fought. The USAF (and air forces around the world), the developers are all lying when they say modern Aerial combat is BVR and you know more than all of them combined.

Read again and sober up. Pls.

Im saying its more complex than the magazines show in the pictures. Just because a target show up on your display it wont automatically mean that it will be destroyed 8 seconds later when you have pressed “fire”. Once that missile is far away it will be jammed by several aircrafts, it will see a barrage of targets (chaffs) and finding the actual target will be hard. Hitting it wil be even harder (as demonstraded in several wars, Gulf war being one prime example).

The fact is that there is no data on actual Pk against modern fighters engaging in active jamming, maneuvering etc.

Are you saying that the Rafale CANNOT be shot down (for all practical purposes) in BVR combat? Thats a pretty tall claim….It should be winning orders left right and center because of this…Since it effectively makes BVR and STEALTH useless.

Thats your interpretation. Im just saying that it will be a pretty survivable ac and that it is demonstrated, in actual war, that situational awereness, EWS and maneuvering is pretty darn effective if used properly.

Unfortunately we dont have any numbers for it other than that without EWS and with limited maneuvering the pk of the Aim120A is ~45%.

RIGHT! Go tell that to everyone around the world designing stealth..They’d welcome you with open arms, since it saves them billions of dollars. This argument is standard for fanboys who’s favourite figher/bomber/unmanned craft is not stealth. Bottom Line: Stealth aint going anywhere, from fighters, to bombers, to UCAV’s to helos..you’d see its applications from big to small platforms, from tactical to strategic assets…

am I saying it doesnt work? I think Dane Zelko and Zoltan Dani would testify to my point of view. The only guaranteed stealth is to be where the enemy can’t even see you.

But is stealth important, and is it a god feature? Yes, without a doubt.

My entire point of raising the UPGRADE argument was not to diss your favourite fighter(s) but to show that as a WEAPONS SYSTEM the F-35 is only getting started while the Rafale is quite a mature platform having been in service for years.

Rafale isnt my fav fighter jet. None the less I have to give credit where it is deserved.

Rafale has an attractive TCO that lends itself to greater numbers compared to the F35 as well as more upgrades over the lifetime. The TCO of the F35 increases the risk of it ending up being upgraded just as frequently as the F22 with functions and features it is missing.

No one cars whether it is interesting to you or not. Is it relevant?

It’s not interesting because it’s irrelevant. See the picture of the soldier below. Thats how the Rafale carries on to the area of operation. It doesnt mean that it’s the way Rafale will be equipped when fighting.

THE Correct answer is : WE DO NOT KNOW…No one has taken the F-35 out to see its combat radius with 2 x 600 gallon tanks, or CFT’s. Since there is no immediate need to field these products, it would be some time before we know how far the F-35 can go with external tanks and CFT’s (more impressive since they can probably yeild better RCS numbers)…

EFT’s and CFT”s will come in the future, so we will know exactly only then. I concede that the Rafale is a more mature design, but that is hardly surprising.

http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/israel-to-boost-range-of-future-f-35-fleet-220748/

Ok, so LM doesnt know what their own product can deliver. But touting that they do anyway is no problem. And what LM says is true.

I like where this is going… Please, respond in the F35 debate thread with full details because it isnt topic here.

Encounter an enemy? How are you preparing your combat missions when you know there may be POP up threats in the area? Jettisoning Tanks can lead to a mission failure..Job done for the Air defences. Internal fuel, recessed weapons and stealth is something 4.5 gen’s will use to given them a fighting chance against both Modern A2A threats, and A2AD A2G threats. You put 2-4 tanks on a fighter, boost the RCS by a great amount and you will end up in a much greater trouble then you can solve by simply jettisoning your tanks.

You do know of the radar horizon, right? Radars have big troubles looking through the earth to see flying aircrafts.

And as mentioned before, in the example of Europe the ranges are too short. You can destroy the enemy air bases without leaving your own airspace. And AFAIK no country has air defences every 10-15 km along the borders.

Whats your infatuation with internal fuel? It is not the only parameter…You have FUEL burn, you have drag and other things that must be kept in mind.

Because your argument is the equivalent of saying that just because recon soldiers carry a large backpack they will have to carry it when they fight as well. The fact is no, they don’t. Just because you carry this to the potential combat area doesnt mean you have to fight with it strapped to your back.

Modus operandi is that you drop the rucksack and win because you are better trained, stronger and more aggressive than your adversary.

Unfortunately for the F35 it isnt built to lose weight in a fight.

The french claim better than 800 with 3 or 4 EFT’s , Internal fuel and a weapons load (Mentioned in the link)…From what i understand the 1000nm claim does not specify configuration. I do not think there is any reason to doubt the claims…

Come on… are you actually insinuating that the official numbers from Dassault (also verified) would be buffed while the blown up F35 numbers are modest?

He is ASSUMING almost religiously that No matter how many BVR missiles are fired at the rafale, they will be easily defeated by either EW or by Omni-Manuervability…This is rather absurd..

No I’m not. Read what I write instead of making up straw man arguments about what I say.

I am using actual data from something called reality, it is what you find outside the marketing brochures. and reality is what I try to use as much as possible because that’s where we get verifiable data.

Demonstrated Pk for Aim120 A is ~0,45 against enemies not using any form of EWS, countermeasures etc with only one recorded incident (AFAIK) of someone actually maneuvering. For that maneuvering target they sent off 3 missiles before he turned back for maintenance.

According to GWAP the Pk for all missiles, BVR as well av WVR was <20%. And that was against pretty “easy” targets with very few actual occurances of active jamming. We also see that the F16 survived 50% of all hits.

So we know that the weak link is the missile. My personal belief is that the Rafale is very survivable thanks to good countermeasures and good EWS. Im am not presenting any numbers for the future, yet you seem to know that my belief is that the the SPECTRA suite will take care of all incoming missiles. I wonder who actually is a religious believer…

The other thing completely disregarded by anyone doing fighter comparisons is how are you expecting to use the fighter?

Hence Rafale, Eurofighter and JAS-39 are completely relevant in the vast majority of situations they expect to be used in.

Finally some sober arguments!

The big problem nowadays is that all airfields are known in advance. For example Czech Republic could target basically any airfield in Germany with KEPD350 without leaving their own borders. Stealth or no stealth, this pretty much sums up the threats in Europe. Ranges are so short, all airfields are already known. As long as you have jets on the ground they are likely to be destroyed. And you can either adapt to it by lowering costs and improving survivability or you can buy more complex machines in smaller numbers and concentrate them in fewer locations.

The Rafale is designed to fly below radar horizon & strike from there with AASM or SCALP/ASMP-A. Its weapon are designed to be able to engage targets from a distance that allows it to remain below radar horizon at any time (100 ft high means radar horizon of just above 10 km, which is about the range of AASM 250. AASM 125 would provide even more range if we ever got them).

With radars at the same altitude you get about 20km coverage if im not mistaken. Either way, this sort of stealth is easier to calculate and it tends to be more reliable. 😉

That is far from certain. Much remains to be seen about the F-35’s range in general, especially with external tanks. Israel is already talking about integrating 600 gallon tanks with their F-35s for example.

Im taking the marketing numbers from LM, numbers we know have been buffed up in the presentations. and I compare them to official numbers of the Rafale.

Of course, but none of these things remove or even reduce the advantage of stealth. Jammers and chaff for example will be much more effective when protecting a stealth airframe than a 4th generation aircraft.

Thats correct. But as we see they are pretty effective today as well.

Incredibly simplistic reasoning on all levels. Yes it is possible to dodge missiles under some circumstances, nobody has ever disputed that. That doesn’t mean you can just pluck numbers off of a spec sheet and try to compare them. One missile is bigger, therefor its “tracker” is bigger and stronger? Sorry, it just doesn’t work that way, especially given that there are different types of seekers.

Yes there are different tyes of seekers and different generations. You do know that comparisons always are simplistic? a radar basically gets its range from two things, sice of the aperture and power output. Larger missiles have larger seekers, larger missiles have more power.

Same thing for max G specs…. how many Gs at what range? What altitude? For how long? Using what type of guidance?

Gs at that altitude ~45G and the guidance was CLOS with a 270-380KW UHF track radar. As you see there was no lack of power in the engines.

Pls enlighten me if you think its harder to jam a 270-380KW radar or a 5-15KW radar or if you think it is easier to dodge an amraam that, at the same altitude, probably only would pull 30G. Also, try to remember what equipment was in use at that time.

Finally, even in the example you showed of the F-16 dodging the SAMs… did it look like he was in any position to do anything else? He was putting 100% of his effort and attention into staying alive. If those missiles had been fired by an adversary that had been free to follow up each shot with an even more lethal shot it would have been game over. One pilot would have been flying for his life, bleeding speed and altitude, focusing on staying alive…. while the other would be free to maintain his situational awareness, and put his plane in a position of advantage relative to his opponent.

Doesnt matter. An F35 would only carry 4-6 Aim120. After that it is WVR combat all the way.

You aren’t thinking. What would have happened if A-10s had been sent to attack targets in downtown Baghdad on the first night of the war? It would have been a catastrophe. Certainly A-10s undertook risky missions during the fighting, but nobody would have dreamed of sending them straight into Iraq’s most heavily defended airspace and expected them to return.

Well, what would happen if F117 would be sent on the same missions as the A10? :stupid:

Usually aircrafts are sent to the missions that suits them best.

These are my claims regarding the Rafale.
Mission Radius: +1000nm (roughly 30-40% more than the F35 and a lot more than the F22)
^^This is turned out to be accurate

Low alt penetration: Equal or similar performance to 5th gen fighters (Radar horizon is the key here)
^^ This also turned out to be true because the biggest threat is IR based, small arms fire or SHORAD.

BFM/WVR-combat: Superior to the F35, closely matched to the F22
^^ Have we seen any evidence that the F22 would be vastly superior? No. We see that the Rafale can keep up with the F22. We know from official statements from LM that it isnt built to do well in dogfights.

BVR-combat: Highly debatable, sensors pick up enemy radars early, jammers are usually succesful against missile seekers and the passive IRST isnt effected by RCS. This is where the 4,5 gen fighters may struggle a lot. But then again… as long as the detection range is longer than the effective range of the missile the playing field is pretty much leveled.
^^ Obviously it is debatable because it always ends up at classified details like how effective is the jammer against a certain seeker, how effective are chaffs in reality, how well does maneuvering actually work against missiles etc. The F16 pilot in the vid was evading a barrage equal to 1-3 F35s unleashing all carried missiles depending on the load.

Sure, its unusual that a pilot can evade 6 missiles in a row… but it still shows the crucial part. You need more than one missile to hit a target. If the target is active in heavy maneuvering, chaff dispensing and jamming then the missiles Pk suffer a lot. Thats the reality of BVR and that’s why 4,5 generation fighters will stay operational for some time to come. Especially when we look at the cost aspect.

And we are still missing the most important part. the most successful way to kill an airforce is to kill the aircrafts while they are on the ground.

Assumptions are the name fo the game here…We have succesfully calculated the effective range of the AMRAAM, Stealth of the F-22/F-35 and a whole lot of other stuff that is highly classified. Why leave it at that? When you can compare the Rafale and the F-35 in BVR and WVR based on performance information that you do not have, and won’t for some time. Let the fun continue !

Mission radius in what configuration? With or without EFT’s/CFT’s…If so, how many.

http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?99342-Modern-fighters-combat-radius/page2

Doesnt really matter, the F35 with EFTs can’t match it anyway.

According to your link the Rafale with EFTs and twice the weapons load on the F35 had a mission radius of more than 800nm.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]220800[/ATTACH]
Thats the F35 with drop tanks 2 Aim 120 and 2x500lbs bombs.

F35 with 2x Aim 120 + 2 x 500lbs bombs + drop tanks: <728nm
Rafale with 4 x 500lbs bombs + 4 Aim 120 + drop tanks: 800nm+

How exactly did you come up with that?

I think this excercise showed that the Rafale had no problems keeping up with the F22 in WVR/BFM.

Why is it debatable? The operators of stealth have consistently thrashed 4th and 4.5th gen jets in BVR combat be it legacy crafts, AESA equiped Super hornets/F-15C’s, Vipers,etc etc

wo other German officers, Col. Andreas Pfeiffer and Maj. Marco Gumbrecht, noted in the same report that the F-22’s capabilities are “overwhelming” when it comes to modern, long-range combat as the stealth fighter is designed to engage multiple enemies well-beyond the pilot’s natural field of vision – mostly while the F-22 is still out of the other plane’s range. Grumbrecht said that even if his planes did everything right, they weren’t able to get within 20 miles of the next-generation jets before being targeted.
http://news.yahoo.com/f-22-fighter-loses-79-billion-advantage-dogfights-201119575–abc-news-topstories.html

Jammers, chaffs and maneuvering does work you know. It has been demonstrated not only in EWS testing but in wars as well where the targets where lagging over a decade in technology.

If you can jam the missile seeker well enough it will miss. If you get targeted by an enemy radar your EWS will pick those signals up and point to where the transmitter is, (if im not mistaken SPECTRA + MICA can use that for BVR engagements). All of this has been demonstrated to work. The willingness to assume an unrealistic Pk during excercises does not change the fact that it is up to the missiles to hit the hardest possible target in the sky. And we are also in an era where missiles can be used as “counter missiles”.

This is dodging 6 Fakel missiles capable of 60G by using maneuvering and onboard jammers in a real war with a loaded aircraft.

Now, if we compare it to air 2 air missiles
1 The tracker on the aircraft is smaller and weaker than on ground based systems
2 The AA missile pulls fewer Gs than the ones in this example (~40G vs 60G)
3 The onboard missile on the AAM is smaller and weaker than on the ground based ones

According to the current BVR fantasies the clip of the F16 is an incident that was physically impossible because he was within range for a clean “kill”. In a excercise like Red Flag he would probably have died six times because he couldnt break the missile lock in time.

Perhaps the stealthy jets were sent out on riskier missions?

Riskier than the A-10? No way.

This seemed to be such a great prospect but the Gripen “light” wont happen. It is not the Gripen that might be offered it will be something else, if anything.

The best thing that Boeing and SAAB could do is lease out a Gripen from one of the operators and actually convert it into a trainer to demonstrate capability, versatility and to de-risk the program ahead of a formal bid.

How about the Gripen Demo/pre production Gripen F?

If Im not mistaken then Gripen A is used for pretty much the same tasks. Old Gripen A aircrafts can be used for patrols and in aggressor training, mostly because the AF needs to kill the flight hours in the aircrafts. And since Gripen is cheaper to operate then the old Draken and Viggen it is better to do BFM against the better performing Gripen. I will have to check with some people in the AF for confirmation. But I think Gripen A is the main adversary in BFM… in the rare occasion that the pilots actually fly.

BTW: Has the local media in Sweden covered this potential tie up?

Not really 😉
http://www.svd.se/naringsliv/branscher/industri-och-fordon/saab-kan-salja-gripen-till-usas-flygvapen_8511636.svd
http://www.dn.se/ekonomi/aldriga-usa-plan-chans-for-gripen/