hopsalotMy bad on the afterburner, i dont read rafale articles every day (specifically those datin from 1999).
On the other hand, you quote yourself
He only used the aft to ente the turn. And 5g is still better than what F35 can do, afterburner or not.
Try this one also : AWST July 1999 issue 1 p. 48
I don’t read that the way you seem to. He says “with the stick held on the aft stop.” That means he had it all the way back and was keeping it there.
Also, as I said above, he was in a dive… which means this was not a sustained turn. (which requires an aircraft to maintain its airspeed and altitude)
Third, that is not better than an F-35 can do. Do you even understand what we are talking about?
There is a performance requirement for the F-35 to be able to sustain a 4.6g (originally 5.3) turn, at a specified speed, altitude, and load. That does not mean that that is the greatest possible sustained turn the F-35 can achieve under any conditions. There isn’t enough information to make an apples to apples comparison.
hopsalotNot the right test, keep looking hehe…
It is even older…(1999)
http://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/combat-ready-53125/
This really can’t be your source, because it doesn’t at all agree with what you claimed.
I suggest you to read Chris Yeo and JM North flight tests with 3 200àL tanks and 2 cruise missiles, Chris Yeo had to stop accelerate (in dry thrust) at Mach 0.9 because the plane reminded him not to do so.
according to the article…
When cleared by air traffic control, the Rafale was further climbed into the height block between 5,000ft and 10,000ft. Once level, it was accelerated to M0.88 for a hard turn using full reheat to the FCS g limit. Although I entered the turn quickly, the voice warning (female) informed me that I had slightly exceeded the configuration limit of M0.9 (it was M0.91). The FCS limited the aircraft to 5.2g.
The article clearly states that he was using “full reheat,” not “dry thrust” as you claimed.
And he maintained a 5.2 g turn.
That is not at all what the article says:
At a typical cruise speed of M0.82/347kt, the aircraft could sustain a 60º banked turn at maximum dry power. Slamming the throttle to maximum reheat and rolling quickly into a full stick-back hard turn to simulate a break away from a threat gave a rapid response, automatically limited initially to 18.8º alpha and 4g. As the turn progressed, the FCS allowed the incidence to increase to 19.2¼ alpha as the airspeed decayed.
This excerpt makes it 100% clear that even in full burner the Rafale was losing speed while executing a 4g turn. (meaning even in full burners this was NOT a sustained turn.)
This means that beyond any doubt this loaded Rafale could sustain <4Gs at M0.82 even in full burners.
The article also said:
Finally, before climbing to high level, a hard turn was made, starting at 330kt using full reheat, principally to test the behaviour of the FCS. This was the first moment in the flight for controlled aggression. I simply rolled the Rafale into a nose-down steep turn and, as the reheat became effective (about 2s), moved the stick quickly to the aft stop. The aircraft responded by rapidly achieving 5g at 17-18º alpha, turning smoothly and without buffet with the stick held on the aft stop.
In this case the aircraft may have been in a 5g turn, but it was in a dive, and using full burners.
So there really isn’t any question at all about what this article is describing, which is exactly the opposite of what you claimed. This btw, is why people ask for sources when people make fantastic claims. :rolleyes:
hopsalotoh hoh nooo. I cannot fathom how the F35 as a Typhoon replacement has any merit. A one type fast jet fleet with some perceived logistic advantages is far outweighed by the total loss of UK fighter design skills. And, given that the Typhoon is going to be fully retired some time after 2030, I hope we aren’t talking about any of the current F35 variants hypothetically replacing Typhoon?
The UK did Taranis in part because it was bent over a barrel during the F35 development so how is anyone going to buy into an all F35 fleet?
The UK’s fighter design skills, like those of almost all of the rest of Europe, are shortly going to be gone. Not because of the F-35, but because European governments have essentially given up on maintaining their industrial base, to say nothing of their capabilities.
With the Rafale and Typhoon programs nearing full maturity and nothing of similar scale coming down the pipe behind them skills will atrophy quickly. Small UCAV programs will help protect some skills, but won’t come close to providing the workload the Typhoon or Rafale have.
The F-35 is the logical replacement for the Typhoon. It is a jack of all trades design, but given where the RAF’s force structure is going that is what it needs. The fact that the UK is a major participant in the program helps as well.
hopsalotI suggest you to read Chris Yeo and JM North flight tests with 3 200àL tanks and 2 cruise missiles, Chris Yeo had to stop accelerate (in dry thrust) at Mach 0.9 because the plane reminded him not to do so. And he maintained a 5.2 g turn. In JM North article, you will learn that during tests, A Rafale equipped with 3x2000L “subsonic” tanks was pushed at Mach 1.6…
I don’t put much stock in these sorts of anecdotal performance claims unless sufficient information is available to make sense of what exactly is being claimed. The Rafale is subject to the same laws of physics as other jets and when carrying a heavy and/or bulky load of fuel and weapons it will be subsonic. It might be possible engineer circumstances where a Rafale might hit M1.6 at some altitude with three subsonic tanks (likely at the end of a dive), but under real-world conditions that is not a place where a pilot is likely to go.
Besides, I could just as easily revive the reports of the F-35 supercruising at M1.25 and watch everyone around here remember how to be a skeptic. :rolleyes:
hopsalotYour Rafale chart is outdated.
The Rafale has 5 heavy/wet stations. In theory, this means:
5 anti-ship missiles
5 cruise missiles
5 2000 lbs bombs
5 fuel tanks, 3 2000l plus 2 1250l on the outer wing stations.
Whether all those configurations are cleared I don’t know as they are in practice useless. But 3 2000l tanks plus 2 cruise missiles is f.e.
Interesting that the additional stations have been cleared, but your bottom line remains correct… most of these just wouldn’t be useful configurations. 5 x 2,000 bombs(or anything heavy/draggy) but internal only fuel for example…
Even an F-35 would take a pretty serious hit to its range with such a loadout, which is to say with fewer weapons hanging out in the wind and with twice the fuel on board.
Additionally, there’s the possibility of CFTs and a nuclear cruise missile. How many nuclear cruise missiles can the F-35 carry? :highly_amused:
The F-35 is slated to take over the F-16’s nuclear mission, though this does not currently include cruise missiles. There is no reason the F-35 couldn’t carry such a missile if a version of the JASSM or otherwise were developed but there isn’t any demand.
hopsalotHopsy, external payload for the F35 is 8100 kg, the much lighter Rafale can carry 9500kg.
Which, like your other points probably sounds meaningful to a simpleton but not to someone that understands the Rafale must dedicate a large portion of its available external load to fuel.
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.
Again, you appear to have googled a few tidbits of information but failed to grasped the bigger picture.
The Rafale can carry as follows:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225884[/ATTACH]
The F-35 meanwhile can carry:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225885[/ATTACH]
What do we learn?
The Rafale can carry 4 anti-ship missiles.(Exocet or Harpoon) The F-35 can carry 6 (NSM)
The Rafale can carry 3 cruise missiles. (Apache) The F-35 can carry 4. (JASSM)
The Rafale can carry 3 2,000 bombs. The F-35 can carry 6.
Etc etc
…but even that is somewhat simplistic because we are ignoring the Rafale’s need to carry external fuel.
The Rafale only has 3 stations capable of carrying a heavy weapon or a 2,000l fuel tank. That means a Rafale with a max load of 3 x 2,000lb bombs has very little fuel available, not a particularly useful loadout.
An F-35 meanwhile can carry its full 6 x 2,000lb bombs, while carrying 18,000 or 20,000lbs of fuel.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]225886[/ATTACH]
:stupid:
Are we starting to get it yet? Maybe just a tiny little bit? :rolleyes:
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.
It seems your point is that you don’t know what you don’t know. You like to hammer off cute little posts, riddled with errors of fact and reasoning, and then get offended when corrected.
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?
The F-35 is a generation newer than aircraft like the Rafale and was designed to fulfill a similar “omnirole” mission set. In that sense it is essentially a drop-in replacement for the Rafale.
There are isolated metrics where a Rafale has an advantage, just as one could argue that the F-4 has a slightly higher top speed and lower wing loading than the F-16, but in the end the F-35 is quite simply a much newer and more capable design.
hopsalotMach 1.6 with two “subsonic” 2*2000L fuel tanks….
Supercruise at Mach 1.4 with 6 AAM missiles (on internal fuel, but thats still much further than a F35 will do on afteburner).
Really, exactly how far can the Rafale supercruise? You say the plane can hit 1.4 with “internal fuel,” but how much internal fuel? At what altitude?
Sweeping clueless statements like this are exactly what I am talking about. Some manufacturer issues a press release, and suddenly people go making a whole heap of unsupported assumptions.
Oh and btw F35 is so draggy that its 30% more fuel with tanks only give it 8% more range…
Not even close to accurate. As has been explained over and over again, you can’t make an apples to apples comparison without knowing the details of the flight profile. The “official” range stated for the includes a lot of assumptions about combat, operating altitudes, engine wear, etc.
It can fly MUCH farther than F35 (1450 Kms range with 6×250 kgs bombs and pod and aams)
Again, something that has not been established. How far would an F-35 fly with an equivalent load under the same conditions?
HMD was always an option for export, simply french forces didnt want it? Btw tell me, how your hmd will help pilots look back?
How it will help them look back? Given that it allows the pilot to see through the airframe I suspect it won’t be a problem to look any way the pilot wishes. :rolleyes:
It can shoot A2G ammunitions at 90° angle, 6 in a single salvo.
So? The F-35 will have SDB-II with a next-generation multi-mode seeker for moving targets. (which can also be employed at targets off axis, and in salvos…)
It is not stealthy (although very discreet) true, still it flew unmolested over a S300… Using intelligent active jamming.
This is an anecdote I am unfamiliar with. What is the story? (so far as I know France has not been to war against anyone equipped with S300s. )
F35 WILL need external pod due to the absolute failure of not integrating rover capability. Useless in CAS without POD.
Rover will not require a pod. At least the F-35 will have a targeting pod capability when it goes operational, unlike the Rafale. 😉
Rafale can sustain 5.5 g turn while heavily loaded with AAMs, two Scalp missiles and 3 2000xL tanks…. How much can do F35 remind me?
At what speed? At what altitude? Are these little marketing tid-bits supposed to prove something? None can be used as a basis for comparison without complete information.
Rafale has been fighting duing trials (and before high AoA tests) at 15 Kts during a dogfight.
So? Any aircraft can achieve near-zero speed… it just means you are falling.
During tests max AoA reached was 100°…(reference in an old Air Fan i cnat find plz help).
So? It isn’t available to an operational pilot and so it isn’t really relevant to this discussion. Besides, going to very high angles of attack would be expected as part of a test program. The aircraft may have been out of controlled flight at the time.
The fact that FCS limits to 29° is a calculation of manoeuvrability vs lost energy. Rafale, as shown in a recent video , is still manoeuvrant at 30° AoA.
The Rafale is limited by its aerodynamic configuration. A single tailed delta is just not a good configuration for (controlled) high AoA. The F-35 will be capable of 50°, far in excess of the Rafale’s 29°. (and is being tested beyond this) This is a fact.
Cleared for 11g in war setting.
For refs wait for next week ottawa citizen
Most fighters are capable of exceeding their G-limits under some circumstances. One F-15 pulled a 12-G turn during Desert Storm. This is presumably true of the F-35 as well but nothing has been announced.
hopsalotThese numbers seem very low for Gripen and F-16. However, my interest is in trainer/LIFT cost per flight hour. While the parameters can be adjusted to create desired results, what is the cost per hour for the Hawk? M-346? Yak-130? TA-50?
All dry with no personnel costs.
Thoughts?
Ugly
This “study” is riddled with errors and has been completely debunked.
The numbers are in no way apples to apples.
In the Gripen’s case they represent fuel only, and cheap fuel at that…
If you want to see a real estimate of a Gripen NG’s operating costs see here:
About operational cost of Gripen E, there is an official 2012 estimative from Swiss Defence Department :
Programme d’armement 2012
It is the 1st link (PDF of 52 pages), “Programme d’armement 2012 et loi sur le fonds Gripen”
In page 36 there is a table to operate 22 Gripen E :So :
– the annual operation cost of each Gripen E would be CHF 4.64 mi (US$ 5.20 mi)/year in total, or CHF 0.955 mi (US$ 1.07 mi)/year in fuel, CHF 2.32 mi (US$ 2.60 mi)/year in maintenance, CHF 1.09 mi (US$ 1.22 mi)/year in personnel;
– using a standard calculation with 200 hours per year to obtain the Cost Per Flying Hour (CPFH), we get CHF 4.77 (US$ 5.35) thousand/hour with fuel, CHF 11.6 (US$ 13.0) thousand/hour with maintenance, CHF 5.45 (US$ 6.11) thousand/hour with personnel, giving a subtotal of CHF 16.4 (US$ 18.3) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance, or total of CHF 21.8 (US$ 24.4) thousand/hour with fuel+maintenance+personnel.
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?116825-Saab-Gripen-amp-Gripen-NG-thread-3/page30
hopsalotDepends on what capabilities we are talking about. But we can throw in the Rafale for the sake of it.
:stupid:
Posts like this are why people make fun of this forum…
The Rafale outranges the F35, it has superior speed, it is superior in maneuvering etc.
Not one of these has been established, unless you are talking about theoretical top speed while clean.
A Rafale loaded down with fuel tanks can perhaps out-range an F-35 on internal fuel. Of course the F-35 will receive external tanks as well but we like to ignore inconvenient facts around here.
The Rafale can go faster while totally clean. Care to post some data on how fast it can go while carrying a useful load? [crickets chirping]
Superior in maneuvering? By what measure exactly? Your own expert opinion? :very_drunk: The F-35 is a 9-G aircraft, and it has far superior high AoA performance to the Rafale… but we like to ignore inconvenient facts around here don’t we?
When we look at tech the datalinks are similar in capability (ie what Rafale has today),
Whether or not they appear similar depends on your level of cluelessness I suppose.
Both have the older non-stealthy Link-16, but only the F-35 has MADL. The F-35 can use either or both as appropriate…
both have 360 deg MAWS and target acquisition (already installed on Rafale btw),
Again, on a very very simplistic level they may appear similar, but of course DAS is much more than a mere MAWS. It is a closely integrated part of the F-35’s overall avionics, including the pilot’s helmet, and the aircraft’s other sensors.
both have AESAs (Rafale maybe with GaN?),
Both have AESAs, neither of which are confirmed to use GaN. The F-35’s AESA is substantially larger and like the rest of its sensors is a closely integrated part of the F-35’s overall avionics package. The Rafale’s AESA is no doubt an improvement over its PESA array, but to date only a handful of Rafales have received the new radar and none of the older jets are slated to be upgraded.
the Rafale carries more weapons (has 14 instead of 11 stations) etc.
The Rafale does have more stations, which to a simpleton might appear an advantage, until you consider that any Rafale actually using anywhere near its max will have at least two, and likely three stations occupied by fuel tanks, and would need to use a station to carry a targeting pod as well. (something the F-35 does not require due to its far larger internal fuel load and its internal targeting pod)
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.
More tired cliches. The F-35 is a missile hauler “hoping for the best” while the Rafale is what?
Both will be armed with Meteor(or AIM-120/Mica) for BVR. For WVR the Rafale will have Mica. The F-35 will have ASRAAM/AIM-9x or AMRAAM, integrated with the world’s best helmet mounted sight/display. If the F-35 carries external weapons it will be less stealthy, but remain stealthier than the Rafale. The Rafale does not have the option to be stealthy, or a helmet mounted display.
There are two areas where the F35 is superior.
There are plenty of areas where it is inferior.
:rolleyes: Doesn’t look like I need to take this apart again.
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.
Agreed!
If you want a one trick pony to fend off the Russians at medium range, well. The F35 would probably fair well.
Wrong again, :stupid: , see above.
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.
As before, fantasy land wishful thinking.
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.
:very_drunk: Math my friend, its hard, but lets try…
Rafale empty weight : 9,500kg Max takeoff weight : 24,500kg.
F-35A empty weight : 13,300kg Max takeoff weight : 31,800kg.
24,500kg – 9,500kg = 15,000kg (quite a load!)
31,800 – 13,300kg = 18,500kg (20% more :rolleyes: )
The F-35 can carry 8,280kg of internal fuel, AND 8,200kg of weapons. (and an internal targeting pod, which would count against the Rafale’s load and available stations)
Sure, if the F-35 were carrying large external loads it wouldn’t be stealthy. Of course the Rafale isn’t stealthy in any configuration so that isn’t much of a basis for comparison.
Lets face it, as a striker it isn’t even close.
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.
Another carefully considered opinion.
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.
You really do need to do some reading, to say the least. :highly_amused:
So what have we learned here children? Nothing about fighters, but perhaps a little something about psychology…
hopsalotThe first link from SAAB in above post explains SAAB’s rationale for starting work on what would become the NG, one describes the polish selection of the f-16 over the Gripen. I’m sure your familiar with both the Polish report and the Swiss eval, neither are manufacturer data, and both show that that Gripen C was considered inferior to competition. The claims that somehow the NG will be a quantum leap above the C are specious at best. Most likely competitive with the f-16 block 60 , not the f-35.
Need we remind the Gripen fan club that Saab’s own marketing ranked the Gripen as similar to an original F-16 or F-18 in performance, behind the latest proposed versions of the F-16, and well behind the Rafale, Eurofighter, and Super Hornet?
They predict (and advertise) the Gripen NG as reaching more or less parity with the currently operational Rafale, Eurofighter, and Super Hornet, while remaining well behind the F-35.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]223978[/ATTACH]
If even Saab’s own marketing can’t make a case for the Gripen NG exceeding the current standard, or for that matter coming close to the F-35, what makes fanboys on the internet think they know better?
The Gripen is a cool plane, and one I like a lot, but it is about -value-. You get a lot for your money.
hopsalotLets be honest, F35 will be a great plane, within its originally intended role.
The F-35 was originally intended to be a jack of all trades, omnirole, if you like the French terminology.
Honestly the F-35 is very close to what a 5th generation Rafale might have looked like. :eagerness:
hopsalotfor those interested, Dassault fox three magazine about Lybia operations.
http://www.dassault-aviation.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/FoxThree_Fox15.pdf
RAFALE KICKS THE DOOR DOWN
The Rafale has proved, in action, that it is the best all-round fighter in service anywhere. Operating from air bases in Corsica and Sicily and from the Charles de Gaulle nuclear-powered aircraft-carrier, the omnirole fighter has managed to bring down enemy air-defences and, more importantly, protect civilian populations.
…and to think people complain about Lockheed Martin or Sukhoi’s marketing. :very_drunk:
Such was the confidence of the French aircrews in their new mount that all missions were conducted without any support from dedicated electronic warfare and SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) assets: thanks to its Spectra state-of-the-art electronic warfare/self-defence suite, the Rafale was able to operate at will in a dangerous environment, against a dense network of deadly surface-to-air missile systems. Even more significant is the fact that the Rafale was able to accurately locate enemy air-defence systems and engage them. As early as 20 March 2011, Armée de l’Air Rafales started operating from Solenzara, a forward operating base on the island of Corsica.
I am sure this is news to the EA-18Gs that were operating off the coast…
Look the bottom line is that the Rafale is an excellent plane. I have never asserted otherwise, but spare me the ridiculous marketing. If Rafale proved it was the “best all-round fighter in service anywhere” over Libya, imagine what it might have proven if the Libyans fighters had actually taken off. :eagerness:
hopsalotI can’t really explain in more simpler terms…
If there’s no evidence to support an assertion then it also cannot be stated as false, no?
Oh, so if I said that the Pak Fa can fly mach 4 backwards that is fine, so long as there is no evidence to prove that it can’t, right? :stupid:
Do they have schools where you come from?
Let me explain it to you in the simpler terms you are struggling to find.
If someone can not support an assertion, then it may be dismissed outright.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence” -Christopher Hitchens
You are welcome.
hopsalotLets be realistic, such evidence is hardly going to be released to the public via various several reports, are they… Really.
One is rather interested in the RAF Tornado GR4 Storm Shadow sorties, all one can gather is; they took off from RAF bases in the UK, then released the weapons a could of hundred Ks from their intended targets. Anything more is rather strictly classified, the same goes for any other kind of sortie.
I am not sure what your point is. If there is no evidence to support an assertion then people shouldn’t be making that assertion.
hopsalotExactly where in my response do you see me mention Libya?
How’s that different from A’Stan or even most part of Iraq, especially GWII?
You really do struggle to keep up don’t you? Did you even read the posts in the discussion?
Sign In
