DJC – 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.

There is a video on youtube showing an EOTS locking on a window of a hotel in Las Vegas, at 45 Nmiles. That’s > 80 km. Do you know any other FLIR that can do better?

Using the F-16 at 20,000ft as an example:
A 4000lb (24000lb to 28000lb) weight difference in clean config results in the aircraft taking 5 more seconds to go from M0.75 to M1.24 (30 seconds up to 35 seconds).
An 8000lb (24000lb to 32000lb, obviously engineer data estimate) weight difference in clean config results in the aircraft taking 10 more seconds to go from M0.75 to M1.24 (30 seconds up to 40 seconds).

Meanwhile drag from external stores at 24,000lb:
Going from clean to a drag index of 50 (eg. approx 2 aim-120 + 2 aim-9) results in the aircraft taking 9 more seconds to go from M0.75 to M1.24 (30 seconds up to 39 seconds).
Going from clean to a drag index of 100 (eg. approx 4 aim-120 + 2 aim-9) results in the aircraft taking 33 more seconds to go from M0.75 to M1.24 (30 seconds up to 63 seconds).
Going from clean to a drag index of 150 (eg. approx 4 aim-120 + 2 aim-9 + FLIR + Centreline Tank or basically a config that brings the F-16 partially towards the capability of an internally loaded -aka clean – F-35) results in the aircraft only barely being able to reach M 1.24 after > 400 seconds.
At drag index 200 (eg approx 4 aim-120 + 2 aim-9 + FLIR + 2 370Gal tanks on the wings) the aircraft has a useful max speed of just over M1.02)

Also note that at higher drag indexes weight seems to have more effect too and was not taken into account in the DI stats above.

Drag caused by external stores is certainly a killer compared to weight. On the F-16, its the pylons required on hard points 3 and 7 (when 4 aim-120’s are required) which allow the F-35 to outperform it. In any config over 4 missiles total, the F-35 has most likely got it beat in speed, acceleration and turning.

It’s also worth noting that the F-16 manual has a simplified and less accurate system for drag calculations than the F-18C manual. The drag computation in the F-18 manual also takes into account interference drag at various speeds. Basically when certain combinations of weapons or stores occupy hard points beside each other, they cause an increase in total drag above and beyond that of the stores themselves which also increases as the aircraft speeds up. Interesting when considering the performance of certain aircraft which are touted for their weapons carriage capacity.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]224373[/ATTACH]

If we look at this post from January and to the F 16 profile (3 post above) , we can undestand the real difference from F 16 and F 35:

– with 4 aim-120 + 2 aim-9 + FLIR + 2 x 370Gal tanks the F 16 has a speed of ~ 1 M and a combat radius of 470 Nmiles;
– with 4 misslies (for now) the F 35 has a speed of 1.6 M and a combat radius of > 600 Nmiles

Aurcov – You didn’t get it. A Rafale will need EFTs in order to match the combat radius of a clean F 35. Or, in the configuration you posted, a rafale will be no match for an F 35.

We were talking about the relative ability of the two aircraft to carry and deliver weapons, whether internal or external. Sure, with two configurations (2 x AMRAAM + 2 x 2k bombs, or 2 x AMRAAM + 8 x SDBs) the F-35 can go further/carry more than a clean conventional fighter – but that says little because conventional aircraft were designed to carry drop tanks (as most supersonic fighters have been).

But then again, since you obviously aren’t even reading your own posts, any further discussion is a waste of time. Ignore list for you!

You posted a picture of a bomb laden Rafale with 3 subsonic EFTs, and said that a F 35 won’t be able to achieve a similar fuel fraction. I replied saying that in such configuration a Rafale won’t be able to match the performances (acce., maneuvr.) of an F 35 that would carry the same weapon load, on a similar distance, yet being “clean” (aerodynamically).

What do you think?

Not the right test, keep looking hehe…

Keep dreaming 😀

This is why Flopsalot is on my ignore list.

However, just this once… Wake me up when any F-35 flies with equivalent fuel fraction (fuel load divided by TOW), four MRAAMs, two LRAAMs and six >500-lb standoff PGMs.

[ATTACH=CONFIG]225869[/ATTACH]

And wake me up when the Rafale will match the F 35 performances in that configuration. I doubt that in these conditions the Rafale will make 0.6M in dry thrust and 1.2 M in AB. Meanwhile the F 35 will go 1.6M…

!

2-Defensive Counter Air/Cruise Missile Defence. Stealth irrelevant. Advantage JAS 39E.

F 35 will have a larger aperture AESA — higher probability to spot a cruise missile.

5-Close Air Support. F-35 Block 3F can’t do this because it lacks competitive EO/IR (EOTS has limited field of regard, no HDTV) and Rover compatibility. Fixing issue means adding a pod and destroying stealth.

EOTS isn’t good enough??? It’s based on Sniper XR!
BTW it has a CCD and its field of regard for ground targets is full.

6-Non-Traditional Intelligence, Surveillance, Reconnaissance. Block 3F has no capability, lacking suitable datalinks and sensors (HDTV/LOROP &c) and again, F-35 would need a pod.

The recce pods have an EO/IR sensor and/or a (small) SAR. The F 35 aleady has those.

BAe designed the EWS for the F22. What was the best airborne EWS system in the companys portfolio when the contract was awarded? You guessed correctly, EWS39.

The EW system in F 22 was not designed by BAE Systems. It was designed by Sanders Corp. BAE Systems North America aquired Sanders, and that’s why in this moment BAE Systems NA produces the EW suites for F 35, Superhornet, the export variants of F 15 and produced tha ALR 94 for F 22.

EW 39 is was designed and it is produced by SAAB.