I see that many here compare the F 35 with Rafale. Is France going to declare war on US or vice-versa?:eek:

A more real scenario will be both against Su 3X. In this conditions, let’s compare these two planes.

OK, Rafale will have better performances when clean. No one argues. But, against the big Flankers, you’ll need every drop of fuel you can carry.

-The F 35 can carry over 8 tons internally.

-According to this: http://www.dassault-aviation.com/fileadmin/user_upload/redacteur/AUTRES_DOCS/Fox_three/Fox_Three_nr_2.pdf, first page, the Rafale can carry 4.557 tons (1519 US gal.) internally. It also has 5 wet points. There are two types of EFTs: “supersonic” (330 US gal. or 0.99 ton) and drop tanks (528 US gal., or 1.58 ton). The Rafale can carry either 5 (unjetisonable) X 330 gal EFTs or 3 (jetisonable) x 528 gal EFTs. In the first case, the rafale will carry 9.5 tons, in the second case 9.3 tons. I think that everyone will agree that the 8 tons of the F 35 will offer more range compared with the ~ 9.5 tons of the Rafale, because of the extra drag of the EFTs.

Put 6 AAMs on each fighter, all 6 internal on the F 35, 2 on wingtips and 4 of them with their pylons on the Rafale.

Now:
-which will have a higher speed?
-which will accelerate better?
-which will have a better inst./sust. turn rate?

PS: don’t start with the “jettisoning the EFTs” BS, if you want the Rafale fight the next day…

And at M 4.0 per AAMS the difference in seconds would be?

What makes you believe that the enemmy would also be able to detect and track the F 35?

The only real difference here is visual capabilties, range of detection of SAMIR is virtualy in the SAME ballpark

Based on…

MIDS equiping Rafale and Mirage 2000s is Thales designed among other things…

All MIDS LVT (the fighter version) are the same no matter the operator.

In April 1997, Thierry moved to the Land & Joint Division and was seconded as Technical Director to the Midsco international Joint Venture in Wayne (New-Jersey, USA) to complete the development of the Link16 Low Volume Terminal MIDS

Wow, so a Frech engineer came into US to participate at MIDS R&D, and sudenly he designed the thing?:p

So, no matter that MIDS is based on JTIDS technology (entirely US), no matter that the MIDS was developed in US labs, tested on US fighters, no matter that the largest part of the hardware for international customers and 100 % of the hardawre for US customers is made by US compnies, no matter that the first platform was the F 18 in 2001 (there are ~ 2000 MIDS in US on F 15, F 16, F 18), no matter that US Navy is the overall program manager for international customers, no matter that an US intelligence agency is providing the cryptography, just because a French engineer (a good one, no doubt) has participate, suddenly MIDS is French designed?:p

NOTE the manufacturer quote. i.e LONG-RANGE ALL-WEATHER

Hey, I just quote you. Under the SAGEM photo, you said: :”For the time being, performances of this generation IRST is enough for classification as long-range/All-weather by the manufacturer and the DGA is looking in this precise direction for actual and future developements..”

As for the manufarcturers claim, of course that all the companies that produce FLIR say that thie product are ling distance, all weather. If you chose to believe that only the french claims are substantiated, it’s your problem.

Many Apaches crashed. What makes you beleive that it was because the IR sensor went bad?

Because it was the case.

Most of this forum posters use to prove statements by puting links, or copy-paste. Do you have anything on this episode?

In short as we say in France, you’re Charriot” by a couple of generations.

As I told you, I am not American. However, somehow i doubt that France has any edge over US in optronics, or, if so, this advancement could be measured in generations…

Kindly asked you how on hearth can anyone bar AdA/MN/GIE/DGA/Thales have this detail in hand?

Than, how do you know that Spectra will work againt AESAs? I agree that such info are not public, but you claimed it as a knowing fact. Did you read in a a magazine, or at least on some forum? Or should I consider it your own assuption? If so I’ve got no comment.:)

Nothing from SAGEM but Thales sold the SIRIUS IRST to the Canadian Navy and a little goody for the USN too.

Canadian Navy still isn’t USN.

Right, and when they (SAMs) are set up the Air Force of the aggressor is automatically informed of their location right right?

I hope you are aware that the EW system can geolocate the radar position and show it on the display on the F 35?

”

Since the event of SAMIR on the Mirage 2000 all AdA/MN aircraft HAVE a 360X360* IR detection system, SPECTRA adds EM and LASER to it.
http://www.sagem-ds.com/pdf/en/D649.pdf

Do you realize that SAMIR is just a missile detector? Hell, even the old Dutch F 16 MLU have them mounted on the inner pylons. The AN/AAR-56 of F 22 and the DAS of F 35 offer someting else – – IRST situational awarness.

I’m looking for the Doc but i have to remind YOU that F-35 systems were partly developed by European companies in particular BAe systems which, if they are good can hardly claim being better than SAGEM and Thales in this field.

It seems that you don’t know the F 35 programme as well as you pretend. The EW systems of F 22 and F 35 are indeed made by BAE Systems, but not in Europe. They are produced in US by BAE Systems North America in Nashua, New Hampshire, the former Sanders Corp. http://www.baesystems.com/Businesses/EIS/Divisions/ElectronicWarfare/AboutUs/index.htm

Which is the field where French companies have been working and got ahead of the US, in particular in the field of multi-band systems and pixel-powered systems where BTW French DGA programmes manages a world’s first last year…

Interseting R&D stuff. How many of these development are operational (as the F 22 AN/AAR-56) or in testing (as the F 35 DAS)?

Sorry my friend you’re talking OUT of ignorance here.

A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy supercruise with AAMs and tanks, F-35 doesn’t supercruise AT ALL.

A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy fly at M 2.0 which is a M 0.4 kinetic advantage over F-35.

A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy aren’t structuraly G limited the way F-35 is…

A Rafale, Gripen or Typhoon actualy have an operational ceilling 10.000 higher.

[B]You’re mostly uninformed i’m afraid.[/B

It seems that you live in a fantasy world, where fighters (French, of course) travel at 2 M at 75.000 feets. Well, real world is different:

While supersonically the F-35 is limited to a seemingly unimpressive Mach 1.6 in level flight, Davis explains that the JSF is optimized for exceptional subsonic to supersonic acceleration. Transonic acceleration is much more relevant to a fighter pilot than the absolute max speed of the jet, Davis said. Davis, who was previously the program manager for the F-15 Eagle, explains that while the Eagle is a Mach 2 class fighter, it has rarely exceed the threshold of Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.3 during it’s entire 30 year life span. Additionally, the time the aircraft has spent in the supersonic flight regime can be measured in minutes rather than hours- most of the supersonic flights were in fact during specialized flights such as Functional Check Flights (FCF). “I don’t see how that gets you an advantage” Davis said, referring to the Mach 2+ capability. Beesley said that in terms of supersonic flight that the F-35 is still more than competitive with existing designs.

You said that you have some conection with the French AF. Ask those guys how much time they spent >1M in trainoing or execises. French Mirages 2000 were in Iraq in 1991 and in Kossovo in 1999 (I’ve considered only the A-A scenario). Ask them if they ever crossed 1M and if so, for how much.

In the EM dpt SPECTRA does just as well, the IR and laser coverages are there the difference rests in the visual presentation in DAS absent from MIDS but the new generation of IR/OPptical sensors developed in France is much more performant expecialy when it comes to Visual Meteo Condition limits.

MIDS has nothing to do with IR detection. It’s a Link 16 terminal. And the better performances of French stuff in bad weather are just assumptions, since there is no French operationl/tested system similar with DAS or AN/AAR-56.

…SPECTRA is proven to detect LPI radars (NATO MACE-X Exercise), it’s not even a match it’s laughable, limited EM L.O doesn’t compensate for this…

LPI doesnt mean UNDETECTABLE BTW…

In this particulary exercise, did anyone use AESA radars? If not, extrapolating spectra performances against conventional radars to AESAs is wrong.

At this altitude, from Mach 0.9 to Mach 1.85 it beats the ekke of F-16 (flying LOWER) with 120 sec, even better up to 2.17 after 180 seconds.

If both were clean that’s pure imagination.

French aircraft are designed to intercept Mig 25, not Harrier IIs at sea level mate!!!

Too bad, since up to now, only US-made aircraft did this…In the end, we have either believe all the stuff you posted, or oficial LM/AF presentations…

What a bloody brilliant idea! The enemy are dunces and have their mobile, modern SAM systems in just one spot and glued to the ground!

😀

Yes, they are immobile while they are emitting! Any “modern & mobile” radar, be it Tomb Stone, Grave Stone, Big Bird, you name it, are immobile as long as they emit. Or did the Russians invent a method of using them while traveling on a highway?

I only took one sentence from that article. Here is what Beesley says:

Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor”, Beesley said.

If we assume he is right, then if F-35 matches the F-16 B50 and is very close to F-22, that logically means means the F-16 Block 50 is, too very close to F-22. Since the later blocks of F-16C are sonsidered a slouch compared to earlier lighter F-16As, that would indicate that Raptor is inferior to F-16A in this particular case. If that is right, then I guess Typhoon (as the said best performer at higher speeds) will probably be rather considerably superior to F-22 on this field. 😉 Ouch, I can’t believe I have just said that 😉

Please, feel free to correct me if you find a logical mistake but I only interpret what your Mr. Beesley has said.

Nope, the F 16 blk. 50 accelerates better than any plane except the EF. That the EF matches the F 22 in subsonic is no secret; the difference between the F 22 and any other fighter is in supersonic.

Well, it is simply NOT the case for many reasons, the first it that it was simply NOT designed to out-turn F-16 in CLEAN configuration but in A2G configuration and that appart for the F-16 versions with the lowest TWR it just wont happen.

In terms of aerodynamic performance, the F-35 is an excellent machine, Beesley said. Having previously been only the second man ever to have flown the F-22 Raptor, Beesley became the first pilot ever to fly the F-35 in late 2006. As such, Beesley is intimately familiar with both programs. According to Beesley, the four current test pilots for F-35 have been most impressed by the aircraft’s thrust and acceleration. In the subsonic flight regime, the F-35 very nearly matches the performance of its’ larger, more powerful cousin, the F-22 Raptor, Beesley explained. The “subsonic acceleration is about as good as a clean Block 50 F-16 or a Raptor– which is about as good as you can get.” Beesley said.

The aircraft flies in “large measure like the F-22, but it’s smaller, and stiffer” than the Raptor however, Beesley explained, adding that the aircraft handles superbly. The reason for the similar flight characteristics, explained the test pilot, is because the man who designed the flight control laws for the Raptor, is also the same man who is responsible for the flight control software for the F-35. As Beesley explains, the flight control laws of modern fighters determine to large extent the flight characteristics of a given aircraft. Beesley said that the aircraft is so stable and so comfortable that the test pilots find themselves inadvertently drifting too close to their wingmen in formation.

What Beesley expects will surprise future F-35 pilots is the jets’ superb low speed handling characteristics and post-stall manoeuvrability. While the F-22 with its thrust vectored controls performs better at the slow speeds and high angle of attack (AOA) flight regime, the F-35 will be able match most of the same high AOA manoeuvres as the Raptor, although it will not be able to do so as quickly as the more powerful jet in some cases. Turning at the higher Gs and higher speed portions of the flight envelope, the F-35 will “almost exactly match a clean Block 50 F-16 and comes very close to the Raptor“, Beesley said

.

This is simply forgeting that concurent manufacturers do not stay iddle:

SA in a 360X360* bubble is already in service in Europe, both EM and IR and there are new generation IR systems in the pipeline as capable if not MORE than DASS.
Looking Sci-Fi doesn’t mean SUPERIOR it just mean ADVANCED US design and sometimes as in the case for EOTS “atractive packaging”.

Reality lies in the REAL set of capabilties and technologies, in the IR Dpt, europe is ahead of the US not behind, you simply are not aware of this fact.

Really? What systems except symple missile detectors do offer Europeans for spherical coverage? Because DAS is more than a MLD, you know. What are those systems in the pipeline, more capable than DAS? Name a few, please. Also be so kind to name one of those “REAL” systems that is “ahead” US. Either operational or in tests.

We’re talking Air-to-air here…Me too. 4.5 gen planes shoud carry the ~ 6 A-A missiles on pylons. But most of all, EF, Rafale, Grippen shoud also carry 3 EFT in order to be something else than symple point defense fighters. With those, they barelly go over 1M with A/B…

You’re mostly uninformed i’m afraid.

OK, enlighten us, please.

I personally don’t see his personal preference as a problem as long as he is not ready to falsify the data. I agree with his notion that buying a stealth fighter with actually poor LO characteristics is a nonsense. He seems to be persuaded about that in case of the F-35 and provides very interesting backup for this claim – unlike the rest of us. It’s easy to persuade me on the contrary – simply take his data and prove him wrong.

– taking supposed range of ‘Chinese Tu-160s and Tu-22Ms’ is actually very correct from Kopp – Australia is buying their fighter not just for today, but for future 30 years of service. I don’t know what China will operate in next 30 years but it will be something better than just H-6s. If you call the F-35 a fighter for the future, then you cannot simply get satisfied with it being able to cope with just today’s threats. A point for Kopp here. The Russians may very well sell advanced version of Su 30 and SA 300 to the Chinese. I strongly doubt that they will sell strategic bombers. So, he invents an imaginary threat in order to prove a point. Thumb down for Kopp here
– regarding him taking for granted any Russian claims and considering the lowest public figures for US weapons, this is actually a very sensible worst-case approach. You cannot expect a serious analyst say *hey, the producer of the antiship missile claims 350 km range but it’s just Russians, they are lying like hell, let’s take just 260km and base our entire strategy on that!* Another point for Kopp, I would say, his approach here looks correct to me. You missed my point. I don’t necessary blame him for taking all the Russian claims without a grain of salt, but for the fact that in the same time is bashing anything made in US, with the exception of F 22, of course. Another thumb down for Kopp, I would say, his approach here looks incorrect to me.
– regarding taking wing-loading and range figures of Su-30 vs F-18, I cannot really elaborate without knowing the purpose of the analysis. If he, for example, studied survivalability of RAAF Hornets on a bombing run, then his assumptions would be right. I leave this point open.

No he compared the two planes in A-A. If you take the Hornet and load it with 6 tons of weapons, the wing loading will look bad compared with a Flanker with only AA missiles.