These are with F110-GE engines which I have intentionally chosen to opt out as no such alternative engine by GE exists for the F-35.
It’s widely acknowledged that Pratts don’t push the jet as hard as GEs do.

still doesnt change the fact that pilot does think latter version of F-16 with heavier avionic and stronger engine is actually more agile than F-16A
as stated before ADVENT /AETP actually improve fuel consumption by 25% as well, so F-35 can counter the increase in avionic weight by carry less fuel

Perhaps most extreme engine improvement to same airframe came with F-15. From 107 kN to 129 kN is around 20% improvement (even Su-35’s 117S improves on AL-31F’s thrust by 16%).
Here is the maneuverability comparsion between PW-100 engined F-15A, PW-220 engined F-15C and PW-229 engined F-15E. All are clean, roughly at 50% fuel and no CFT attached:

[ATTACH=CONFIG]239266[/ATTACH]

So you can see, higher thrust with added avoincs hardly make the aircraft more maneuverable. F-15E may shine when supersonic, but for dogfighting, I would take F-15A anyday.

I am utterly convinced that current engine of F-35 is more than enough, but if you aren’t, then don’t rely on an engine upgrade. When the time comes and F-35 recieves an uprated engine, it is likely to recieve additional features which adds to empty weight as well.

you are right that normally aircraft get more powerful engine in it’s life time, and that will be counter by the increase in weight
but ADVENT / AETD upgrade for F-135 doesnt just promise improve thrust, they also reduce fuel consumption by 25%, that mean F-35 can fly 25% longer, or it can fly the same distance carrying 25% less fuel. And i dont think the added avionics will be heavier than 25% fuel, so when fueled to fly same distance, the future F-35 with ADVENT /AETD engine will actually be lighter, while having engine with better thrust, that will benefit maneuver, does it not?

IRSTs there won’t classify targets from 45,3 nm away and no funny things like “R-37M (tech late 1990s) ECM = always success” crap.

haha yes, IRST range in Command is ways too long, like literally longer than radar 😀

Well its not definitive X is better than Y. Inwards (then typically slightly outwards) curved design is more efficient, because it matches behaviour of vortex better. Such quick outward curve creates bigger vortex, but not “forces” the generation of the vortex in a controlled way, it merely creates bigger vortex at the cost of increased drag.

If you have enough room, F-16’s or Su-27s “pointed ogive” shape is always the best. Its not only for subsonics, it applies for supersonic as well (concorde’s wings for example). However there are several other design criteria to consider as well.

For example, F-18A/D has LERX designed for its wingspan. Enlarged wings on F-18E require larger LERX, but lengthening the LERX equally would mean either a) lengthening aircraft would result in extra weight or b) lengthening the lerx alone which would shift aerodynamic center to front (maybe even causing too much instability for elevators to handle, which in return requires bigger elevators which causes more drag than gains), and making pilot completely blind to his underside. So like everything else, F-18E’s design is a trade-off of multiple factors.

JF-17? If you don’t have the distance, you are stuck with quick outward ogive to genarate a vortex with sufficent meaning. TBH, JF-17 is one of the rare aircraft I would call copy (I dont even call Tu-160 or F-15 copy), which is an attempt to put some F-16’s aerodynamics on a F-20 clone. Within such constraints overly wide but short ogive design is way to go.

I see, very interesting, but isn’t JF-17 is same size with F-16? why didn’t they use same LERX with it?
the point about weight and center of gravity : isn’t LERX is very tiny and small? how could it weight enough to change center of gravity of aircraft ? ( i mean something like refueling probe would look like it would be alot heavier, or CFT look like they are alot heavier too, but they don’t seem to affect fighter alot)
BTW since canard alot bigger than normal LERX ( even the one F-16, Su-27) so they are better for maneuver ?

Noone said so. And the original article is easy to find on Defesanet. V. Riller spent two full weeks testing Rafale.

read the old thread then
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?134900-Rafale-news-amp-discussion-part-XVI/page19

Btw no use counting modules on a mock up presented for PAS…

that mock up is inside Rafale nose, whether you like it or not, there isn’t much space left, i know you hoped that the total TRM of F-35, F-18,, Gripen.. etc radar are less than mock up counting and the production radar of Rafale will have more TRM than mock up, but to be honest that quite delusional

Every aircraft uses more fuel at SC than in subsonic. I have already provided the numbers for the Rafale, it’s four times as much.
I won’t be using any methods on the F-35, got no time for this.. If they can make more, then they would already have announced it. That program needs every bit of good news it can get. If they claim 150 miles, I am not quite sure they can reliably make even 130. My 0.02..

you have provided number, however that number isn’t from producer but from Picard estimation based on TSFC of M88 Specma and internal fuel load of rafale ( actually 35 min instead of 39 min but there are many bigger mistake )
his estimation would actually be alright if it isn’t based on many wrong assumptions from the start, such as ignoring fuel to take off, ignoring time to climb to optimum altitude , ignoring time to accelerate to mach 1.4, But the biggest mistake is assumed TSFC is a constant value, well it actually isnt, very depending on altitude and speed ( Andraxxus will explained this better than me, ) but any way, look at this :
https://books.google.com.vn/books?id=L9KYFB-wrbgC&pg=PA88&lpg=PA88&dq=TSfC+engine+jet+constant&source=bl&ots=DYGKlLdC0p&sig=FeQa67XJmAhpBD7KTSLJly4uH5E&hl=en&sa=X&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=TSfC%20engine%20jet%20constant&f=false

P/s : using your way of calculating, an F-35 can last around 19 min at low afterburner settings ( 30K thrust)

Only a matter of time.. Your F-35 can hardly fire an AMRAAM as we speak, wonder how much of that stealthy data link is actually working as we speak.

You cant install a bigger radar on Rafale, Typhoon, Gripen nose ( unless you redesign the whole aircraft for a bigger nose)
you cant install VLO characteristics on Gripen, Rafale, Typhoon either ( unless you remake the whole thing)
Also since lower RCS make jamming significantly more effective, so F-35 have advantage in that as well

I have already provided the figures.. 1,800kg/h @ cruise thrust, 8,000kg/h @ full dry thrust, 26,000kg/h @ max AB. The rest you can google up, it’s all there.

Rafale optimum cruise speed is not mach 0.9
and TSFC isn’t a constant value

You always ask up for evidence, now it’s time for you to back up your claims with something more than just bypass ratio. If you got numbers about the F-35 exhaust plume being significantly colder than one of a Gripen, then we’re talking. If you don’t, then it’s all garbage.

small mass of air move at high speed will have higher IR signature than big mass of air move at slow speed, simple physic.
the bigger bypass ratio is the more air will more through the fan instead of the engine core ( compressor) to produce thrust, the air move through the fan will move at slower speed and not combustion
engine optimum for supercruise would need to move small mass of air fast instead of big mass of air slow, ( same reason why F-135 isn’t optimum to supercruise despite having bigger thrust than F-119) , thus they will have lower bypass ratio, that lead to higher exhaust temperature
and reduce temperature by only 100 degree can reduce infrared radiation by half

You have counted 1,626 “valleys”.. The problem is that not every “valley” represents a TRM. The patent drawing you have posted shows the true arrangement. The real number should be around 1,480 TRMs. That affects even APG-80, BTW, which looks to be under 1,000 TRMs.

no, not every peak is a TRMs, but the valleys is
if you look carefully at the drawing, the number of “fake” T/R modules for each line is around 2-3 top , count the total number of line that shown the total reduction is around 40-50, top

As for the Rafale pic you have posted, I cannot recognize what exactly have you counted. But without the info regd. how the TRM arrangement looks like you’re basically pulling numbers out of thin air. Given the smaller dimensions of the Raffie’s nose I expect 900 +/- 10% GaAs type TRMs.

the picture showed the number of peak on Rafale, so it is basically the best case scenarios for rafale, so no Rafale wont get 900 +10% TRMs, sorry

the resolution is low, we can dismiss theories of pinpointing anything BVR when they dont provide resolution on par with eyes,
as has been said before: its first and foremost a missile launch detector, and useful detecting obstacles close up,
like your wingman during night flight

a radar wont provide same resolution with your eye ( in fact, alot worse due to their wavelength ) , and they still use it for BVR

Rafale can supercruise for 39 minutes.. Typhoon probably even longer…

You misunderstanding the 9-10 minutes figure for F-22 and F-35, that is not the total distance they can fly supersonic but rather, the supersonic part that included in the total combat radius ( already been explained in the analysis by aerodynamic engineer i posted several page ago) , because, even for F-22 flying at supersonic will use more alot more fuel than subsonic. I never heard about Rafale supercruise for 39 minutes but If you want to calculate the time Rafale can fly at supersonic by using TSFC, then we can use the same method for F-22, F-35, and the result will be alot bigger.

DDM-NG is by no means magic.. EODAS is not much more useful.

DDM-NG have only 2 sensors and have to use fish eye effect to see around ( and there still significant part blocked by the airframe ) , DAS have 6 sensors so each sensor have to cover alot less volume of sky) , i didnt see you disagree when people on Rafale thread say they heard some unnamed pilot say DDM-NG allow track, attack enemy’s fighter, or even estimated range to a missiles
Biased much? :rolleyes:

Still they got everything pretty comparable.. Makes one wonder how’s that possible..

i dont see they are compatible at all
Rafale, Typhoon lacks stealth data link
Gripen, Typhoon lack DAS like system
Rafale, Gripen, Typhoon all have smaller radar than F-35
Rafale, gripen, Typhoon all lack VLO characteristics

For M0.7-0.8 it surely doesn’t.

150 miles at mach 1.2 without afterburner

I did not say 1/4 thrust. I said 1/4 fuel consumption @M0.9 [1,800 kg/h] compared to max thrust @M1.4 [8,000 kg/h]

any evidence that Rafale use only 1/4 fuel at M0.9 compared to M1.4?

. The amount of IR energy is, of course, quite proportional to amount of fuel burned.

no, it have been explained to you before, a big mass of air move at slow speed will have less Infra-red signature than small mass of air moving at high speed
( helicopter rotor will have alot less IR signature than an jet engine )

The number is inaccurate.. It has been discussed before.. you need to count “valleys”, not “peaks”.
Same for APG-80 (obviously using the same modules)

yes we did, and even counting by that method APG-81 still have around 1626 TRMs so my point stand

You are counting the “peaks” as the T&R module but the “valley” is the actual T&R module antenna aperture.

You can tell this due to the “peaks” at either end of a strip are half the size of the rest of the “peaks”.

In this YouTube primer on AESA building blocks (the 1:55 mark), you can see the T&R modules and how they sit behind the apertures along with the aperture Peak and Valley layout.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XRKqnYQl4mE#t=125

Wideband radiators, such as the Vivaldi flared notch emerged to address the needs of wide bandwidth systems. The flared notch provides broadband performance with nominally linear polarization. Because of its broad beamwidth, it is ideal for electronically scanning antenna arrays with scan volumes of at least 60 degrees. – See more at:
http://www.raytheon.com/news/technology_today/2014_i1/aesa.html

The -81 uses a printed circuit-board type of flared notch antenna while the -79 uses an injection molded radiator assembly and antenna assembly. This explains why the faces of the -81 and -79 look so different.

http://www.google.com/patents/US6127984
http://www.google.com/patents/WO2013180828A1
http://www.google.com/patents/US20050088353

I got 1626

original link here :
http://forum.keypublishing.com/showthread.php?133321-F-35-News-Multimedia-amp-Discussion-thread-(2015)/page3

Also FYI
using same original counting method :
APG-80 have 1020 TRMs

APG-79 have 1368 TRMs

your beloved Rafale have around 840-863 TRMs give or take