Because you knowanything about rafale RCS ans spectra capabilities? And RBE2? lucky boy!

Kind of obvious that Rafale RCS is considerably bigger than F-35 ( likes more than 100 times bigger) and like Luko said required jamming power is proportional to the RCS of the jamming aircraft. So unless spectra can generate >100 times the jamming power of an APG-81 and ASQ-239 combined then Rafale pilot is screwed in BVR again stealth platform
RBE2 is also inferior to APG-81 in term of size and jamming ability

Gripen and Captor-E development are coming from very similar backgrounds in terms of T/R modules, with Selex ES UK branch the chief protagonist in both, so if one has it, the other will too. Some sources do say that the Captor-E will get GaN modules but it’s not completely clear yet. Furthermore, since both Gain and Power are proportional to area, i.e. number of T/R modules, even with GaN modules versus GaAs modules, the Captor-E would still come out on top vs Rafale and Gripen, since range is proportional to Gain^2 x Area x Power/R^4 and GaN is only about 2-4 times more powerful. Area and gain also give advantages in resolution that no amount of transmitting power can overcome.

Do you know their size.? , i can find pictures but have no idea their size compared to the other
Rafale radar :

Gripen-NG radar :

Typhoon radar:

F-35 radar :

F-16 radar :

You are kidding arent you?

he ask what Radar connect to ESM mean, and i explain, then you come in and say “Wow trying to reinvent SPECTRA or Typhoon Praetorian suite? Still a long work ahead…” , which actually have nothing related to the original argument because we compared F-35 and F-18E,
that why i said ” i didn’t say Typhoon, Rafale dont have that capabilities”
is that clear now?

Pretty every aircraft has already beat something else on exercises. Don’t even ask how many kills Aggressor F-5E/T-38s scored against everything that flies, from F-4E, through F-15, F-14, F-16 up to F-22.

My point is that people seem to think any 4.5 gen fighter that can get into WVR with F-35, will have instant win, that simply not the truth, f-35 was also criticised that it’s kinematics only matched F-16, but people forget that F-16 despite being old still very agile, pilot even claimed F-16 matched Typhoon performance below 10K feet, after they done mock dogfight with the typhoon

Why not simply use powered ordnance instead? Then you can increase range and the carrying aircraft don’t even need to cruise fast.

normally smaller bomb, missiles can be carried in larger number and affected maneuver of the fighter less , but they don’t carry as much fuel compared to big missiles, thus they can benefits from high launching speed
even powered ordnance like Aim-120, Meteor, CUDA, SPEAR will have more range with higher launching speed ( may be not much, but still an advantage)

Gripen NG has even lower sales, your arguments don’t make sense.

at least the Gripen NG intended to have LPI data link from start so if someone buy the Gripen-NG they will have that features while for Rafale it just a seperate study that very unlikely become reality because the aircraft program itself doesnt have alot of investment or sale for
( i do agree that Gripen-NG may become another F-15SE though)

That is not correct. DDM-NG only has two sensors and but resolution of the FPA is four times higher than the what EODAS uses.

Can you cite any link that specific said DDM-NG sensor have 4 times the resolution of DAS sensor?
For all i know they have to use cat eye effect to observe the battle space thus a lot less accurate for tracking, detection

Internal system, too increases weight and drag. And it does that permanently, even if you don’t need it.

IRST and EO is useful for most mission
and the drag and weight of F-35 is the same both in airshow and real war configuration while the typhoon, Rafale, gripen, Su-35 in real war configuration will have much bigger drag, RCS, and their kinetic performance wont be as good as in air show ( their turn rate, acceleration rate, top speed will be alot less in real war conditions)

Their level is likely higher.

very unlikely that Typhoon, Gripen-NG, Rafale, Su-35 radar will have better LPI characteristics than APG-81
after all APG-81 and other systems on F-35 was designed with stealth being the most important feature ( not to mention the amount of money spent on F-35 program)

They killed 100 of “ennemies”. Nothing specific about Typhoon. And btw finnish air forces use F-18…

Ok my bad , not like all the 100 aircraft that shot down is Typhoon , but a part of them are typhoon , Btw F-16 beat Typhoon before too , you can just google it
.

With or withour engines, initial spare parts, training systems etc?

Same way they calculate Rafale , Typhoon price i suppose

Goood luck if you have to rely on that to reach a target… Btw have an idea of pedestrian speed of SDB?

SDB , SPEAR already have range around 100 km , but more range is even better ( same for AAM ), F-22, Typhoon supercruise speed give more range for it’s AAM ,SDB too so there is no reason why F-35 cant do the same

I doubt that. More weight mean more lift aka more drag.

6 Aim-120 = 2100 pounds , 2 Aim-120 + 8 SDB = 2980 pounds , so both configuration are lighter than 2 Aim-120 + 2 2000 pounds JDAM

Flat flight? Anw 150 miles s peanuts at those speed. How many minutes? Does it need to use fuel gulping AFT to pass transsonic regime?

flat flight , how long can Rafale , Typhoon , gripen stay supersonic without afterburner ? if they dont carry fuel tank ?
I dont know whether F-35 have to use fuel gulping AFT to pass transonic regime or not , but does it really make any different in combat ?
pretty much all pilot unload when they want to accelerate anyway

Prove that please, specially in the case of Rafale or EFT fitted F-18/Typhoon

discussing maximum mission radius, Mazanowski presented an air-to-air mission profile in which all the aircraft took off with a weapon load, remained at high altitude and returned after about a minute of combat. All but the F-35 and Su-30MKI were carrying three external fuel tanks.
Under this scenario, the Rafale had a maximum mission radius of 896 n miles, the F/A-18 816 n miles, the F-35 751 n miles, the Eurofighter 747 n miles, the Su-30MKI 728 n miles and the Gripen 502 n miles.
and big aircraft , heavy aircraft is less affected by heavy load compared to small aircraft , with 6 2000 lbs JDAM Gripen , EF-2000 , Rafale wont be able to carry EFTs

Gripen NG certainly has. On study for Rafale (PEA TRAGEDAC), proposed for F18 NG etc. Not compatible with F-22 for ex.

Yes Gripen NG will have ,but Rafale , F-18E/F , Typhoon wont , there is no plan to integrate yet , especially with the pathetic sales number of Rafale

What is fitted? DIRCM? Otherwise Rafale already has maws covering near all the sphere. And they are specified DIRCM compatible, and were one of the sensors used to perform a passive shooting (http://www.defesanet.com.br/rafale/noticia/10892/Descendre-un-agresseur-a-6-heures—Vive-la-difference-/ ; http://www.portail-aviation.com/2014/02/exclusif-le-ddm-ng-un-detecteur-de_8513.html)

Rafale’s MAWs is blocked by it’s own airframe , while it is accurate enough to cue DIRCM , it doesnt have any DIRCM fitted , and there is no plan for integrate DIRCM on Rafale yet , also DDM-NG have even less IIR sensor to cover battle space compared to DAS so even less resolution
while for F-35 :
http://aviationweek.com/defense/northrop-develops-laser-missile-jammer-f-35
http://aviationweek.com/awin/northrop-aims-fast-jet-laser-jammer-f-35

and? many pods have or will have such a capability. First coming to my mind is Talios thalès pod which will be operational in 2018.

So you want to carry an external pod that will increase drag and RCS ? , while F-35 can do that with internal system

Which modern radar do not offer LPI?

Not at the same level though

Wow trying to reinvent SPECTRA or Typhoon Praetorian suite? Still a long work ahead…

etc.

I didnt say Typhoon , Rafale dont have that capabilities

Well I am not denying Rafale is good for what it is designed for either; but above that I don’t see the fuss about it.

Take a Block 52 F-16. With CFT, 2×370 Gal (or 600 Gals) and 1x300Gal tank, it will easily match or exceed Rafale’s range. With TER on stations 3 and 7 and 6 GBU-12s attached to them, plus 4xAIM-120s, it can closely match the Rafale’s payload as well.

Now since the topic is medium fighters in genaral, and not specificly about Rafale; lets see how F-16C compares to F-15E.

F-16 Drag index:

F-16C basic aircraft drag index = 7
Remove AIM-9Ls original basic aircraft includes= -8
Add 2x LAU-129 on 1 and 9 = 2
Add 2x LAU-129 on 2 and 8 = 12
Add 4x AIM-120 on 1,2,8,9 = 16 (AIM-9 would also give same drag index)
Add 2x 16S1700 Weapon pylon on 3 and 7 = 30
Add 2x 66J45517 Triple ejector rack on weapon pylons = 18
Add 6x GBU-12s on triple ejector racks = 60 (or 66 for 6x Mk-82s)
Add 2x 370 Gals on 4 and 6 = 78
Add 1x 300 Gal on 5 = 18
Add LANTIRN (targeting pod only) = 18 (adding Navigation pod will add 32 to 18)

We come with a grand total of Drag Index = 250.

Now compare the level flight envelope difference between F-15E and F-16C.

F-16C (PW-229) with 6x GBU-12s, 4 AAMs, 2x370Gals 1x300Gal EFT + CFT + LANTIRN (Drag index 250 data points)
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236975[/ATTACH]

F-15E (PW-229) with 12x Mk-82s, 4 AAMs, CFT + CL tank + LANTIRN
[ATTACH=CONFIG]236976[/ATTACH]

This summerizes it. While F-16 can match F-15E’s range with 6 bomb payload, it really struggles to do so. While I do believe Rafale can perform slightly better than F-16C, it will be much closer to F-16 rather than F-15 in terms of performance.

I didn’t know that F-15 can reach mach mach 1.5 with 12 MK-82, that is very impressive
btw what is the speed and range of Su-35 with 10 AAM?

No one here has ever labeled F-35 as handling like a Herc. Most people with ability to think (read we, naysayers) were spending our time rejecting following claims coming from the F-35 gang, fed by the LM propaganda machinery:

1) The F-35 has an almost-F-22 performance √

I dont think people claiming F-35 have F-22 performance, most comments related to F-35 compare it’s kinematic lto F-16 and F-18, by contrast most naysayers think that any fighter will instantly beat f-35 in dogfight
while forget that F-16 and F-18 have beaten Typhoon in dogfight before
For example in Frisian Flag flag exercise in 2012, F-16 achieve 100 kill and 6 lose again the Typhoon
http://suomenkuvalehti.fi/jutut/kotimaa/suomella-vahvat-ilmavoimat-mutta-kuinka-kauan/

2) The F-35 is affordable to procure (read F-16 + 20%) √
3) The F-35 is cheap to run (read ~ F-16, possibly even less) √

I dont think F-35 is cheap, but people are forgetting that 4.5 gen fighter like Eurofighter and Rafale are also very expansive
Rafale cost around 101-108 millions USD
Typhoon cost around 125 millions USD
F-35A cost around 98 millions USD
F-35C cost around 116 millions USD
so none of them is actually cheap

Now there is one more claim to disprove – that the sensors, MMI and fusion of the F-35 are far more advanced than the sensors of the contemporary 4+ gen (Gripen-E, Rafale F3R or Typhoon Tranche 3). We have successfully handled the 1), 2) and 3), we will handle this one, as well. :

F-35 have several things that Rafale, Typhoon doesn’t have such as DIRCM, DAS, LPI data links, Jamming by AESA radar…. etc
Gripen-NG is said to have LPI data links if i remember correctly
anyway F-35 low radar cross section give it huge advantage in term of radar detection and jamming ( even if Typhoon, Rafale, Gripen-NG somehow get better EW, radar, F-35’s LO characteristics still give it the upper hand)

not only that lower RCS reduce burn through distance , jamming power required will decrease in the same rate as RCS reduction ,50% reduction in RCS = 50% less power required to overwhelm real radar reflection with noise ( you can work it out for yourself , 99.9% reduction in RCS= 99.9% less power required to achieve same level of effectiveness , and so on )
now let take example of 4 aircraft :
1) B-52 : RCS = 100 m2
2) Su-35 : RCS = 10 m2
3) F-16 : RCS = 1 m2
4) F-35 : RCS = 0.001 m2
now compared them :
from B-52 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.999% =>99.999% less power require
from Su-35 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.99%=>99.99% less power require
from F-16 to F-35 then RCS is reduced by 99.9% =>99.9% less power require

And this http://www.f-16.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=25735
It not like anyone here actually come up with something new to bash F-35 kinematic performance rather than : it fat so it is slow and not agile, it will fly like a C-130