TooCool_12fer, did you try to maneuver your model? for going straight and fast it’s a fine shape (the X-47 had a similar one), but once you start trying to turn sharply you’ll have problems. Besides, the wingload we talk about is nowhere near a paper model.
Finally, you talk about a zoom climb on rocket power… pretty much anything flying on the next decades will have an IRST of some sort (and pretty advanced as well), which will allow for an early detection of your rocket engines climbing, even far away… and your overheated fuselage (for those modern IRST, your supersonic flight in cold air will stand out like a lighthouse in the middle of the night) will be a nice target which will rapidly see a few missiles coming its way… missiles it won’t be able to outturn while coming their way during its “supersonic glide” (necessary if you want to be able to do anything other than falling @ FL980 with so little wingspan)
last, but not least, you need to add into equation the drag it will generate at supersonic speeds… with such a small mass, it will need a high thrust to keep going, and your turbofan may experience some problems in generating it in thin air that one encounters at such altitudes… which means you most certainly won’t be able to have supercruise anyway… just slowing down from a supersonic speed, and getting closer and closer to stalling
So, in order to recapitulate: you want to make a highly visible target for the Mig31, target which won’t be able to maneuver and avoid even the crudest IR missile sent its way…
TooCool_12fthe problem is not only cost of maintainance hours, but also availability. If your aircraft spends twice the time in hangars to be repaired, in case of conflict, it is less useful than the one that is available to perform its mission…
Also, the rafale, on the contrary to the Mirage, is to be maintained as the need arise and not on potential… if your engine has the potential of, say, 200 hours, you have to change it after 200hours even if it works ok… in the rafale’s case, it will be used until a need for repair is detected by the system, and even then, you’ll change what needs to be changed, not necessarily the whole part… you get better availabllity for less cash
TooCool_12f+1 with Rii…
a drone for point defence may use similar formula, as you’d save cockpit space for other useful stuff, yet, you’d need to recover it somehow
TooCool_12fsome of the problems with your fighter would be:
– high approach speed due to the wing planform
– lateral stability issues due to the same reason
– low fuel capacity due to midget size (basically, you’ll be bingo fuel when reaching about 2-3rds of your take off runway, or almost…)
– rocket engines will be dead weight once used
– little space left for electronics onboard (and you’ll need lots of these in the future)
– etc…
TooCool_12fI remember the days when the Typhoon was definitely a deal with India…
Until the deal is signed, pretty much anything you read in one way or the other is nothing but communication…
TooCool_12fIn the real world the Rafale would not likely attempt an extremely difficult silent attack strategy and would instead try to take on the Su-35 more or less head on, relying on its superior BVR missile, jammers, training, etc to carry the day.
in the real world rafale pilots are highly trained professionals, not right-out-of-school kamikazes…
at least you show (if need be) the level of your competence in air combat. thank you…
TooCool_12fmathematics are the same, but the real question is, what values are you using to calculate anything in there? where they come from? etc…
TooCool_12fThat is a very narrow view. As they’re many aspect to training.
yes, but nothing really can replace the real cockpit environment as you don’t just sit in an airliner cockpit.. with the physical strain of flying combat, pilots have to have flying hours… simulators simply can’t do it well enough
TooCool_12fAgain I never said that! My point as I express it was is many smaller NATO countries don’t have large militaries. So, they need to operate what’s in the majority. Much like the F-16 did within NATO. Did every county use it no but the majority did. Especially, the smaller ones. (Demark, Norway, Netherland, etc.)
Could if the majority purchase the F-35 wouldn’t that be better? Especially, considering the F-35 is more capable. Also, lets not forget just the aircraft. Yet, what about Training, Logistics, Supply Chain, etc. etc. etc. So, which one is more attractive the Rafale or F-35??? I hope you’re starting to get the point???
Numbers still have the advantage…….(for a whole number of reasons);)
for small militaries: they bought the F-16 because it could do the job decently while being cheap to buy and operate, allowing them to have an air force
having a handful of F-35s that can’t do much unless they’re part of a huge supporting system is pure stupidity for a small country whose air force’s main, if not only, purpose is air policing and some air defense.
And before you start talking about “NATO obligations”, the NATO countries have only the obligation to help another NATO member that is attacked to defend itself (meaning, in Europe, basically, as the US absolutely no chance to be attacked and seriously threatened on their soil by any country on this planet (unless we talk about ICBMs, but there,you don’t need an airforce to strike back, but ICBMs as well). Wandering around the world making wars to remote countries for god only know what interests is definitely not a NATO obligation, so small countries like Denmark, Belgium, not to speak of the likes of Croatia or Slovakia have no business (and definitely no need) for anything more than a few supersonic airframes capable of catching up with an airliner or an eventual foreign military aircraft that gets “a bit lost in their airspace”…
And if they need a multirole fighter, the eurocanards do (and will continue to do for several decades, despite the LMs marketing BS) the job perfectly.
Last but not least, talking about interoperability, all these fighters are NATO compatible, and will be capable to participate in any coalition should the need, or political will, arise, like the French or the British did lately.
LM sure dreams of being “the microsoft of military aircraft”, with a monopoly over the planet… But with the F-35 they copied mostly the “buggy and underperforming” part of the Redmond firm products
TooCool_12fAgain, you seem to think the Rafale could approach and engage the Su-35 from outside the Su-35’s detection range… a fanciful idea at best.
If that were really a viable tactic then imagine how utterly one-sided the fight between an Su-35 and a 5th generation fighter would be.
thing is, tactics are there for exactly that purpose: use your strengths and use them to defeat the enemy. No sane person would fly straight at the opponent which is scanning in his direction.
German Typhoon pilots talking about exercises with the F-22s said, among other things, that by using the right tactics they managed to avoid getting locked by raptors radar until being sufficiently close. It was linked in the F-35 debate thread if my memory serves well. There’s always a “way around”… it is a game of cat and mouse, not just “I switch on my radar and shoot at everything that flies as everything appears on my scope like by magic”
TooCool_12fYes, F-35 is one system in a system of systems. It will be able to avoid or ambush IADS elements on its way to destroy its ground target. SOS has the ability to employ multiple capabilities against an IADS. SOS isn’t cheap and few countries will be able to make the investment the US has made. So the next best opportunity for those allies with budget limitations is to procure systems that can “plug and play” in the US system.
thank you, you just pointed out why a small country operating a small number of fighters with limited budget MUST NOT buy the F-35…
either they buy it and become a totally US-dependant entity for the tasks they have to perform (except that there’s no US assets close by at all times, unless they ask the US to install a couple of air bases un the area) and thgey loose any independance they may want to keep as a sovcereign country
or they decide to buy a weapons system that allows them to remain independant (free to do what they want without having to ask Uncle Sam for permission/support)
TooCool_12fyou stated that a powerful radar is an advantage over the RWR… I simply pointed out that searching with your radar is the best way to get you killed if you opponent has a decent RWR
people much more qualified than you and I told you that your chances of finding something while scanning by yourself are pretty slim as you’ll alert your opponent of your presence in doing so long before geting close enough to even know he’s there.. you major problem can be described by the proverb saying:
there’s no blinder man than the one who doesn’t want to see
when you decide to open your eyes, you may discover that there’s a whole world outside your beliefs
TooCool_12fnot so simple…
a “air-combat loaded” F-4 will have somewhat better T/W ratio, but it will also have higher drag. When confronted, F-8 vs F-4, the F-8 won most fights; you can see an example here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QprQcfr45fk
as for your comparison, the F-16 would be an “angles fighter”, “while the F-15 would be an “energy fighter”… the first will try to turn tight and get on the other’s guy tail as fast as possible, while the other will do his best to milk other’s guy energy down to a level where he can’t keep maneuvering as well anymore…
it’s about tactics… so a well flown F-15 will dictate the fight and, normally, win against an F-16, while an F-15 that tries to play f-16s game will be eaten for breakfast…
TooCool_12fyou forget just a small fraction of the problem which is called “intelligence”…
a pilot knowing that a radar is searching for him from far away (the beam weakly goes across him without lock) won’t just keep going straight at the radar source that seems to look for him… he’ll adopt tactics allowing him to sneak by undetected , maneuver out of way in order to come close from a favorable position.
In any case, a fighter just looking for eventual enemy fighters with its own radar is either:
– lucky to have enemies without proper RWR and ECM equipment
– foolish if his enemies have proper equipment
the only point where you can take really advantage from a powerful radar is when someone else (AWACS for example) did the detection for you and you can light your radar at a sufficiently close range to get a solid contact and track.
but then again, if we add awacs into equation, one has to wonder whether the other side will have it as well, and if they do, it is just a amtter of who has the lowest RCS to begin with… and there, the Sukhois don’t fare so well AFAIK
TooCool_12fthe F-5 is very agile, but will lack thrust compared to an F-8 which will be able to use energy tactics to deplete F-5s energy before going in for a kill
F-15 vs F-16 pretty much the same, by using the right tactics, the F-15 should win almost every time (both pilots being equal), the advantage of high thrust installed helping to dictate the fight for as long as we stay with canon only
Sign In
