Erkokite :

Any more info (if you have any) on these special Bragg Cells and their EW applications would be much appreciated.

Well , to start with I am no physicist and my understanding and knowledge on Bragg Cells is very limited .
If you are in the business , you should contact AA MATECH :
http://matech.braggcell.com/

2 interesting “brochures” :
http://matech.braggcell.com/docs/PLAQUETTE-SYSTEME-Vpdf1.pdf
http://matech.braggcell.com/docs/PlaquetteMatech2008-BASSEdef-2008.pdf

I know that these people are working very closely with Thalès .
They are real pro regarding Optical processing systems using multichannel Bragg cells for phased array and antenna signal processing and in multichannel RF spectrum analysis as well as digital optical computing .
**********************
Before I carry on with my first post , I would like to say that more I read about the technology , more I understand the USAF not wanting to use the APG-77 radar onboard the F-22 against the Rafale .
On the other hand , I also understand the AdlA not wanting to use SPECTRA against the F-22 . It would be ~at this time~ counter productive for both Air Force .

Cheers .

LordJim :

Out of interest what are the comparable unrefueled ranged for the F-35, Typhoon, Rafale and F-18E/F allowing external tanks for all except the F-35 as this removes its major advantage being VLO.

Good question 🙂
It depends on weapon load carried by the various aircraft . In all scenarios , the F-35 is the looser .
With internal fuel only , the F-35 is only capable of making 2222km clean . Load it up with 4 Amraams and the range will be around 2100km , load it up with 8 GBU-39s (1300kg) and the range will go down to 1800km at most .

Cheers .

Eagle :

And it tells us the F-35 can fly at full dry thrust over 60 minutes vs. the Rafales slightly less than 30 minutes.
With 3 2000l tanks, the Rafale is still under 60 minutes not considering any drag penalty. Yeah I know those are just rough ballpark figures.

Yes , those are rough figures . What you didn ‘t take into account is the total distance made by both aircraft during this time .
To give you an example , the ferry range (clean and empty , no weapons) of both aircraft on internal fuel only are :
– Rafale : 2100km
– F-35 : 2222km
(Data from the manufacturers)
We don ‘t know what speed and what altitude they used to compute the numbers .
Anyway , it shows few things :
-1) the F-35 is heavy
-2) the F-35 is draggy
-3) the F-35 is thirsty

When I posted the fuel consumption of both aircraft , I knew that some posters would not understand the data :diablo:
In fact , a Rafale flying at Mach 0.9 has a lower fuel consumption than a F-35 flying at Mach 0.7 . 😀
If both aircraft fly at Mach 1.2 clean , the F-35 will use AB when the Rafale will supercruise in dry thrust :diablo:
In this scenario , the fuel consumption of the F-35 will be enormous .

Since both aircraft will not go to war clean , let ‘s say that the F-35 has its weapon bays full (4 Amraams) and the Rafale has also 4 Micas (no EFTs) .
In this scenario , the Rafale will loose a bit of range (missile drag) but not by much , maybe 100 to 200km at most but it will still fly faster with the same fuel consumption than the F-35 .

If both aircraft are heavily loaded , I believe that the Rafale has a better range then the F-35 . A Rafale with three 2000l fuel tanks , 2 Scalps and 4 Micas can fly 3600km , the Scalp also has a 400km range .
Can the F-35 match this ? (Keep in mind that the total external load is 9.350kg)
The answer is again NO . The external payload of the F-35s are :
– A : 5.895kg
– B : 4.990kg
– C : 7.110kg

Since 2 Storm shadows weight 2.700kg , only 3.200kg left for the EFTs and possible AtoA missiles . That ‘s not much …
In fact , an heavily loaded F-35 will barely make 3000km .

Cheers .

By the way 😉 , people often think that the Rafale is mostly a multirole aircraft specialized in AtoG .

While it is true in one sense , France also needed an interceptor capable to fly high and fast with excellent means to detect , track and kill an incoming enemy aircraft .
When I read in various places that the Dassault fighter is a “bomb truck” , it puts a smile on my face , really :):rolleyes:

Since I don’ t expect F-35 fans to answer this one , I am going to ask to the Typhoon fans (I am one of them) what do they think of this :

4 Meteors , 2 EM Micas , 2 IR Micas , 6,000l of external fuel + 4,800l of internal fuel .
The range for such a load in CAP in simply enormous and the fire power is … mean .
So my question : can the Typhoon match this ?

Cheers .

Maus92 posted :

unlike the F-35 which has a very good radar profile from the front, a less stealthy profile from the sides,and a least stealthy profile from the rear quarter

This is because of the IR signature , as I said before .

Cheers .

Jessmo , your last post (#211) can’ t be taken seriously .
Please , don ‘t take it personally 😉 , it is just that there are many errors in it and I wander if you wrote it in anger …

Some posters already answered most of your points and I could only repeat what has been said . I ‘ll try to add details as I go 🙂

Please tell me 1 thing that the French Rafale (name edited) does better than a F-35

Everything so far since the F-35 is still undergoing testing and is far to be operational . I remind you that the Rafale has been operational since June the 24th , 2004 , with the 12F Squadron onboard CdG . That ‘s 6 years .
When the F-35 will be operational (?) , the Dassault fighter will have 10 years of operational experience and will be F4+ .
From a military point of view , this is priceless .

You see Jessmo , when a military force is getting a new gear , a new gear as complicated as the F-35 , it sometimes takes few years before it can be used in real Ops .
As an example , the 12F Squadron did get its first Rafales May the 18th , 2001 . It took the Squadron 3 years (2001-2004) to be fully operational .
When you think that the RN will also have to learn how to fully use the new breed of Carriers with the new aircraft , I let you imagine the work who still have to be done …
I trust the British to do their best because they are highly professional and extremely good .

In my opinion , the F-35 will only have its excellent electronics to survive and do its job because most advanced Nations will have the means to counter passive stealth . We already have the means to detect and track VLO platforms today . When I say “we” , I am not talking about France only 😉

So , a F-35 flying around VLO (internal stores and internal fuel only) might not enjoy such “invincibility” , if I may say . Then , the fire power it can bring on the battlefield is average .

Also , don ‘t tell me that the F-35 has “better weapons” than the Rafale because it is untrue . You don ‘t have weapons like the AASM , like the Scalp-NG and like the ASMP-A . A “Nuclear” F-35 is only “planned” and maybe for after 2018 , in any case it would have to carry the weapon externally like the Rafale do .

The F-35 has a better fuel fraction and higher thrust to weight

Sorry ?!:eek:
Wrong and wrong .

Rafale fuel fraction :
– (without AB) : 82,8kg/min , so 165,6kg/min for the 2 M88-2
– (with AB) : 264,6kg/min , so 592,2kg/min for the 2 M88-2

F-35 fuel fraction :
– (without AB) : 132,5kg/min
– (with AB) : 605kg/min

This is for the F-35A , the lighter of the 3 versions . I let you do the maths for the B and C versions 😀

Now , the thrust to weight ratio :

(More in a minute , coffee time ;))

Cheers .

Scorpion , external loads are usually limited to 5 to 6G (on good aircraft) .
At 6G , a 2000l EFT weights more than 13.000kg !:eek:
Add to that the other possible weapons hanging under the wing and you can get a possible 20.000kg (per wing) under the same 6G 😮

(The Rafale ‘s airframe starts to brake after 185% of the max load ;))

Unlike a Typhoon or a Rafale the F-35 can still go supersonic with 2000 lb bombs! A Typhoon and Rafale could do so, but risk structural damage.

Sorry ? You are confused . It can or it can ‘t ? :confused:
I tell you : Rafale can .
Then , where could be the “structural damage” when the aircraft is flying supersonic with no G ? :confused:
You ‘re not making sense .

The F-35 was neither designed as a high performance fighter in the first place, nor was it designed as a fighter in the first place.

I agree , lol ! 😀 You should have a serious talk with the LM people , they might listen to you because YOU are making sense , not them ! 😉

Its performance is adequate and the aircraft features VLO which is much more useful in many situations if you are facing a serious enemy.

I know and I have never denied the fact , you read what I wrote earlier .

And you have exact figures for the IR signatures of all these aircraft? You know the techniques being used or not being used to reduce their IR signatures? I doubt so!

I have a couple of interesting stuff but I need an entire post to explain the ins and outs . I might do it mind 😉
As a “starter” , does the F-35 has anything like that :

Because the Rafale has a very similar design .

Cheers .