The 9 Gs are for the Micas , not for the Rafale (as far as I know) .

Cheers .

Cola1973 :

Wrightwing, EF’s AG radius is 750nm, BUT on a high-LOW-high profile and full weapon loadout (6-8 AAMs and 2-4 AG weapons plus 2 tanks).
F35C computer game’s radius is 768nm, BUT for a high-HIGH-high profile and 2 AMRAAMs and 2 JDAMs.

Rogerout :

The 728 nm range is is with external fuel, 673 nm without, carrying 2 AMRAAM and 2 500 pound bombs on a maritime recce mission. This according to the latest numbers I have seen.

This is getting silly ! :rolleyes:
We don ‘t have any numbers for a fully loaded F-35 , with EFTs and external stores !
I have no doubt : the Typhoon has a slightly better combat radius than the F-35 when both aircraft are loaded like mules . It is obvious from the numbers we have , anyway . Even the F-35C comes short , not by much I agree , but it comes short .
When loaded like mules I would say that the combat radius are :
– Typhoon : 1450km
– F-35C : 1350km
(Rafale : 1800km)

But then , we have to take into account how the aircraft fly with such a load 😎 and there I give the edge again to the Typhoon over the F-35 .
In case push comes to shove while loaded like a mule , I would rather be in the Typhoon because I would have better flight characteristics and a much better thrust-ratio . Even if both aircraft have about the same G limitations with subsonic external stores (5 to 6 Gs , same than the Rafale) , the Typhoon will still enjoy a better acceleration , a better agility and a better max speed .

All the F-35 fans (Americans or not) can say whatever they want , the LM fighter has a lot to desire . Its aerodynamics are wrong and only its engine saves it from being below average .
Oh sure , in good hands , it is going to be something to be accounted for but its users will soon learn the limits of the platform . If they want to fly it with internal stores only , it is going to be fine and it will do its job probably brilliantly . Don ‘t get me wrong .
But it is not the best multirole aircraft , far from it .

Sure it has its stealth (when clean) and top notch electronics but if the adversary is equipped with good optics , good optronics and good IR seekers coupled to a good fire control system (FCS) , the thing will be in a hell of trouble because (read my lips Gents) : it is slow and it can ‘t escape or run away and its IR signature is awful .
If we talk about attacking someone strong , things can go pear-shape and the last option for a striker is to dump its load , turn back and escape quickly to have a chance to survive (yes , things can go wrong) .
At this game , the F-35 may have a big problem in its hand .

A Typhoon (or a Rafale) might not have such problem 😀
(the lowest IR signature for the 3 aircraft seems to be the Rafale ‘s one . Btw , what kind of by-pass air cooling systems the Typhoon and the F-35 are using to cool down the gas exhausts ? :rolleyes: )
Something similar than Rafale and F-22 ? :rolleyes:

Cheers .

Eagle :

Isn’t the ASMP only cleared for the center line station? Would mean 2 or 4 external fuel tanks.
Also, wiki says range depends on flight profile – just 80km at low altitude.
To nitpick some more, the nounou Rafale carries only 4 fuel tanks plus pod.

Thanks for the correction , I wrote too quickly 😮
So , that 2 EFTs for the Nuclear Rafales and 4 for the “nounou” Rafales .

Over G , you are making sense . Just 2 things :

movie scenaries ..moscow bombed…/…Passively you wont hit anything…

-1) To bring nuclear fire on an enemy city is indeed one of the Rafale ‘s various task , this has to be clearly understood once for all .
-2) You can hit something using “passive means” only . Of course , it depends what aircraft you ‘re flying 😉 . It can be done by using 2 or 3 different techniques . From Cpt. Romain on his blog ;

Parmis les possibilités que m’offre le système d’arme Rafale, il y a celle qui consiste à tirer un missile vers un avion qui m’éclaire de son radar alors que le mien reste silencieux…

Translation :
“Amongst the possibilities that the system of Rafale weapons offers to me, there is one which consists in firing a missile towards a plane which lights me with its radar whereas mine remains silent (off) …”

I think it is clear enough and its coming from a Rafale pilot .

snafu352 :

As soon as you start hanging anything externally on the thing to be able to perform a mission to a satisfactory level then i’m off to buy something that has a better performance, offers more flexability and costs less.

Then , pfcem :

And just what would that be?

A Rafale .
pfcem , you also said : “No it does not. No matter what you hang externally from a F-35, it will still be stealthier than any 4th/4.5 generation fighter with the same payload.”
There , I agree . Indeed , as Wrightwing said : “There’s a cumulative effect involved.” .
No problem here , you ‘re both correct . Whatever the other posters may think , it is true .

Besides the fact that I never liked the F-35s , the F-35 “idea” is wrong from day one . Why ?
Because by the time it is operational , the USA will have other means to drop stuff without risking pilot ‘s life like unmanned platforms and even better cruise missiles , then the “old” generation aircraft (F-16s , F15s , Hornets and SHs , etc) can start their respective jobs . And to be pertfectly honest , it would have cost the USA FAR less !
The USA decided to make the F-35 for other reasons like making money , sinking the European aircraft industry while having the capability to ground from distance (Sat down-link) any F-35 if its user starts to act “badly” through software encoding (“flags”) hidden within the code . :diablo:

The French did it long ago with a well known aircraft sold to a well known Nation 😉

Cheers .

Lindermyer :

I assume you mean 1 additional for france for a toatal of 2

Yes , of course .

No in the UK sadly we dont have the money, thats what happens when the social security budget alone amounts to more than the total raised in income tax.

Irrelevant , Sir 😉 Did you know that France borrowed money from Brazil just after the “crisis” in 2008 ? We borrowed 21 billions Euros at 0.3% interest rate !
Since , Brazil is getting its money back and the French Gov lend the money to French banks with a 1.3% interest rate . We made money 😉
Just to say that 2 aircraft carriers are peanuts in a budget for a Nation like the UK 😉

assuming the whole F35 project goes belly up then the Shornet is the better prospect, most of what we have equipment wise is allready integrated, It will be more widely used and available, Boing can probably offer us a better workshare package than dassault.

I am not too sure about that , to be honest . You might be correct .

Stealth will make it harder to detect, thats an increase in survivabillity, external stores can be jetisoned and top speed is not entirely relevent, Rafale, hornet, F15 arent going to run far supersonically, Typhoon may be a little quicker than the others (assuming it can supercruise to a worth while degree) but not significantly.
1 Dont be seen
2 dont be aquired
3 dont be engaged
4 Dont be killed
the F35 can do No 1 better than the rafle Et al, so its less likely to have to deal with 2&3 straight away 4 is reduced.

I disagree with the first part , I agree with the second part (1 to 4 and your conclusions) .

Here , I would like to shed some light on the burned fuel versus supercruise topic , if you don ‘t mind .
The F-22 can supercruise and while doing so , it is reaching the theatre of operation quicker but it is burning a lot of fuel . You can say whatever you like , it is not supercruising at Mach 1.5+ without being in full mil power dry (no AB) unless to be close to bingo fuel (empty weight) .

I just wanted to say that it is a capability and NOT the usual way to use the F-22 . A recent article said that the USAF wanted the F-15s to be ahead of the F-22s when policing an adverse airspace . It is telling 😉
The F-22 will be used like a cobra : a slow and careful approach (behind the F-15s) and a sudden and brutal acceleration to “bite” the enemy then turn away .
As I see it , it is an excellent technique 🙂

Cheers .

Mike currill :

And you think Rafale can do better?

Yes . The only thing the F-35 has over the Rafale is its stealth , all the rest is in favor of the Dassault fighter or on the par . Things like flight characteristics , weaponry , deep penetration , AtoA , heavy load + range , are better with the Rafale .
Other things like ECMs , ECCMs , situation awareness (SA) , radar , EWRs , IRST , etc are more or less on the par (better ECMs for the Rafale , better radar for the F-35) .

Jessmo24 :

Blue you do realize the F-35A is designed to have F-16/F-18 level performance right? How can you say the F-35 A is fat and slow but the F-16 isn’t?

The F-35 will never have the same firepower-range ratio than a Blk50 or 60 . The problem with F-35 “fanboys” is the fact that they think and take for granted the LM propaganda .
Example : why they (the fanboys) always use a clean F-35 ? :diablo:
Do they think that they are going to win Wars with 2 JDAMs and 2 AMRAAMs and always fight 500nm from base ? 😀
Stick anything externally on the F-35 and you ‘ll end-up with something WORSE than the latest F-16s ! At this game , the F-35B could not even take off 😀
I mean , put 2 external fuel tanks on the F-35 : it is a 30% fuel increase but the range only increase by 8% , it is telling (LM numbers) . The thing is fat , draggy and slow .
Just try to load a F-35 with full internal fuel , 2 cruise missiles “a la” SCALP or Storm Shadow , 2 external fuel tanks and 4 AMRAAMs in the bays , just try and tell me how the thing flies 😮

When you read things like :

JSF Nails STOVL and Hovers

UPDATED: HIll Aide Says LockMar Has “long way to go to demonstrate max load bring back vertical landing.“

In a move that couldn’t be much better timed, the F-35B successfully executed a short take off and a landing, as well as a hover.
Lockheed Martin made sure every reporter knew the good news and fed pictures and videos to the media.

A congressional aide was wiling to pay the company on the back, sort of. “Good on them, but they, like you say, should have done this three years ago, and they have a long way to go to demonstrate max load bring back vertical landing. Now, all they can do is maybe fly a nice airshow for the Taliban,” the aide said..

Well , before to talk about “max load bring back vertical landing” , let ‘s talk about take-off with big loads first :diablo:

Jessmo24 :

If I had the opportunity to command a squadron of F-35s I would not attack T-50s confronting its strengths IE speed, TV, fuel. I would use the F-35s strengths to defeat the enemy via, greater stealth, excellent sensor fusion, fuel, Numbers, and high off bore sight. Indeed if the F-35 will succeed against the T-50 it can not depend on the airframe alone

You ‘re making sense but we don ‘t know what the T-50 avionics will be .

Adrian 44 :

If a redesign was easily available, a variant could have been made and France would have most likely stayed with the Typhoon Consortium. Since France needed a new carrier aircraft.

Yes we needed a new carrier aircraft but it is them (the Typhoon people) who did not follow us . Typhoon people ‘s “know-how” was not rated good enough by Dassault (and rightly) and we did build our own thing .
A “Seaphoon” would not be very hard to do anyway .

It is far more than the landing gear being made stronger. It is using materials that can handle the salt sea air and humidity in the airframe and engine. It is strengthening the entire frame to handle the take-offs and impacts of landing on carrier decks. Carrier aircraft land with a higher sink rate upon landing than land based aircraft encounter.

I know but I didn ‘t want to go into all the details needed to make the “Seaphoon” , only general points . 🙂

Where as the combat will be fought in RF spectrum, being dominant in that aspect is a significant factor.

Indeed but for how long ?
Today , we can detect and track LO aircraft . The problem is to put a missile on it and if the missile can ‘t be jammed easily , it is the missile we need .
To this extent , the IR guidance is the way to go (obviously) , the French and the Russians (Chinese also) have some good systems . Tracking and ranging of LO aircraft can also be made through Opticals + LRF + ECMs .

It is the reason why everybody is trying to develop IRDCM (Infra Red Directed Counter Mesures) because the IR technology brings the capability to destroy LO aircraft like any other aircraft .

Cheers .

Fedaykin :

I must admit you are highly opinionated but light in knowledge Bluewings,

It is not about being “highly opinionated or knowledgeable” , it is about having a different view on what the European Navy should be .
The RN , the Italian Navy and the Spanish Navy should have never chosen the STOVL way to start with .

Thank you for the link but I had it in my bookmarks already , I read it long ago 🙂

For the Royal navy which is fighting a serious battle with the Army and Air force just to retain a carrier capability its a bit strong to blame them for going down the STOVL route when they had good reason to do it.

Yes it is true , I should speak to the MoD 😮
Again , I could go back to why the UK who needed a new Navy multirole fighter did not buy the Rafale instead of the F-35 ? Having Typhoons for the RAF and Rafales for the RN would have been a better , quicker and probably cheaper deal and it would be operational now and not in 2015 (?) .

Considering that the very limited Sea Harrier FRS1 has proven itself to be effective in real combat the F35B should prove itself more then acceptable to the UK RN, USMC, Italian and Spanish navies.

The F-35B will never reach Rafale M ‘s capabilities , this is my humble opinion .
The RN doesn ‘t need a “more than acceptable” fighter , the RN needs something who does work as a multirole fighter .
Unfortunately , it is too late …

Cheers .

Nicolas10 :

Well FWIW I think the F35B will be a great STOVL fighter, much much better than previous ones.

I respect your opinion and optimism but I disagree .
Obviously , if it can take off with the planned load (?) it will have a better shot at the enemy than the harrier thanks to its highly advanced avionics and stealth characteristics . But I simply don ‘t believe in the fighter .

It is already a dog and the thing can fly properly (and not very fast) only because of its powerful engine . It is a brick .
This aircraft has a huge drag over Mach 1.2 when clean . If it had better fly characteristics , its (average) thrust-ratio would still allow it to reach Mach 1.8+ , which is not the case .

As I always asked , the F-35B with external stores is not worth it and could be shot like a turkey by any fast closing interceptor with decent weaponry .

Cheers .