lukosIn case it wasn’t clear enough, my answer was simply directed at lukos’ blind obsession with T/R modules count… so I pointed out that, in case there’s a Rafale (as he seems so “in love” with it) camoming all covered with conformal radar (totally unrealistic, but there for example purpose) would it all of a sudden become his favorite aircraft..
It’s just not even on the cards at the moment as bring_it_on said. Your conformal array is pie-in-the-sky for the next 10 years at least. As for radar size and module count, they’re currently relevant performance parameters for aircraft getting AESA within the next few years.
lukos1000km inside enemy territory means that, as an example, the F35A needs to be based within artillery range (artillery like BM30) from the frontline to accomplish that. And that is assuming they fly in a straight line.
Pak FA will likely be the only way to accomplish the scenario you desire.
Also… 1000 km inside enemy territory means, as an example, that you would be flying from Jerusalem to bomb targets in Iran (near the Iraqi border) while crossing two countries you are at war with (Syria and Iraq or “hostile territory”). Those are the ranges we are talking about.
However, with a jet like the Rafale you could fly over neutral territory (Turkey, Azerbadjan etc) and from the Caspian sea launch Storm Shadow to stealthily hit targets inside Tehran. The flying range for this would be roughly 1800km x 2 + 500km for the missile. That is a target over 1500km inside enemy territory that is accessible thanks to longer range of the Rafale and good endgame stealth in the form of Storm Shadow.
This is what the Rafale can do and, to some extent, has done in missions like Libya and Mali.
Doing “deep strike” missions deeper than some 500km inside enemy territory usually means you have gone from one side of the country to the other. Germany, from east to west measures from 640km to 400km. And that is a pretty large country.
You haven’t factored in JSOW-ER and you ignore external carriage of JASSM-ER/Storm Shadow, giving the best of both worlds. Then you have the cost implications of using an ALCM every time.
lukosA couple of classic examples of strawmen from two of the F-35 gang.
Nobody has said France will provide support to India in the event of a war with China, let alone stronger support, Yet here we have a posters comment presented as stating that by one of the F-35 gang.
We then see another claim being put out there that nobody has even thought of let alone written.It really is quite revealing when this is the level of argumentation the F-35 lot have to employ in their attempts to attack another product and derail a discussion upon it all in the vain hope of having their pet declared the bestest ever.
You know what was implied as well as I do and it was definitely implied that France would be more useful to India.
lukosAs with many of your comments there is a slight problem here, you haven’t provided any facts to deny!
Just because you don’t like facts, it doesn’t make them non-facts.
lukosLukos, having good knwoledge of the aircraft you’re criticizing (rather hasing). helps for your credibility. However I wouldn’t expect more from a brainless Tyffie fanboy. Talking with you is not even funny.
“Ramped in takes”
That actually helps a lot to give Typhoon a 5 floor building RCS, yes.
Depends on ramp design. The F-22 has ramps too as does the SH.
“Retractable probe”
Rafale fixed probe’s impact on RCS and drag is equal to zero.
it is in addition to that more fiable and less prone to fail. Revise your copy.
I’m sorry but zero impact on RCS and drag simply isn’t physically possible for a real object.
It was simpler, cheaper and easier but not better in a performance sense.
“better engine performance at high-AoA”
If there’s a flight domain in wich Rafale excells, it’s certainly high AoA maneuvers at low speed, among many other.
Typhoon canard most their main advantage since TVC engines are (ant probably won’t ever be) mounted.
I was actually talking about the belly-mounted intakes performing better at high AoA wrt engine performance. The study on canard positioning can be found here:
http://ftp.rta.nato.int/public//PubFulltext/RTO/MP/RTO-MP-035///MP-035-01.pdf
The high AoA recovery,
i.e. the ability to pitch the aircraft down from high angle
of attack, whilst at low speeds, dictates that the
configuration should be neutrally stable with the
l-5
foreplane off, which is equivalent almost to an unloaded
foreplane. This dictates that the foreplane volume has to
be such as to generate around 8% m.a.c. instability at low
speeds. A low forward foreplane position then results in
the smallest foreplane area, with a consequent benefit on
drag.Further, at the level of instability chosen for the aircraft,
there was little effect on maximum lift of either position,
whilst for a less unstable aircraft. a high aft foreplane
does provide some benefit on lift. Further, the low
forward foreplane is more effective as a control surface,
with consequent benefit for nosewheel lift, trim and
manoeuvre capability. This increase in effectiveness is
maintained, even at high angle of attack, where the effect
is to provide more pitch recovery capability for high
angle of attack recovery.
“Muh in the future CAPTOR-E wilo rekt your RBE2”
AreI said you are falling short on argupents so bad that you are relying on hypotethical upgrades to assess the edge of the Typhoon which will only happen in your wet dreams.
May I remind you that RBE2-AA is PESA and that it is replaced by RBE2-AESA ? Yes, because we already have AESA in service. How long will UK (not Eurofighter partners, no, SOLELY UK), wait ? On my side, I’d put some money on some budget cut, domming your beloved CAPTOR. Meanwhile, RBE2-AESA successor studies are going..
What’s hypotehtical about Captor-E radar 2. This report said the UK is committed to it and Captor-E integration is currently under way. By comparison conformal GaN arrays are pie-in-the-sky, like scram-jet powered aircraft with DEW.
https://www.rusi.org/downloads/assets/WHR_1-15_Maximising_European_Combat_Air_Power.pdf
You are so obsessed with your Typhoon that you completely forget that Rafale development is still ongoing (yup, because actually its production line won’t close in 2 years, unlike Tyffie).
It’s not going to close in the UK. I think I have accounted for planned updates to both wrt anything happening pre-2020, only you are intent on mentioning 2030 stuff.
SCALP and AASM are perfectly fitting French needs and tactics whe’ it comes to SEAD. Rafale is intended to go through enemy territory relying on powerful active protection, in line of the Mirage 2000D and 2000N jobs (the 2000D actually did a remarkable prestation at their first Red Flag in 1998).
And the Typhoon and F-35 will have the same active protection by 2020 and small 200lb missiles capable of hitting SAMs from 2.5 times the maximum range of AASMs, whilst the F-35 will also be VLO and the Typhoon is capable of operating at higher altitude with better escape energy.
Your counters never really amount to much.
lukosDo you not have any comprehension of how lacking your responses are? I guess not as you keep repeating the same crap somehow thinking that simple repetition will magically make it all true!
Denying facts certainly don’t make them false.
lukosWhich country is Y? Japan, with its pacifist constitution? Or Russia, with its rapidly strengthening ties with China?
You think in the event of (or lead up to) an Indo-China war, France would provide stronger support to India than the US. In terms of say… expedited supplies of aircraft, spares and/or munitions, as well as intelligence. The same France that has been trying for over a decade to get the EU arms embargo on China lifted?
France is a new superpower apparently, with their Rafale.:highly_amused:
lukossize isn’t everything, you’ll learn that some day… lol
and, as further developments continue in the Rafale program, if the Rafale gets a couple of thousants GaN modules wrapped around it, will, all of a sudden, the Rafale become your aircraft of choice, compared to the relative “ridiculous” amount of modules the Typhoon and F-35 will have? I guess no…
the plain and simple fact is that its radar gives it a performance the users consider very satisfactory, and it works today.
Pffft. The conformal radar is at study stage like many technologies that are 15 years or more away from introduction. By that point the Typhoon and F-35 might have them too. Satisfactory relative to what?
lukosYou repeating something all the time does not make it true or factual. In your isolated mind that may work but the real world demands more evidence.
You have consistently failed to provide any supporting data for your crap.
Smaller radar, no swashplate, no HMCS, worse altitude performance, climb, acceleration etc., no AESA RF attack planned by 2020. Just because you don’t like facts, repeatedly denying them does not make them false.
lukosGo read who Robert L. Shaw is and then come back and say you know better than him about air combat
again:
READ!
and I’m not talking about fancy publicity brochures, but books about real life stuff
Pilots are experts at what needs to be done to evade missiles but that is different from being an expert on what causes them to miss and I’ll say again, it’s nearly always energy and guidance/target discrimination related, not manoeuvrability. F-4 missiles in Vietnam didn’t miss because of manoeuvrability, the guidance and target discrimination was never good enough to exploit the missile’s dynamics. So any assessment based on that experience is tainted from the get-go.
lukosWhich proves what exactly? You are desperately seeking negatives. What is the point of you being here? How are the back problems jackjack?
What the hell are you talking about? I don’t have to desperately seek them, they’re obvious.
lukoswhile its radar allows it to exploit fully the Meteors range, “rafale radar is small” comes quite often in your mouth… do you suffer from some size complex, maybe?
It’s just a plain and simple fact. The Rafale radar is extremely limited in size relative to either a Typhoon or F-35. That’s a very obvious advantage that’s its got away with up to now because of the tardiness of Captor-E integration.
lukosVery limited analysis.
I’m sure we are all very interested in the numbers that support the above statements.
You of course will have no issue with providing the detailed analysis and supporting figures immediately having had full and extensive access to such highly sensitive data being a nobody posting on a aviation forum.
Or perhaps you could simply stfu and stop polluting the forum with your crap.
Very accurate analysis. RCS figures are unknown but it’s widely accepted that the F-35’s RCS is several orders of magnitude smaller. Radar size is 1676 modules vs 1000.
lukosDoolittle – incredibly easy targets that put up little or no defence
Pearl Harbour – incredibly easy targets that put up little or no defence
Chastise – little or no defence (at the dams, admittedly rather more on the inbound and outbound legs)
Blackbuck – incredibly easy targets that put up little or no defence (And they still largely missed in a physical sense, political and psychological was a massive success)So what was your point again? Much like sport you can only take on that which is in front of you. The Libyan air defences were still up and running when the French were over Libyan soil. It may not have been a deep penetration of mother Russia or China but as TooCool12f points out that isn’t going to happen with any platform anytime soon.
And the lack of defence was down to surprise/lack of detection in all 4 cases. The Argentinians also had decent SAMs for the time. Wouldn’t say Black Buck missed. One direct hit, a hit at the edge and plenty of planes and ground equipment destroyed/damaged around the runway peripheries.
A lot of the Libyan air defences were housed away in storage to protect them, saw it on the news. Those warehouses were subsequently hit with cruise missiles. Same air defences had very little effect in 1986 when they were relatively new.
lukoswell, let’s see that argument for a second: bombing anything other than a first rate IADS (read Russia or China) is worthless as anything flying can do it.
now, considering that the big ones (USA, China, Russia) and even several smaller nations are nuclear powers, combined with extremely intricate economical ties, chances that anyone among them starts an open war with another of these is pretty much non-existent (would cost too much economically, and, in the end, is a war nobody can win really, thanks to the nukes)
the conclusion would be that fighters like the F-35 that find their justification in bombing countries that nobody will bomb are just a waste of money and could just as well be terminated…
for the A vs A fight; if you really do believe you need stealth, just make some F-22s more, with somewhat improved systems (today you should be able to make them more efficiently) and keep legacy platforms, much cheaper, for the wars you actually DO fight… no?
Pretty much. The Libyan ADS hadn’t been updated since the Tripoli bombings in 1986 in response to Lockerbie. A lot of it was destroyed then and Gadaffi actually put a lot of it in warehouses to try protect the rest of it in 2011 – that’s how useful he thought it was as its owner.
And if we looked at the fact that Libya wasn’t really an essential intervention, we could argue the need for no military whatsoever, couldn’t we? Pffft.
I kind of agree with the F-22s point.
Sign In
