FBWDRAAGGG, one tank vs. three. You are semi-right about thrust to weight ratio unless other factors come into play: F-15 is a bigger aircraft which means extra weight means less compared to the Rafale carrying three tanks, Drag- Rafale “may” have a trim drag advantage due to canard delta layout, CFT are far less draggy than pylon EFT, pw-229 vs M-88 bypass ratio not a significant difference to offset drag. And you still have only a Rafale “fan” site to contrast real flight test data of an aircraft that is more powerful, and designed with variable intakes.
Simply put, one tank: believable, within the realm of reasonable comparison. Three- you are talking our of your nether regions with only a “fan” site to document your claims. Do your own research, the devil is in the details. Explain the difference between a Block 50 F-16 and the Rafale and I will discuss it with you further.
But be warned, the F-16 barely clears the trans-sonic range with two supersonic tanks. Quite frankly you sound similar to the worst of the F-35 apologists: “I don’t care what the data says. I’m right dammit”. Not a good look.
FBWI was not claiming that any particular platform was reaching mach 1.6 with three 1,275L DT was I? Look, take a minute and look up ANY of the multitude of flight manuals online for: F-15C, F-15E, F-18 A/C/E/F, F-16 all blocks, Mig-29, F-4E, F-106 (very clean aerodynamic aircraft), then report back here how the Rafale magically defeats the effects of drag.
It is a crap claim, period. This is why it is unwise to make such claims, they are difficult to source and likely to be challenged as crap. Because unless there is a good reason (flight manual, KPP in the case of certain U.S. aircraft, or leaked evals) they are simply not worth the space they take up. Do you accept Billy Flynn’s claim that the F-35 is kinematically superior to the Eurofighter? Nope, cause there is not evidence to suggest it is true, but he said it. I don’t buy it, nor do I buy your claims of an aircraft with the thrust to weight ratio of an F-16 with (probably) better drag characteristics reaching mach 1.6 with 3 full bags.
Edit- Just for fun I looked up the F-15E (pw-229) numbers with CFT (otherwise clean)-1.85-1.9 mach at 40,000 feet (TW- 1-1.17) Yeah, sure the Rafale is going to mach 1.6 with 3 EFT’s ……
FBWNo, use that thing sitting on your shoulders. First, the site does not claim what you say. Second, 1000km/h with two tanks, altitude? That may matter a bit, no? Look back at previous posts about the 700 knot speed of the F-35 and you may get a hint. Your obsession with hitting the F-35 for every perceived weakness is blinding you to obvious errors in judgement.
BTW, for the record i’m not particularly partisan on the F-35 in reality. The arguments made against it are so irrational as to require response. I’ve got no love (or hatred) for a particular platform, it’s the evolution of tactics and history that’s key.
Again, if I post a F-35 fan blog entry, how would you respond, think then type.
FBWI did, still b.s. ain’t happening. And yes, I did point out Jay’s diatribe, that was the point of my comment to LO, be objective.
FBWExcellent. 😉 Now let’s put those numbers together.
– Rafale can do M1.4+ supercruise with 4x MICA and 1x 1,250l tank
– Rafale can do M1.6 on afterburner in the same config
– by adding another two tanks, the speed gets reduced from M1.6 to M1.5Logical conclusions:
1. With Rafale, thrust is not the limiting factor for max. speed, TooCool was entirely correct.. adding thrust on AB only helps marginally (M1.4->M1.6)
2. The Eurocanards are not only able to outperform the 35 when clean. Rafale can easily carry three drop tanks and four AAMs and still match it.
3. Drop tank doesn’t mean such massive difference as you and FBW have claimed.Congratulations, pretty much everything you have claimed in the last three pages was BS. Now, be nice, bow down and say “sorry guys, I was wrong”.
B.S. not even the Typhoon claims that. Source it or be embarrassed like your F-35 range claim that was a joke. NO aircraft is doing Mach 1.6 with three external tanks and four aam’s external. It ain’t happening, and btw your not going to find that source.
edit- P.S. “rafale fan” is not a source
FBWMsphere…. Good point.
Hey, M31, how about learning to spell or use punctuation and capitals before you slag off someone’s journalism? Also, you are wrong in stating that the EOTS can be easily upgraded to match current pods. The issue is stealth and multi-spectral EO.
Are we really going to slag on Mig-31 for spelling, punctuation, or capitals after reading the last two pages of tripe?
Second, the issue of component obsolescence is not new to the F-35 program, some of the issues were identified long ago such as components to the AN/ASQ-239. ETOS can be upgraded as well, they will just have to fit the space provided. Is it really any different than what occurred with the F-22: software, CPU, even RAM obsolescence prior to service entry?
The F-35 is not a one sensor platform, the processing power is immense and mated with the APG-81 GMTI you have a sophisticated tracking and target identification system. Can you really say that the latest sniper pod paired with a PS-05 radar is a better combination considering that both sensors operate independently and the pilot will have to process what they are seeing?
FBWyour trying to justify the F35’s horrid weapons ability by comparing to the F22?….
Hhmmmmm, obviously you haven’t compared weapons both could carry.
Ok, jay your right- now can you stop posting hysterical diatribes?
FBWBtw i’m curious to know if there is a speed limit for opening the bays on the F-35 and the impact on drag, if someone had an answer…
They’ve been opened at Mach 1.6, aircraft required to be ably to deploy weapons at operational speed, LM puts out fast facts regarding testing, weapons integration- any tidbits like your question are easy to look up.
FBWTo bad the F 35 will still be handicapped by the fact that it’s 2 x 2,000 lb weapons bays are useless and carry a substantially limited number of actual ordnance. Bottom line, for all the bluster and hyperbole about decrease in “traditional” fighters with their under slung hard-point mounted weapons / drop tanks etc. The F 35 WILL require the use of hard-points as well….simply to carry a useful load of anything…
Great deal there….
Simply put, your wrong. We have ample operational examples of how the USAF at least uses LO aircraft. You don’t see the F-22 carrying anything other than DT. I don’t know if they’ve even cleared many weapons for external carriage for F-22.
The f-35 will have several types of bombs, short range air to ground missiles, a cruise missile, and at least two different aam’s for internal weapons by 2020. Nations using the F-35 for Defensive counter air may choose to use external IR missiles, but it remains to be seen how often they will be mounted.
FBWWhile in CAS configuration, with big fat drop tanks and a big load of bombs the Rafale’s top speed will obviously be greatly reduced, the impact that a load of missiles and a supersonic tank will have on general drag of the aircraft are minimal.
You very much underestimate drag penalty imposed by missiles and DT. I won’t repost the numbers, but go back and look in this very thread the impact of drop tanks on the F-15/F-16. (We used those because the drag index charts are available) needless to say, it opened a few eyes. Even pylons have an impact.
As far as the F-35 top speed, the obsession with Mach 1.6 vs 1.8 is silly (Mach numbers differ at alt, temp). The f-35a is a 700 knot aircraft, which translates to Mach 1.05 or so at sea level ( “A” model required to exceed Mach 1 at sea level) and that Mach 1.6 at 40,000 ft (I believe) number quoted. The test aircraft have exceeded that- higher altitude or higher kcas, I don’t know. The 700 knot requirement is for the a/c, the b 630 knots. Odds are the “a” could slightly exceed that though there is no requirement to do so.
Unless you know the altitude at which Rafale et. al. reach Mach 1.8, you can’t really compare. You may be arguing over a difference of 50 knots or so.
Edit- I think 700 knot at 30,000ft for “a” model, “b” model Mach 1.6 limit (630 knot) 35,000ft
FBWer, RAfale was mostly delayed not by production problems but by the French governments who either did not order (no fundings) or added requirements “on the go”… when you look at it, I dare not imagine what would happen to the F-35 program if somebody tried that stunt… they had to reduce requirements just to make the thing reach them
Great, so your “new” version is that the problems were based on funding made available. Sure, so was every other post cold war fighter. You need to learn a bit more about your favorite sled- We have the complete redesign from Rafale A to Rafale D prototypes, the early Rafale M’s being mothballed for a time until they could be brought up to standard (concurrency anyone?), 16 years from first prototype to IOC.
I’m not trying to knock the Rafale, which is one of the finest aircraft flying today, just yours and others version of the “truth” that seems to permeate discussions on this forum that the F-35 issues are unique. Stretched development and funding issues have been the norm since 1990, no major fighter program save the F-18 E/F has been immune.
FBWWell, the rafale and typhoon initially replaced air superiority fighters, so the PGM capability was not that important.
The rafale was on time and budget. The F-35 cost more to develop that the rafale, EF, gripen, SH combined, and even much more than the F-22. It will reach IOC 5-6 years late with huge cost overruns and reduced cababilities.
F-35 fanboyism is rather ridiculous with you consider all that. F-35 proponents should rather keep a low profile and be honest that frankly the F-35 program is nothing to brag about…
Talk about fanboyism. The Rafale was neither in time nor under budget but don’t let the truth get in your way. As far as the PGM part of your post, in a word, b.s.
Britain was in a rush to get PGM capability into the Typhoon. The rather clumsy upgrade roadmap for the Typhoon had hampered the development of an otherwise very fine aircraft.
Both are excellent aircraft but as the saying goes “time heals all wounds” it seems we’ve forgotten the rather tourtured road each took before production.
FBW[ATTACH=CONFIG]233992[/ATTACH]
FBWwhat I find funny is that you missed that ALL your examples show a coalition at war. not one single war to be fought by a single NATO country (especially NOT Canada). and pretty much all if them were decided by the US in the first place
basically, you just confirmed my argument: Canada does not go waging wars all by itself around the planet…
Yup that was the point… Refuting your politically motivated and incorrect assumption as posed by this part of your post:
It’s simply not what they, and 99% of countries on this planet, do. The few that consider it their right to go as they wish and bomb to stone age some god-forgotten place the existence of which most of their population didn’t even know about can be counted on the fingers of a hand (and you’ll have a few fingers left, btw).
so it is what they (Canada), and many of the allied nations of NATO do! Not to mention that you just contradicted yourself.
Each coalition war I listed had more participants than the fingers on your hand.
FBWIf US shale revolution continue Canada military procurement will be essentially gone. The country is single commodity country. same is happening to Australia/Brazil/Norway/Middleast and indirectly to Israel/EU. I don’t see that many JSF customer buying large quantity per year.
Where do you get these bizarre ideas from? Canada’s percent of GDP from oil/gas/minerals was about 8.2% in 2014. None of nations listed are reliant on a single commodity.
Sign In
