Know Your 'Rafale'

[cannonfodder]

^^^ Nice read.. but will wait for counters if any.

 

[Zebra]

Firstly why do you assume that F-35 once produce will not have any further development?.......................

Just check F-16 case here.

They are making it since last 40 odd years.

Its time to say goodbye to it.

But still they come up with QF-16 , F-16V and F-16 Block 70/72 development in it.

 

[smestarz]

For the 3rd and 4th Gen planes, MiG-21 and F-16 are the most sold planes, They were sophisticated that time and good to use. It still is one of the most affordable plane from Western countries.
Though there is 5th Gen planes, there are some issues with it.
1. The biggest problem with 5th gen plane is going to be the cost. The earlier gen F-16 what were purchased were expensive at that time maybe 5-30 million, but now the prirce of the 4th Gen planes are almost double, The cost of buying, using and maintaining the planes is not going to be there for smaller countries, Thus we might see countries which want to spend on top of the line plane not only because they can afford but because their prime adversary threatens them a lot.
So the LCC of 5th gen planes like F-35, the LCC for 3 planes might be same as a squadron of F-16, thus with never avionics, F-16 may not match planes like F-35 but in a fight of say 2 F-35 vs 12 F-16, I am sure the F-16 shall take down at least one F-35, and considering the price, F-16 might have better value for money. as it can have a better spread. So 5th Gen are better but more expensive to use and maintain, 4th Gen planes like F-16 are good and with avionics watered down from 5th Gen, these planes can give a good note about themselves
BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY

Thus 5th Gen planes will provide excellent ability, but then

Just check F-16 case here.

They are making it since last 40 odd years.

Its time to say goodbye to it.

But still they come up with QF-16 , F-16V and F-16 Block 70/72 development in it.

 

[Zebra]

For the 3rd and 4th Gen planes, MiG-21 and F-16 are the most sold planes, They were sophisticated that time and good to use. It still is one of the most affordable plane from Western countries.
Though there is 5th Gen planes, there are some issues with it.
1. The biggest problem with 5th gen plane is going to be the cost.
The earlier gen F-16 what were purchased were expensive at that time maybe 5-30 million, but now the prirce of the 4th Gen planes are almost double, The cost of buying, using and maintaining the planes is not going to be there for smaller countries, Thus we might see countries which want to spend on top of the line plane not only because they can afford but because their prime adversary threatens them a lot.
So the LCC of 5th gen planes like F-35, the LCC for 3 planes might be same as a squadron of F-16, thus with never avionics, F-16 may not match planes like F-35 but in a fight of say 2 F-35 vs 12 F-16, I am sure the F-16 shall take down at least one F-35, and considering the price, F-16 might have better value for money. as it can have a better spread. So 5th Gen are better but more expensive to use and maintain, 4th Gen planes like F-16 are good and with avionics watered down from 5th Gen, these planes can give a good note about themselves
BETTER VALUE FOR MONEY

Thus 5th Gen planes will provide excellent ability, but then

* F-35 is not costly to buy.

* $ 5-30 million , even in those days, not that expensive.
Keep in mind what are included in that price.
It can change all mathematics.

* Fight of F-35 against F-16, that too in this world, even I can't imagine it.

* Who ever see first, gonna kill first anyway.

 

[smestarz]

What you forget is that

IT is NOT THAT EXPENSIVE TO BUY, but what about LCC ? It is very expensive plane to fly and maintain.
F-16 on other hands is not that expensive to fly and maintain.

Further in those days of F-16s the economies were actually growning with more products coming into the market it was healthy, but now the economies are actually shriking due to high cost of living, and so govts are looking at cuts so that they can keep the public spending, and the first is defence, Do you know, Netherlands has almost sold off all its Tanks?

Thus in present situation, you will not want to be a weak country and hence top of the line plane is needed, and thus F-35 will be needed by most NATO countries, and then they might somehow try and improve the lives of their F-16 fleet, and try to improve their avionics by upgrading them thus keeping average cost of flying lower. And thus keep a balance in their defence budgets.

https://static-ssl.businessinsider....942/screen_shot_2014-12-29_at_12.54.23_pm.png

http://nation.time.com/2013/04/02/costly-flight-hours/

There are two different figures here, but you can see that the cost of using F-35 is much higher, Rather there might be some evolution by which, Drones wlll be flown more because the cost of flying and LCC is much lower than that of other planes, and thus making them excellent planes to fly more and to use other planes for actual combat. Drones are excellent value for money and ensures that the military budget is in control.

F-35 vs F-16, F-35 has longer range advantage, it should be able to take down F-16 easily, but if somehow, its not able to take it down from distance, and F-16 is able to get into position of dogfight, then the odds get into the favour of F-16. Thus somehow, F-35 has to take down enemies from a distance, and the moment the enemy gets too close and into WVR, I guess the advantage is other plane

* F-35 is not costly to buy.

* $ 5-30 million , even in those days, not that expensive.
Keep in mind what are included in that price.
It can change all mathematics.

* Fight of F-35 against F-16, that too in this world, even I can't imagine it.

* Who ever see first, gonna kill first anyway.

 

[StealthFlanker]

The US vision is to put all the eggs in the stealth basket. It's a great risk ! I'm sure Stealth will vanished, because stealth on plane only work with high frequency radar (X band...), and now metric wave radars and multistatic radars are arriving, and there is nothing to do agains that.

That not how stealth works , you dont just magically detect stealth aircraft at any distance just because you use lower frequency radar, and there are problem of gain and resolution cell too , it not coincidence that fire contrrol radar mostly used X band
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/04/12/radar-electronic-countermeasure/

 

[StealthFlanker]

The rafale is a LO plane. It's main advantage is to be able to do all mission (from deterrence to air superiority), with a great advantage : Spectra.
F35 rely too much on Stealth. With huge compromission on the future. It is and will remain short legs and poor manoeuvrable.

How exactly can Spectra give Rafale advantages over F-35 ? the so called " active cancellation is super overrated to be honest , it doesnt work that well again frequency agile radar or multiple radars , and given the huge different in RCS the F-35 will enjoy significant advantages especially if both side have jamming support (since burn through range is proportional to signal-noise ratio)

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/electronic-countermeasure-ecm/

Btw , talking about short leg , an F-35 on internal fuel can fly far longer than Rafale on internal fuel , if you put external fuel tank on Rafale then it wont be quick or agile anymore and that will increase it's RCS dramatically too

 

[Yumdoot]

https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/29/electronic-countermeasure-ecm/

Now why the hell would Rafale be compliant with JSF's incapacities?

Question arises because the above picture and associated argument simply needs it to.

Why would the AWACS in the above picture be working without its associated Rafales. And if there are more than one Rafales in a multistatic arrangement, then all the bloody 2000+ JSF (should you choose to field all of them) would be visible to all the Rafales and the AWACS in the air. This singular feature is lucrative enough a proposition to have more than one Rafales in the air.

Even more importantly why would the AWACS be transmitting its own frequencies? Why would the AWACS not simply listen. These days even Akash SAM radars are going to be listening a lot lot more than transmitting. And surely the stupid MALD-J support jammer would have to transmit something to be useful. On top of that the AWACS, even if its a PESA would still be able to produce far more frequencies than what a piddly little radar inside the JSF would be able to muster. The room for computing inside an AWACS is nearly infinite - figuratively speaking.

And @StealthFlanker the fire control radars also come in C-Band and even in S-Band - depends. Not all missions require or are dependent on a fighter plane's X band radar for fire control purposes. What if the fire control radar is a C Band radar with distinct X-band snooping capability. Will such a radar even have to switch on at all in the first place? And if such a radar does not even have to switch on then do you admit to a possibility that the lone Rafale in air is just a bait for the JSF?

Then there is the problem of stupefying the AWACS or even a Rafale or even a Sukhoi for 90 km (~3 minutes of 1.6 mach flying with afterburners on) using an MALD-J support jammer. Why not simply ask for an easier fight. Sorry ji - maiy ek JSF hun, ud nahi sakta, bhag nahi sakta, lad nahi sakta, aap kripa kar gir jana jab maiy dishkiyaun kahunga. . 3 minutes is a lifetime in combat but the picture wants you to believe that the radar is junk level being handled by stupid people and that IRSTs will be dropped and that nobody will spring a bait or surprise because the opponent is flying a JSF in the vicinity.

 

[Yumdoot]

Firstly why do you assume that F-35 once produce will not have any further development?

But so will be the case with LCA, Rafale, Sukhoi, Migs and sundry Chinese planes.

The particular "feat" you were describing, what were the limitations of the exercise? A2A missiles available? Was F-22 using AMRAAM ? Rafale does not have Meteor, So it would only have MICA thus range of 60 kms, It it was actual combat, you think Rafale would really get that close? The same goes for Eurofighter.. The main thing is who will detect the other first. detected does the attacker have missiles that can target the defender at that range.

Don't see how that matters if both sides were working under similar circumstances. I think it was a gun kill by a Rafale (no TVC) on a TVC equipped F-22, IIRC.

Coming back to F-35 , it has AN/APG-81 which has 1,676 GaAs T/R modules and that it's most likely the most advanced fighter radar yet and thus the detection range is much better than that of Rafales smaller RBE-2AA which can boast about 1000 TRMs Thus F-35 approximately has at least about 50% more modules than Rafales RBE-2AA.. Thus detection first, ability to fire first.

PAKFA and J-20 will bring along even more TR modules. So what. If the Americans were so confident of their "see first shoot first" then why do they bother making newer AAMs in short range category.

They already know that most engagements will either be mandated for mission kills (and not k-kills) which is why a JSF is an unnecessary luxury. And further that the real Kombat kill missions will simply have to default into a furball and which is why JSF is ill equipped.

the company which manufactured F-16 is the one making F-35, and they themselves say that F-35 is way ahead of F-16.. let us regard this as marketing BS for time being and simply it.

I would consider it a Technical BS till they can demonstrate that an F-16 (or equivalent) in the hands of a Russian was killed by a JSF in the hands of USAF.

Admitting to Marketing BS may imply a pass in the technical BS category.

Right now the JSF program office is busy proving the superiority of JSF against A-4 and A-10, in air to air combat.

F-35 will also do CAS but it will not be flying LOW. but it will simply carry bombs and A2G missiles that can hit the target with pinpoint accuracy. what else is CAS? It is to support your infantry at company level by putting ordnance right on the enemy thus destroying or disorienting the enemy thus helping your infantry units which have small arms to be able to take down the defensive position.

CAS also requires visual confirmations which in turn requires survivability.
CAS also requires loiter time which in turn requires lower wing loading and engines that do not have to remain nearer their wet thrust most of the time. This is required so the CAS plane can do nape of the earth flying in a militarily effective manner (theoretically any platform can do that).
If the F-35 lobbing GPS guided glide bombs can be counted as CAS then how is that superior to a F-16 or even a Canberra?

Few things are certain though
a) F-35 will not be the fastest plane, Thus if its out of missiles,, heaven help the pilot
b) It is not designed to fly 60,000 ft or so, its going to own the sky from 10K to 40K feet. at least
c) It is not designed to dog fight and hence dont come up with questions about Eurocanards being superior in Dog fight.. If you have an assault rifle and lots of spare mags, you do not run from 500 meters to use bayonet. Not if the enemy has an assault rifle and lot of reloads.
d) F-22 and F-35 will be complimentary. For some people who like dogfights, please refer to F-22 The designs and the roles for F-22 are different, F-22 is air dominance plane that can also strike (master of one), F-35 is MRCA (jack of all)

Now Certain is a relative word, isn't it
a) F-35 is too advanced as a project to make amends for any of its disabilities. Good thing is the lighter pilots (60 kg or thereabout) will escape getting killed . And USAF has about 27% of its pilot force below the threshold weight.

b) Altitude in modern combat kills. The Nebo-SV would see only upto 50 km if the JSF is flying at 1600 feet, but will see 250 km if the JSF is flying at 33000 feet.

c) So if the JSF cannot dogfight then its a glorified A-4 or a glorified Canberra.

d) F-22 could have complemented better aircrafts than a JSF. Its not even a marriage of convenience, its a village stud being forcebilly married off to the village slut. Gen. Mike Hostage (a blind supporter of JSF, to add again) knows this and that is why such ideas come from the side he gets counted with.

So, till the time, Eurocanards do not come up with powerful radar which can detect F-35 at much longer ranges, they are easy meat. The plane that detects and attacks first win.

Alternatively they could come up with no changes except in their flying and fighting methods. Like the Russians are and Chinese and even India is.

And about SPECTRA... Seems the Libyan Radars were able to detect Rafales even when the Rafales were using SPECTRA.. thats SPECTRA in nutshell.. So when Libyan Radars can detect a plane which carries something that helps it be "invisible to radar" then there is something very much out of place.

Exactly. You emit, ergo you can be fooled into emitting. So if you simply have to emit then you make sure you are 1 minute from making the kill and 1:01 minutes from evasive action and running away. People have been known to use even phased out radars to simply emit nonsense signals so the opponents in turn are lured into the kill box.

Someone did talk about MACE etc .. The French are apparently happy using todays (or decade old tech) to outwit a Russain 2 decade old tech... priceless.

Technically correct and fair, but at the same time, that is what the Rafale will face most of the times, so the MACE argument is not devoid of gravity either.

 

[Yumdoot]

For example Su-30 MKI has TVC, and when use TVC in combat, the plane loses its Energy, so the tactics are developed as to when the pilot can use TVC so as to get the best results for the pilot.

While not a part of this part of discussion, pls allow me to jump in.

But TVC is used only when you have no energy left already. You have to lose energy badly to be in a post stall maneuvering which is what TVC is meant for. No sensible pilot will use TVC when he already is riding a high TWR plane with cool wing loading figures.

TVC allows you to turn tighter and fire first, losing energy in such a state is a redundant risk. A pilot could chose not to use TVC and instead have himself fired upon first.

At the same time the TVC also allows you to keep firing once your own energy is sapped and subsequently quickly dive to gain speed again or alternatively to break fight to fight again.

 

[StealthFlanker]

Why would the AWACS in the above picture be working without its associated Rafales.

The picture wasnt supposed to show the situation where F-35 attack the Awacs , it was to show the relationship between burn through range and RCS ( aka RCS and jamming effectiveness )

And if there are more than one Rafales in a multistatic arrangement, then all the bloody 2000+ JSF (should you choose to field all of them) would be visible to all the Rafales and the AWACS in the air. This singular feature is lucrative enough a proposition to have more than one Rafales in the air.

Do you actually understand what is multistatic ? Your radar power , range and resolution cell doesnt just
magically increased because you put them in the so called "multi static " arrangement
the point of multi-static is simply to get a chance to look at stealth aircraft from an angle where it's RCS is higher than frontal direction , but to do that you have to station your aircraft so far apart that they can hardly even able to support each others, and it also require you to know the general direction before hand

Even more importantly why would the AWACS be transmitting its own frequencies? Why would the AWACS not simply listen. These days even Akash SAM radars are going to be listening a lot lot more than transmitting. And surely the stupid MALD-J support jammer would have to transmit something to be useful.

Because ,if you only listen then you can hardly even able to get a firing solution for your missiles , passive ranging again stationary ground target is easy , passive ranging again moving non coporeative air target is a completely different story
https://basicsaboutaerodynamicsandavionics.wordpress.com/2016/03/02/rwresm-and-passive-geolocation/
Moreover , there is nothing to stop 1 F-35 from transmitting and share information with others F-35 through directional datalink , if your Rafale , AWACs stay passive then the best you could hope to see is the one that transmitting but not the others silent hunters

On top of that the AWACS, even if its a PESA would still be able to produce far more frequencies than what a piddly little radar inside the JSF would be able to muster. The room for computing inside an AWACS is nearly infinite - figuratively speaking.

The problem is not about computing power , jamming on F-35 will be more effective simply due to it's lower RCS

And @StealthFlanker the fire control radars also come in C-Band and even in S-Band - depends. Not all missions require or are dependent on a fighter plane's X band radar for fire control purposes.

You should look at the size of these S , C band fire control radar , it not a coincident that they are all massive .
If you go lower frequency then your gain reduce , which mean power concentration reduce and resolution cell increase , to get higher range you better get massive aperture for your antenna. And just because you go to lower frequency doesnt mean you can magically detect stealth aircraft from all distance and all aspect angle and all others factors like clutter and signal-noise ratio suddenly disappeared

What if the fire control radar is a C Band radar with distinct X-band snooping capability. Will such a radar even have to switch on at all in the first place? And if such a radar does not even have to switch on then do you admit to a possibility that the lone Rafale in air is just a bait for the JSF?

1) passive ranging to get a firing solution moving aircraft is not easy and almost impossible again noncoperative target
2) 1 F-35 can transmit and share information with the whole formation which mean if you stay silent then you easily catch the bait too
3)all radar have a certain bandwidth that they can operate in , wider bandwidth = more false alarm

Then there is the problem of stupefying the AWACS or even a Rafale or even a Sukhoi for 90 km (~3 minutes of 1.6 mach flying with afterburners on) using an MALD-J support jammer. Why not simply ask for an easier fight. Sorry ji - maiy ek JSF hun, ud nahi sakta, bhag nahi sakta, lad nahi sakta, aap kripa kar gir jana jab maiy dishkiyaun kahunga. . 3 minutes is a lifetime in combat but the picture wants you to believe that the radar is junk level being handled by stupid people and that IRSTs will be dropped and that nobody will spring a bait or surprise because the opponent is flying a JSF in the vicinity.

1)the radar isnot junk level , all radars obey physic rules , and if physics still applied then lower RCS will always reduce burn through distance significantly , a radar than can burn though Rafale jamming from 300 km will only able to do that to an F-35 from merely 30 km
2) IRST need LRF to give firing solution , LRF range is around 20-30 km on good weather ( for example the maximum range for OLS-35 on Su-35S is merely 20 km for air targets )

3) IRST range that you often see in PDF advertised are in best possible condition ( look up , maximum zoom , clear weather no cloud , target flying supersonic ) in others condition such as target flying at lower altitude , subsonic or near cloud then the range is much shorter
simply reduce speed from supersonic to mach 0.8 can reduce IR detection range by more than 2 times

moreover , if you increase your speed to close the distance with an F-35 firing AIM-120 or Meteor at you then basically you are commiting sucide , increase closuare rate will only make it harder to avoid missiles

 

[StealthFlanker]

Right now the JSF program office is busy proving the superiority of JSF against A-4 and A-10, in air to air combat.

F-35 already joined exercise with F-15E , F-15C and F-16
and for your information doing exercise with older aircraft is nothing new , even the F-22 did exercise with T-38 and in fact they got shot down by T-38 too , in a dogfight , anyone can die

CAS also requires loiter time which in turn requires lower wing loading and engines that do not have to remain nearer their wet thrust most of the time.

loiter time has nothing to do with wingloading , B-1 have much higher wingloading than all fighters but it also stay in the air for much longer too
heck even wingloading is not that simple , you cannot just compare the wingloading of 2 different planes and conclude that one othem is more agile without take into account their respective lift coefficient , otherwise F-4 would be more agile than F-16 and F-106 would turn better than F-22
And what give you the idea that F-135 need to be operated at near wet thrust most of the time ?

 

[StealthFlanker]

So here's the image of how the F-35 compares according to pilot, keeping in mind that this is with the 7g control law limit

http://www.heritage.org/research/re...rocurement-and-concurrent-development-process

 

[Immanuel]

That is if the opponents field A-4 and A-10 kind of planes. If they field anything like a loaded F-16D or higher, then what?

Say for example a Rafale.

If Rafale could hunt the F-22 on a good day, a feet only to be later repeated by Typhoon and Growler, how long do you think the F-35 will remain safe?

C'mon buddy, you sight handful of incidents when the SH, EF and Rafale got close enough to take pop shots at the F-22. What no one speaks of is the whopping they get in the process and most days are bad. The F-22's record during various exercises speaks for itself. In a real combat scenario the 4.5 gen fighters are at a severe disadvantage while flying against the Raptor. F-35 when it is ready post 2020 at full FOC will fly with uprated engines, radars, EW suites etc. It on any day will be able to hold its own against 4.5 gen fighters.

 

[BON PLAN]

Stop with the bull shit, people like you are so quick to mention how stealthy the Rafale is, while when it comes to the F-35 all of a sudden stealth is overrated. You shouldn't be talking about US basket when Rafale replaces 9 types of aircraft. On any given day the F-35 will kill the Rafale in real combat. Go back to eating frog legs ass hole.

Ass hole your self idiot

 

[BON PLAN]

My two cents............

There are few other aspects, when we talk about F-35 multirole aircraft.

Just to name one ---> its entire electronic package. One of the most latest package as of today.

The best part is, in its adoptive nature.

Its full of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

If I am not wrong.

For the moment the plane can only fly 8 hours between two radar breakdowns.
Where is AI? The software is not matured yet.

 

[StealthFlanker]

For the moment the plane can only fly 8 hours between two radar breakdowns.
Where is AI? The software is not matured yet.

That wrong , the current problem with F-35 software is similar to this
however since F-35 ( and no fighters for that matter ) will loiter for more than 8 hours in reality so practically it is a none issue

 

[StealthFlanker]

Don't see how that matters if both sides were working under similar circumstances. I think it was a gun kill by a Rafale (no TVC) on a TVC equipped F-22, IIRC.
.

Even T-38 can gun kill F-22 in dogfight , and in fact for ways many more time than Rafale ever did ,in close range it more about pilot skills than aircraft performance , and when both have JHMS and HOBS AAM ,turnning faster by 1-2 degrees doesnt mean squad
http://jalopnik.com/5221219/f22-raptor-gets-fragged-by-t-38-training-jet

 

[Zebra]

For the moment the plane can only fly 8 hours between two radar breakdowns.
Where is AI? The software is not matured yet.

If I am not wrong, F-35 has ability to learn from trial and error.

On top of it F-35 has ability to come up with new solutions not already being thought.

 

[BON PLAN]

Do you know how defence works??
I guess you might not.
First a fighter plane is developed looking at the roles..like say "What do we want to build this plane for"
Air dominance Fighter? MRCA? Deep Strike? Bomber etc, Once they defined the role, they design the plane.
For example plane which is air superiority, usually does not have high wings.. they have low wings (like Eurofighter) or max to max middle wings (Rafale F/A-18) Then once the design phase is complete they build prototypes and test it and once FOC is given. the plane is inducted and specialist are given the plane to fly, test and develop the combat tactics. Combat tactics are based on how the plane actually flies and performs. How the plane is designed theoratically and how it performs actual can vary a lot because from Design to production there are lot of changes for getting the optimum performance. Once the plane is in production, the tactics are developed for the plane and various "rules" are implemented. For example Su-30 MKI has TVC, and when use TVC in combat, the plane loses its Energy, so the tactics are developed as to when the pilot can use TVC so as to get the best results for the pilot.
Each air force develops or modifies the air tactics based on their flying style or peception. Thus the Tactics developed by IAF for Su-30 MKI may or may not be used by RuAF which uses Su-30 SM which are similar to Indian Su-30 MKI.

Let me further enlighten you, FGFA will be same design as PAKFA,, you think Indian pilots will develop tactics for FGFA even when they dont really know how PAKFA performs? How does it fly, how does it handle, how fast does it turn, when does it stall?

Tactics are only developed after HANDS ON EXPERIENCE on the plane, and not therotical or flight simulator. And if they really use same ideas as yours in France, then best France does not get war with Russia or other countries, it might be beaten very very badly.
.

In the F35 case, sure the users have to wait the REAL perf to think and adapt tactics.
The plane was developped to be as manoeuvrable as F16. It is not.
It mus be a long legs plane. It is short.
It must be able to carry 2 x 2000lbs bombs inside. Not possible.
It must be ready initially for 2012....
It must be a 5th gen.... but as not supercruiser it is a 4,9 gen....

This plane was studied to replace F16, A10.... We must expect the tactics were studied before IOC no?